Current Petitions
The first two petitions are PE195, from Irvine pensioners action group, on the reduction of full-time warden cover in sheltered housing, and PE209, from Age Concern Dundonald, on changes or reductions in elderly care in South Ayrshire. We passed the petitions to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, which asked us to seek further information on whether the issues raised in the petitions are of national concern.
The committee clerks have done an enormous amount of work, and have received responses from a range of organisations: the Scottish Executive; COSLA; the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland; Age Concern Scotland; Help the Aged; North Ayrshire Council; South Ayrshire Council; Mike Russell MSP, who originally spoke to the petitions; and Irene Oldfather, who is the local constituency MSP.
The responses are varied, and point towards a number of factors causing the reduction of full-time warden cover in sheltered housing: new technology; more cost-effective ways of providing the service; increased specialisation for wardens; changes in emphasis to individual care provision; and the European working time directive, which limits the amount of time wardens can be on call.
We have had various responses from the organisations. Whereas the Executive, COSLA and the local authorities stress that this is a matter for local decision, Help the Aged, Age Concern and the Chartered Institute of Housing have said that no one has carried out any research on the impact of the changes on the elderly in sheltered housing. It is suggested therefore that we pass the petitions back to the Social Justice Committee and recommend that it consider investigating further the impact of the removal or reduction of warden services and whether the provision of alternative means of care and support, such as electronic technology, has been successful in those councils that have already made changes.
I agree.
I agree too. There must be some benchmark.
No one has considered the national picture—everyone is working locally.
Exactly. There is no standardisation or uniformity of service. I suspect that that means that there is inconsistency of service. As Mike Russell pointed out, there is fear and discontent among the residents of sheltered housing about the withdrawal of warden cover.
It is definitely a national issue. In April or May, North Ayrshire Council will be doing an audit of how the service is working. It might be appropriate to ask the Executive whether it will ask all councils for an audit of how services are working, or some form of independent input. We do not want to hear only the word of the councils, which will say, "This is wonderful. Everybody loves it."
That is an issue that the Social Justice Committee will have to address as part of its consideration of the petition. I hope that that committee will do that and that it will read this discussion.
There is another issue at stake here. Some—possibly mischievous—people have suggested that because sheltered housing is no longer as sheltered as it was, it should be available on a right to buy basis. They suggest that it is only council housing. That point needs clarification at the very least, especially with regard to the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
That is not part of the petition.
I grant you that.
However, that is interesting; I am sure that the Social Justice Committee should be aware of that development. The petition should go back to that committee so that it can consider the national picture and carry out research into the impact of the changes.
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE264 from the Scottish Private Investigators Forum, which urged the Scottish Executive to pass a private investigators registration bill. At a meeting back in September, we agreed to pass the petition to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and, for information only, to the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee. We have received a response from the Executive, which indicates that there is some doubt over whether regulation of the private security industry is devolved or reserved. The Executive hopes that the doubt will be resolved shortly and it intends to introduce proposals to regulate the industry. The proposals will be open to consultation, and industry representatives, the police and local authorities will be asked for their views. However, any new regime that is introduced here would have to take account of the arrangements that are being proposed in the Private Security Industry Bill at Westminster.
It looks as though the Scottish Executive is proposing action on the issues that were raised in the petition. It is suggested that a copy of the Executive's response, and any future correspondence, be passed to the petitioners and that no further action should be taken.
I notice that the Executive's letter of 16 February refers to the proposals in the Home Office's bill for England and Wales only. I would be interested in seeing a copy of that bill. Once upon a time, I was a criminal lawyer to trade and had a lot to do with private investigators. At that time, anyone could be a private investigator—all you had to do was call yourself a private investigator. Those people often intrude on other people's privacy, so there probably should be some regulation.
That is exactly why the petitioners have petitioned the Scottish Parliament. They want some regulation of the industry. Through the Scottish Parliament information centre, we will get a copy of the Home Office bill for committee members.
Do members agree that we do as has been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE277, from Mr David Emslie, which called on the Scottish Parliament to initiate a public inquiry into the administration of Grampian Housing Association Ltd, with a view to the introduction of legislation to allow the monitoring and audit of housing associations in Scotland.
