Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Monday, September 13, 2010

Official Report 392KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)

PE1179 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of acquired brain injury to ensure that people with acquired brain injury and their carers get the services and support that they need, and to ensure that agencies can plan and deliver services more effectively.

I invite observations from members.

Members will note that we have received from the petitioner the suggestion that we suspend our consideration of the petition, given that in the continuing correspondence involving the petitioner, the Government and other interested parties, points are being repeated. In the petitioners’ view, that would allow time for the Scottish Government and the Association of Directors of Social Work to further consider these serious matters. The petitioner is suggesting that, at that time, we could more productively come back to the main content of the petition. If members are minded to suspend our consideration, we should write to both the Scottish Government and the ADSW to tell them of the committee’s decision.

Thank you. Are there any other comments?

I think that it is with some disappointment that we will suspend the petition for so long. As the petitioners have indicated, they are extremely disappointed by the responses that they have received on the matter from the Scottish Government and other agencies.

I have to put it on the record that I am disappointed, given the seriousness of ABI, that it has taken so long and that we seem to be at an impasse. I support Bill Butler’s recommendation that we suspend our consideration of the petition at present, but I would like to think that as a committee we could urge the Scottish Government and other agencies to try to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and not to allow it to drag on for too long, because clearly we need to get these issues resolved for sufferers and carers and to take forward delivery of services for those with ABI.

Is the committee content that we reflect the concerns that John Wilson has expressed about the dragging of feet?

Members indicated agreement.

I assume that we are agreed that we write in the terms described to say that we are disappointed by the lack of progress and to note that this does not mean the end of progress on the issue by the committee as we would expect our successor committee in the next session of Parliament to take up the matter. There is a history of a few other petitions being kept going in the face of adversity in the hope that we eventually get the result that the petitioner would like.

---

Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1254)

PE1254 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 51 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow flexibility in order that an employee of a fire and rescue authority can also be employed as a special constable. I invite comments.

We have a wee bit of a problem in that both the Scottish Government and the Fire Brigades Union, the two major players, are against the proposal in the petition. However, I think that it is still worth our while to press a little bit more.

Perhaps we could put to the Scottish Government the point that the petitioner suggests we put to it: that, given the current economic climate, perhaps such a relaxation of section 51 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 would be sensible in economic terms. I do not know, frankly, whether that would persuade the Scottish Government or the FBU to change their positions and support the petition, but it is worth conveying that suggestion from the petitioner to both the Scottish Government and the FBU to see what response we get.

As there are no other comments from the committee, we propose to continue the petition and to write to the Scottish Government in the terms that are suggested by Bill Butler.

---

Houses in Multiple Occupation (Regulation) (PE1261)

PE1261, by David Middleton, on behalf of Sustainable Communities (Scotland), which is otherwise known as SUSCOMS, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote better regulation of houses in multiple occupation by the following: by giving licensing authorities clear powers to refuse to grant HMO licences where they would affect the amenity of the local area, or would breach planning policy or the requirement for planning permission; by ensuring that planning permission is a prior condition for all HMO licensing; and by introducing more rigorous enforcement of penalties for illegally operated HMOs, including powers of closure and substantial financial penalties to contribute to the cost of enforcement.

We understand that, after our most recent discussion of the petition, the Government offered to meet the petitioner and the meeting took place at the end of August. At that meeting, the Government agreed to review the guidance on planning permission in relation to HMOs. We also know that a further housing bill is to be introduced shortly. I understand that an update meeting between the Scottish Government and the petitioner is scheduled for the end of 2010. I suggest that we keep the petition open but suspend consideration of it until early 2011, when that meeting will have taken place.

I have a different suggestion. The Government plans to introduce a private sector housing bill, so if the points that the petitioner raises are to be addressed, it is important that the committee that will be dealing with the bill is aware of them. It is hoped that the bill will be published towards the end of October, so the committee that will scrutinise it will start to pick that up pretty soon. I suggest that we write to the appropriate parliamentary committee and send it details of the concerns that have been raised.

Do members agree that we should continue the petition at least until that time? In other words, we will not suspend it but simply continue it until we know which committee is going to deal with the forthcoming bill. That will be our interim position.

I can clarify that the committee that will deal with the bill is the Local Government and Communities Committee. As a member of that committee, I confirm that we will be considering two pieces of housing legislation. One is the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the other is the private sector housing bill that is to be published later in the year.

It might be worth our while to seek clarification from the Government of exactly what it intends to put in the private sector housing bill in relation to HMOs. I know that there has been some discussion about tweaking the bill and it might be that certain aspects that were intended will not be included. As Cathie Craigie said, we should also refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee so that it is aware of the issues that the petitioner has raised. It might be that the petitioner can help to influence and shape some of the discussion within that committee, as well.

We will continue the petition, write to the Scottish Government for clarification of the contents of the forthcoming bill and write to the Local Government and Communities Committee presenting it with the contents of the petition and our discussions of it so far. Do those proposals meet with the agreement of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1263)

PE1263, by Evelyn Mundell, on behalf of Ben Mundell, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to accept that individual dairy farmers have human rights and that those have been breached by the operating rules of the ring-fencing mechanism that is attached to the management of milk quotas, which should have been carried out in accordance with objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment among farmers, and to avoid market and competition distortion.

I draw the committee’s attention to the extra information that we have received from Jamie McGrigor MSP and Peter Peacock MSP in relation to the petition. Do members have any suggestions on a way forward?

I certainly face a wee bit of a quandary. Until we received the late submissions from Mr McGrigor and Mr Peacock, my thoughts were that the committee should say that we sympathise with the situation that the petitioners face, but that there is not much more we can do.

The Scottish Government has responded to questions about the balance between human rights and the public interest, and it does not accept that any farmer has lost the ability to earn a living as a direct consequence of the milk quota ring-fencing arrangements. The committee can continue a petition only if we have other issues to raise that have not been addressed in the responses that we have received from the Scottish Government or from other organisations or agencies.

However, I have briefly looked at the letters from both MSPs, and it may be that we could simply forward the letters, which contain continuing concerns, to the Scottish Government to see whether it would be willing to listen to the pleas that the MSPs make on the matter. I have my doubts, but I think that we should continue simply on that basis, and we will get a response from the Scottish Government in due course. I am not optimistic about that response, but it is the committee’s duty to act as a channel for the continuing concerns of the two MSPs to whom I have referred.

As there are no more observations, let us decide whether to continue or close the petition.

We have had a proposal to continue. For the record, to clarify the reason for that, I will quote from Peter Peacock’s letter. It states:

“As the Committee will be aware, the petitioner firmly believes that human rights have been breached in the circumstances of the petition, they are in a state of very considerable distress over the issues and it seems to me they are looking to the Petitions Committee, and deserve, to secure a more specific answer”.

That is the point that we are making to Government: we seek a more specific answer and an insight into the issue of human rights breaches prior to any consideration of closing the petition. That makes our position clear.

---

Judicial Office-holders (Age of Retirement) (PE1276)

PE1276, by John Ferguson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement on judicial office holders, including justices of the peace, to retire at the age of 70.

Do members have any observations?

I think that we have come to the end of the road on this one. Unless colleagues are otherwise minded—I will listen attentively—there is not really anything more that we can do. There are already provisions that allow for some judicial office-holders under the age of 75 to be redeployed.

Additionally, the Scottish Government is—according to my information—willing to revisit the question once the current consideration of the issue is examined by the United Kingdom Government and that review is complete. At this stage, I say with regret that there is not much more that the committee can do. We could ask the Scottish Government to keep the petitioner up to date once the review commences, but that is really all we can do at this stage.