We passed the petition to the then Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive. We have received a response from the Executive outlining the "unique" circumstances of Mr Emslie's rental contract. Issues that had arisen under that contract have now been resolved. The housing association ombudsman for Scotland has also dealt with 10 other complaints from Mr Emslie, only one of which—on delays in repairing water leaks in his house—was upheld.
The regulatory and supervisory role that will be undertaken by Scottish Homes once it becomes an executive agency is under review as part of the development of proposals in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Scottish Executive response also states that Grampian Housing Association Ltd was last monitored by Scottish Homes in September 1999, when it achieved an overall grading that indicated above-average compliance with performance standards.
The constitution and operating principles of the housing association ombudsman for Scotland are also being considered as part of the wider consultation exercise on arrangements for dealing with complaints of maladministration against the Scottish Executive and other Scottish public authorities.
The committee—now the Social Justice Committee—advised us that it had taken evidence in this regard during work on its report on housing stock transfer, and that it would take further evidence from tenants' organisations at stage 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Social Justice Committee wanted us to keep it informed of responses from the Scottish Executive. It has received directly a copy of the response that was sent to us.
It appears that the issues that the petitioner raised are either being addressed by the Scottish Executive or will be considered by the Social Justice Committee during its consideration of the bill. It is suggested that we request that the Scottish Executive ensures that Mr Emslie's views and concerns are taken into account as part of the review of the regulatory and supervisory role of Scottish Homes. It is also suggested that the committee agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and take no further action. As I said, the Social Justice Committee has a copy of that response; it is therefore further suggested, in view of that committee's interest in the issue, that it be informed of our decision.
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE295, from Mr Alex Murray, on behalf of the Silverknowes residents action group, called on Parliament to urge the City of Edinburgh Council to review its plans for the relocation of the football pitch on Silverknowes Green and to ensure that future planning applications allowed sufficient opportunities for interested parties to voice their concerns.
The committee passed the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for consideration as part of its proposed inquiry into the planning system, which is now going ahead. We also agreed to send a copy of the petition to the City of Edinburgh Council for information and to seek its comments on the issues that had been raised, particularly on compliance with the European convention on human rights.
As members can see, we have received a response from the City of Edinburgh Council in which it claims that it consulted widely on the proposals. It claims that the football field is part of the council's education public-private partnership project and therefore cannot be retained as the petitioner suggests.
The council also believes that its proposals are consistent with the European convention on human rights and points out that, when the petitioner petitioned Parliament, the council also received an objection from the petitioner. A sub-committee considered the objection and agreed, as the council's letter says, to
"refer the application to the Scottish ministers, prior to determination, because of the fact that the interests of the Council were involved and were the subject of objection."
As the council's letter says, the Scottish Executive wrote back to indicate
"that planning permission was deemed to have been granted by Scottish Ministers"
and that the decision was made by the Executive in the knowledge of Mr Murray's concerns. As Mr Murray stated in a message to the council, he was contacting MSPs.
Mr Murray has referred the issue to the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. It is not in the committee's remit to question the decisions of other public bodies. Given that we have passed a copy of the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which is considering it as part of its inquiry into general planning issues, and given that the petitioner has referred the issues to the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland—which we think is the correct route through which he should pursue the matter—does the committee agree that we should simply pass a copy of the City of Edinburgh Council's response to the petitioner and take no further action? I do not think that there is anything else we can do. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE306, from Mr Thomas Minogue, which asked the Parliament to request that all members of the judiciary declare membership of organisations such as the freemasons and that a register of such interests be made available on request.
At our meeting on 19 December 2000, we agreed to seek comments from the Lord Advocate and to seek information on the current situation in England and Wales. We received a response from the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, and a letter from the Grand Lodge of Antient, Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland, which we considered briefly at our meeting on 27 February 2000. However, because several committee members were absent that day, it was agreed to defer substantive consideration until this meeting.
Since our brief discussion at that meeting, we have received a further letter from the grand lodge, which stresses that the freemasons are not a secret organisation and that they take exception to being misrepresented as such. The grand lodge makes clear in its latest letter that, although it is represented in the petition as religiously exclusive, it takes pride in having members from all religious faiths. It believes, therefore, that the petition is a misrepresentation.