I agree with Bill Butler. I am always concerned when the Scottish Government—particularly an SNP Government—says, “We’ll wait and see what the United Kingdom Government does about this and then we’ll think about what we’re going to do.” However, that is the position. The UK Government is considering the matter and, when it has finished doing so, the Scottish Government will consider it again. As Bill Butler said, in that situation there is nothing more we can do other than ask the Scottish Government to keep the petitioner informed.

My understanding is that the reason why we have to wait for the UK Government’s decision on the matter is that there might be an impact on some employment issues in terms of those judicial offices, and employment law is a UK matter. Because of the European Commission rules, if the UK Government decides to increase the retirement age, the Scottish Government might have to follow suit. A major debate is taking place at the moment in relation to many people in employment—not only judicial postholders.

I agree with my colleague’s point in general, but this is one of those areas in which we must be guided by changes and decisions that are made at UK level that have an impact in Scotland. Judicial postholders are employees and are covered by the same employment rights as others.

Do we agree to close the petition, under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, as we have done as much as we can and the Government has no intention, pro tem, of removing the compulsory retirement age on judicial officers but will be guided by any changes that are imposed by the UK Government?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Charities Funding (PE1304)

The next petition, PE1304, by Kathleen Bryson, on behalf of the Lighthouse Foundation, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to make representations to the banking and other private funding sectors to maintain funding to charities to protect their jobs and services, many of which are carried out on behalf of public bodies, and to outline how it will address any funding shortfall as a result of the current financial difficulties that banks and other sectors face.

Members will be aware that since the committee last considered this petition, Lloyds Banking Group has served notice that it is terminating the organisation’s covenant. The foundation is carrying out its grant-making programme at a reduced level, which highlights its commitment to Scotland’s charities. The decision of Lloyds Banking Group to terminate the covenant is to be regretted. I think that it was the wrong decision. Some might even call it a mean-spirited and irrational decision, and I would not disagree.

I do not think that we should close this petition, on the basis of the petitioner’s recent request to the committee. In a letter of 22 August 2010, the petitioner requested that we ask the Scottish Government to consider providing further financial support to the third sector. We should convey that request to the Scottish Government.

Members indicated agreement.

11:00

I see nods of agreement all round.

I agree with Bill Butler that we should write to the Scottish Government, but the Government and, possibly, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations must be asked a much wider question about the extent of the shortfall in funding for the voluntary sector in Scotland that may exist in the next financial year. Although the petitioner is concerned about Lloyds Banking Group’s decision to end the covenant with the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland, there are wider issues during the period of financial constraint for many organisations, especially charitable organisations.

We should ask the Government and SCVO for an indication of what the shortfall in delivering the current level of voluntary sector services could be. It is fine for organisations to say that the Government should meet any shortfall, but that shortfall may be massive. We may end up having to make decisions about funding for particular organisations based on the circumstances at the time, as local authorities and other organisations do on a yearly basis. We need to be aware of how making demands or applications for particular groups to retain their funding may impact on other organisations that may be doing an equally good or better job than the organisations that are making cases at present.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We shall write to the Scottish Government and SCVO in the terms expressed. The petition will be continued.

---

Vulnerable Livestock (PE1309)

PE1309, on the protection of vulnerable livestock, from Farquhar Macbeath, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend relevant legislation to remove the protection that is given to sea eagles and other predators such as foxes, badgers and ravens to allow farmers and crofters, in certain situations, to kill such predators to protect their livestock from injury and death that are incurred by attack. I declare an interest in that I am a member of several relevant organisations, including the RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. I invite responses from the committee.

I remember the petitioner well, because he gave evidence to us. As a city MSP, I was very struck by his comments. However, we have written to a wide range of organisations, none of which agrees with him.

I draw attention to a couple of points that the NFU Scotland has made in its submission. First, it was suggested that predation by sea eagles is the most significant reason for low lambing figures, but the NFUS states:

“There are many reasons why these flocks lamb at only 60 or 70%, and only a small fraction of that can be directly accounted for by predation by eagles.”

Secondly, the NFUS points out that sea eagles and golden eagles are given the highest protected status under the European Union birds directive, so European law governs the issue. Any attempt by Scotland not to comply with the directive would result in infraction proceedings and disallowance, which would affect farmers and crofters right across Scotland. The NFUS also says that it is working with the Scottish Government and SNH on practical and adequately funded mitigation measures where highly protected species such as sea eagles, golden eagles and so on clearly cause agricultural losses.

I know that it has been difficult to obtain proper figures, but when such a breadth of organisations says that the petitioner is not correct and when the NFUS tells us that we cannot do what the petition proposes because it will breach European law—which will have a knock-on effect for all farmers in Scotland—I am simply not sure what else we can do with the petition. Unless anyone else sees any further mileage in it, I suggest that we close it.

We have a proposal for closure. Does anyone else wish to comment?

I agree with my colleague Anne McLaughlin that we have no option but to close the petition. I think that I am right in saying that everyone we contacted—the Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and so on—is against the petition and the requests contained therein. Indeed, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association considers existing legislation to provide an adequate framework for all interested parties. More seriously, I take Anne McLaughlin’s point that we really cannot stray into areas in which we will be in contravention of EU law. For all those reasons, I do not think that there is further mileage in the petition and I agree with Anne McLaughlin’s recommendation that we close it.

Does the committee agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders? We have consulted very widely and there is unanimity on all sides that the petition should not be continued.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Birds of Prey (Illegal Killing) (PE1315)

PE1315, by Stuart Housden on behalf of RSPB Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase its efforts to stop the illegal killing of birds of prey. Again, I must declare an interest as a member of the RSPB.

I invite responses from members. I call Bill Butler.

Your pause caught me out there, convener.

I do not know how colleagues are minded, but I think that we should continue this petition which, after all, relates to a concerning issue. One avenue that we can explore is to ask the Scottish Government whether, as the petitioner suggests, it is willing to amend the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill in respect of

“vicarious liability on managers and employers of wildlife criminals”.

Do other members have any opinions? I call John Wilson.

Thank you for letting me speak on this petition, convener, which is related to Arran. First I point out that, although the previous petitioner was in effect requesting a reduction in the protection that is given to predators, and this petition calls on the Scottish Government to increase its efforts to stop the illegal killing of birds of prey, I do not think that the petitions are as at odds as they might appear.

We certainly have to stop the illegal killing of birds of prey but, on Arran, there is an issue of ravens attacking livestock. The mitigations that are available to farmers are not as effective as they should be and, indeed, are very restrictive. The birds have been able to breed very extensively and are causing considerable damage, and the measures that have been put in place are simply moving the problem from one farm to another.

There have been many discussions involving the local NFU, individual farmers and Scottish Natural Heritage about things that farmers can do. In particular, they can reduce the attractiveness of the feed that they put out. They can also keep it in more sheltered places, so that birds cannot get access to it.

There are considerable restrictions on shooting licences. I do not think that anyone here would want there to be any illegal killing at all, but there is an element of frustration that the legal path is more restricted than it should be. That point should be considered further. I am glad that the petition is being examined in a little more detail.

For the record, I called John Wilson, rather than Kenny Gibson.

I apologise, convener.

Like you, convener, I have to declare an interest: I am a member of the RSPB.

It is with some disappointment that I join the discussion about this petition. While the petition has been before us we have received more reports of illegal killing of birds of prey in Scotland. Kenneth Gibson has referred to the previous petition on curtailing sea eagles. There are still birds of prey that are being persecuted, and we have to deal with that.

Many organisations, including the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB, are trying to reintroduce birds of prey to mainland Scotland. There is no point in trying to reintroduce sea eagles or other birds of prey at the same time as individuals are bent on destroying those populations. In most such cases, poisoned traps are being set for the birds of prey.