We can do two things with the petition. We can accept the reply from Jim Wallace's private secretary, which says:
"The current situation in Scotland is that no applicant for a Judicial position is asked to declare whether he or she is a Freemason."
That contrasts with the situation in England and Wales, where
"the Lord Chancellor instructed that all new applicants for posts in the Judiciary must indicate whether they are Freemasons"
and where serving members have also been asked to declare, voluntarily, their links with freemasonry. The letter continues:
"There is, however, no register of membership and the information held by the Lord Chancellor's Department is not open to public inspection. Scottish Ministers considered whether any action would be appropriate for Scotland but we concluded that there was no need for any steps to be taken".
The letter further states:
"Aside from the representations which you have had from Mr Minogue, the Minister has not been made aware of any concerns by Court users about this matter"
and concludes that the minister sees
"no need at present for an initiative in this general area."
We can simply accept what the minister says—that he does not see a need for any action and that he is not aware of representations on the issue from any other court users—and agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and take no further action.
Alternatively, if we are of the view that further action should be taken, we can agree to pass a copy of the petition and of the Scottish Executive's response to the relevant justice committee. I open the matter to discussion.
We should pass the petition to the relevant justice committee for further consideration. Putting the petition to one side and accepting the response from Jim Wallace's private secretary will not serve Scotland's best interests. We should pay regard to the fact that England has gone down one route—whether or not we ultimately agree to go down that route. We should ask for the views of the relevant justice committee and allow further debate, because the issue is controversial.
I would be happy with that.
I agree with Helen Eadie.
We will pass a copy of the petition and the Scottish Executive's response—as well as the correspondence with the grand lodge—to the relevant justice committee and ask it to consider the matter further and report back to us.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE330, from Mr Rob Gibson on behalf of the Andrew de Moray Project, called on the Scottish Parliament to give
"greater publicity, interpretation and investment"
to sites and buildings of national importance, particularly those
"associated with Andrew de Moray, William Wallace and King Robert Bruce and the Wars of Independence."
We agreed to request comments from the Scottish Executive and we have now received a response, which includes information on Historic Scotland and road signage. It is obvious that Historic Scotland does a great deal of interpretation, investment and publicity for the various sites that are in its care. Although it does less for those sites that it does not take direct care of, it enters into annual management agreements with, for example, Ormond Castle, which is referred to in the petition.
The Executive has also provided information on how applications for tourist signposting on the trunk road and motorway network are assessed in accordance with the criteria that are contained in a national policy.
It is suggested that Historic Scotland already provides extensive publicity, interpretation and investment to the sites and buildings of national importance that are in its care. On the points that were raised about signposting, it is suggested that the petitioners should approach the Scottish Executive, relevant local authorities and area tourist boards with proposals. It is suggested that the committee should agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioners and to take no further action.
I agree with that.
Is no one opposed to that?
Would you consider adding something on the clarity of directional signs on motorways—not only for historic sites but for getting anywhere in Scotland? The signs are most confusing. The word "Perth" will disappear after it has appeared. The word "Glasgow" is almost excised from Ayrshire. Try finding Glasgow from Ayrshire—
Dingwall is difficult too.
Yes. It is difficult for someone who does not use the road regularly.
We could not do that as part of our consideration of the petition. However, we could certainly pass a copy of what Dorothy-Grace Elder has said to the Executive to draw the matter to its attention.
Thank you.
Is it agreed that we send a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioner and take no further action?
Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE334 was from Mr Tony Southall, on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Perhaps I should declare my membership of Scottish CND.
Me too.
Me too.
A number of us are members. There is no bias here.
I am also convener of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament.
The petition called on the Parliament
"to ask the Scottish Executive to initiate a review of Emergency Planning for nuclear submarine accidents in Scotland to ensure there is adequate protection for the local population and the environment."
We wrote to the Executive, which has now sent us a fairly comprehensive reply. In relation to the safety issues surrounding nuclear submarines, the Executive is confident that the action that is within its powers—and within the powers of local authorities—is reviewed regularly and that there is no need to respond to the petition in the way that the petitioners requested.
It is suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners and take no further action, as it appears that existing emergency planning procedures are adequate and regularly reviewed. Are any members of a different mind?