Kenneth Gibson is right—we have to consider the matter in the round and find out what evidence exists. We need to resolve the position where lambs and various other farmyard animals are being attacked.

The RSPB’s petition is about the illegal killing of birds of prey, and we have to stamp it out. I would be very surprised if the NFU and other organisations actually said that they were in favour of the illegal killing of birds of prey—that would be to promote, within a certain industry and among certain individuals, the continued use of poisoned traps or poisoned bait to kill birds of prey. The challenge is to get the Government to come up with the answers.

We need to include the other responses that we have received, including those from the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, to help to establish that prosecution is the best way forward for stopping these illegal acts. As recent reports have shown, there are still people who are using poisoned bait to target birds of prey. Those birds are heavily protected under the law, but some individuals still seem to feel free to use such baits and to target those birds without fear of serious prosecution. We need to ask the Government and others about what is being done to stop such illegal actions. How can we end this vile trade in the poisoning of birds of prey?

We wrote to different organisations including ACPOS, the Scottish Police Federation, the NFU and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. We asked them what action needs to be taken on the issue, and what would be on their shopping lists to the Scottish Government. It is worth sending those shopping lists to the Scottish Government and asking it for its response.

The committee has expressed its wish for the Government to update us on the implementation of the recommendations in the “Natural Justice” report and on its timetable. We will also ask for the Government’s reactions to the shopping list that has been mentioned and ask whether it will amend the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to establish vicarious liability on managers and employers of wildlife criminals, as proposed by the petitioner. If there are no other suggestions, we will write to the Government in those terms and continue PE1315.

---

Compulsory Purchase (Derelict Properties) (PE1326)

PE1326, from Moyra Beattie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate and review the compulsory purchase powers of local authorities to deal with derelict properties and land, of which there is a fair amount in Scotland. I invite responses. If there is any derelict land in Arran, I invite Kenny Gibson to respond on that.

The issue of the compulsory purchase powers of local authorities in relation to derelict properties or land is a serious one. All members of the committee will want to congratulate the Scottish Government on the action that it intends to take to revise the guidance in the area. The committee should consider writing to the Scottish Government to welcome its commitment to a comprehensive programme of work in the area and to ask it to take into account the various responses that the committee has received on the subject.

The petitioner picks up a point that was made by the Development Trusts Association Scotland regarding communities having the ability to lease compulsorily purchased land and/or assets for the benefit of the local community. We should ask for the Scottish Government’s view on that suggestion, which seems to me to be eminently sensible and rational, and could have advantages in respect of what is a serious problem in many areas throughout Scotland.

As there are no other responses, the committee would like to continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government to seek its responses to the responses that we have received. We will send those to the Scottish Government en bloc.

---

Emergency Services (Rural Patients) (PE1327)

PE1327 is on helping emergency services to save the lives of at-risk rural patients. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote and support the use of the grid reference identification project—otherwise known as GRIP—and to encourage general practitioners to invite vulnerable rural patients to take part in the initiative. I invite responses from the committee.

We should continue the petition. The issue is a serious one and is to do with the usefulness of the grid reference identification project. It has to be an effective way of proceeding, for obvious reasons.

The petitioner has commented on the submissions that have been received and has, I believe, raised a number of pertinent points in support of GRIP, which I think we should investigate further. They include the condition of the terrain, data protection, local drivers, cases in which not all the at-risk patients who phone 999 are known, the restriction on the location of patients in rural areas to those who suffer only from asthma, and the emphasis on satellite navigation. Those are all points that we should pursue on behalf of the petitioner, and I think that we should continue the petition on that basis.

It might be useful for the sake of the record to mention submissions PE1327/B, PE1327/C, PE1327/D and PE1327/E, and to ask the Government whether it endorses the comments of Grampian Fire and Rescue Service, Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service and the Royal College of General Practitioners on the value of GRIP. That should serve to continue the petition effectively.

That ends our consideration of current petitions.