Agreed.
No—I have a point to make, if nobody else has, so I am opening the matter up for discussion.
Is the matter of safety and nuclear problems devolved?
No. The operation and maintenance of nuclear submarines is a reserved matter, but the emergency plans for dealing with any nuclear incident in Scotland are devolved.
I have represented Dounreay for some time and I have often tried to get information about the exact duties of local authorities and police bodies in the event of a dangerous release of radioactivity. It is difficult to get any kind of information, yet I presume that local authorities must have detailed guidance on their duties in relation to the subject of the petition. They should all know what they must do in such an event.
According to the Executive's response, local emergency services, health boards and local authorities are all given the opportunity to comment on and influence all safety proposals. They play a full and active part in the existing multi-agency planning and response.
The Executive's response refers to
"the incident on HMS Tireless"
and plays it down, in complete contrast to Scottish CND's original petition. In my view, we should pass a copy of the Scottish Executive's response to Scottish CND, take no further action at the moment and wait to see whether that organisation responds to what the Executive has said to us. There is a conflict between those two versions of the same incident.
In the Dounreay case, all the people who were affected by radioactivity were going to be put into a school. Thereafter, that school would be out of bounds for all time. The whole procedure seems ludicrously inadequate.
I am informed that the incident involving HMS Tireless is a reserved matter and not for this committee to address. However, the contrast between the two stories from Scottish CND and the Ministry of Defence is important, as there are implications for the health and safety plans if Scottish CND is correct.
Has Scottish CND a track record of being consistently right?
We can ask Scottish CND for its response to the Scottish Executive's letter. If it does not respond, the matter is dead.
I am rather confused. We have just dealt with a petition that claims that the freemasons are a secret society, which they deny. However, any ministry of defence of any nation—and this is not adverse criticism—is necessarily a secret society that keeps secret what it is supposed to be doing. If the Ministry of Defence told me that it was a sunny day, I would know to get my raincoat—that is the result of 25 years of dealing with the Ministry of Defence as a journalist. Naturally, it keeps things secret.
In Scotland, we are in a cleft stick. We are responsible for the health and safety of 5.1 million people, which is an entirely different responsibility from that of the Ministry of Defence in London, and we have all Britain's nuclear weapons. Anything that a ministry of defence says about safety needs to be held up with tongs. The Ministry of Defence and everyone in some sort of authority who works locally is pleased that everything is all right. Well, I remember the day that Chernobyl went up. A Scottish Office spokesman was on the radio telling us that the milk was quite safe, even when the clouds were passing over Scotland. We now know that, at the same time, Government scientists were out buying cheese for their kids because they knew that the milk might be affected. Our first duty must be to protect the public.
I suggest that we refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee. I cannot accept a blanket statement about safety, especially as allegations have been made that the nuclear submarines are cracking up. There are also regular exercises at Helensburgh and plans to evacuate the whole area. One major incident with a submarine could take out Glasgow, Helensburgh and half the west coast.
I have been advised that we must focus exclusively on the emergency planning issues. However, there are other matters that arise out of that.
I will respond to Winnie Ewing's question about information. Every local authority that is involved in emergency planning measures is obliged to publish a document. The document for my area was called ROSPUBSAFE, which means "Rosyth public safety". That document was available in local libraries and could give chapter and verse of all the preparations that had been made for any disaster that could strike any area in our locality. I know that that applies to other areas.
I take the clerks' point about the matter being reserved. The committee might like to write to the steering committee for nuclear-free local authorities in Scotland. That committee has a local dimension. We might want to copy the Executive's response and the petition to that committee because it may have a view on them. That might address some of the concerns that the convener wants to address in a way that comes within our remit. We would be asking for the local authorities to address the issues.
That is exactly the point that I was going to make. We should pass the matter to the relevant local authorities to see what their plans are and how they have addressed the risk. They must have some plans.
We have various suggestions. I am not ruling out what Dorothy-Grace Elder suggested, but at this stage, we need to know the CND's response to the Executive reply and we need to ask the steering committee for nuclear-free local authorities in Scotland to comment on the petition and the response.
We should suggest, at some stage, that an independent person be brought in, perhaps someone from overseas—Europe, for example—rather than someone from Scotland. We need the view of an independent expert.
We are so blocked in the Parliament. We cannot ask about reserved issues. If I want to ask about nuclear problems or the American fleet shelling Scotland, I have to ask about puffins, because they are devolved. If American warships were shelling Scotland, I could not ask what type of shell they were using, or whether they were using depleted uranium. I could only stand up in Parliament and ask, "How did the puffins like it?" I am sure they just loved it.
The way that we are treated on this issue is childish. I ask that we hear from an international expert, not just from the local authorities.
As a first stage, we will seek further information. We will write to CND, the steering committee for nuclear-free local authorities in Scotland, and the local authorities that are directly involved and referred to in the petition to ask for their views. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Are we leaving out the Transport and the Environment Committee for the moment?
We will leave it out until we have the next responses. At that time, we can further consider sending the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
The next petition is PE337 from the Retained Firefighters Union. It is a shame that George Lyon is not here, as he took a particular interest in the petition. The petition asked that the Minister for Justice take into account the concerns of the union's members in Oban before he reaches a decision on Strathclyde fire brigade's proposals to restructure the fire service in Oban.
We have passed the petition to the minister and received assurances that he will take it into account in his consideration of the proposals. We also wrote to Strathclyde fire brigade to ask for its comments on the issues. The brigade has given us a fairly comprehensive reply, in which it indicates all the steps that it has taken to try to meet RFU's concerns. We have also received a letter from Argyll and Bute Council, which states that its Oban, Lorn and the isles area committee supports unanimously the proposed upgrading by Strathclyde fire brigade. The Scottish Executive has replied, confirming that ministers will take the petition into account as part of their consideration and that they have met the RFU.
The suggestion is that it is not appropriate for us to intervene in Strathclyde fire brigade's re-evaluation of its service. The re-evaluation is a statutory process and the petitioners' views will be taken into account as part of that process. It is therefore suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the letters from the Scottish Executive, Strathclyde fire brigade and Argyll and Bute Council to the petitioners, inform them that it is not appropriate for us to intervene and take no further action.
I know that there will be local feelings on the matter.
I can pursue the issue as one of the local members. I understand why the committee cannot get involved. Local members should keep pushing.
Do we agree with the recommendation to pass all the correspondence back to the petitioner? There is nothing else that the committee can do at this stage.
It is with reluctance that I agree the recommendation, but that must be our position.
Members indicated agreement.
The final page of the paper on current petitions gives us an update on petitions PE102, PE205, PE299 and PE331 and simply keeps us informed on the progress that is being made on those petitions by the Justice 1 Committee in particular. Those petitions remain under consideration.
I have quite a lot to say about two other current petitions, on which information came in too late to be circulated to members.
On PE316, members will recall that we discussed the Scottish berry project and that, at our previous meeting, we agreed to pass a copy of an Executive response to the petitioners and to take no further action on the petition. That decision was reached on the basis that the Scottish Executive seems to be aware of the project's objectives and has provided advice on how the project's proposals might be developed. We also agreed to recommend that the petitioners should continue their discussions with the Executive.
The petitioners have written back to indicate that the Executive officials have not been as willing to hold discussions with them as the response to the committee suggested. The petitioners asked the committee to put pressure on the Executive to live up to its promises of dialogue on their proposals. It is suggested that we copy the petitioners' letter to the Executive and make the point that the committee would like it to live up to the impression that it gave in its response that it would engage in meaningful dialogue with the petitioners on a way forward. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
PE338 is on the subject of housing stock transfer. At our meeting on 27 February, we agreed to send the petition to the Executive and to request that it respond directly to the petitioner, Mr James Bennett, on the issues raised in the petition. However, Mr Bennett has written to the committee to express his concern that the specific issues raised in the petition were not addressed by the former Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee during its general consideration of the alternatives to stock transfer, nor were they dealt with during the SNP debate on the matter. He asked that—for the record—the committee should be informed of those points and of his view that his petition
"does not provide an alternative model for stock transfer but an alternative to transfer".
There is no reason to alter the committee's decision on the action to be taken on this petition. However, I propose to send a copy of Mr Bennett's letter to the Executive in the interests of clarification. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.