Public Petitions Committee, 13 Dec 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Official Report 256KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Community Sports Clubs (PE868)

Agenda item 2 is current petitions. PE868, by Ronald M Sutherland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to bring forward legislation to create a right to buy for member-based community sports clubs that occupy or use land and/or premises for recreational or sports purposes.

At its meeting on 26 June, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to express its concern about the lack of response on the petition. The Executive has responded with apologies for the delay, and the response has been circulated.

Members might wish to note that the right to buy was considered and not agreed by Parliament. We may have to close the petition, given that the issue was considered thoroughly during the passage of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill.

When we considered a similar petition two weeks ago, unfortunately we had to close it because we could not take it any further. I agree with your recommendation.

So we will close the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Neurological Services<br />(Post-polio Syndrome) (PE873)

PE873, which is from Helene MacLean on behalf of the Scottish Post Polio Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to join the international community in recognising post-polio syndrome and to conduct a much-needed national review of neurological services to take account of the needs of PPS and all other long-term neurological conditions with a view to establishing multidisciplinary centres of excellence to assess, treat and research such conditions, which affect the lives of many thousands of individuals in Scotland.

At its meeting on 3 May, the committee agreed to write to the chief scientific officer, the chief medical officer and the Minister for Health and Community Care. Responses have been received and circulated to members. In addition, we have received correspondence from Margo MacDonald.

The committee might wish to consider exploring further with the chief scientific officer the options for funding a relevant research study—that point came through clearly in the correspondence. It would also be worth seeking the petitioner's views on the responses received. We could write directly to the CSO to ask about the prospect for research to be funded and, once we get a reply, forward it to the petitioner and seek a response on all the points that have been raised.

The chief medical officer's response is particularly helpful. He points out that Scotland has a well-developed network for developing guidelines and advice, but that he would be happy to discuss the feasibility of developing further guidelines with the groups involved. That is a positive outcome for the petition—well, it is a good starting point anyway.

We will await the petitioner's views on the overall perspective, but it would be helpful to identify the PPS organisations' prospect for research funding. It would be useful for them, too, to know that response.

We will write to the petitioner with that information.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Maternity Services (Rural Areas) (PE898)

Our next petition is PE898 from Mrs Lynne Simpson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the provision of maternity services in rural communities to ensure that quality of and access to services are retained locally.

At its meeting on 17 May, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses received from the Scottish Executive, NHS Grampian and the Royal College of Midwives. Those views have been received and circulated.

We are joined by Stewart Stevenson and Maureen Watt. Do you have any comments?

It may help the committee's consideration of the petition to be aware of two points, one of which is factual and the other of which is slightly speculative.

The factual point is that NHS Grampian's consultation has been severely criticised by the relevant inspector. That will inform the minister's decisions when he comes to make them. There was also a useful meeting in which the minister allowed an hour to the people in my constituency who have particular concerns, which are part of the general concern about support for maternity services in rural areas. As a result of that meeting, the minister acknowledged that he had new information, and he has accordingly taken somewhat longer to come to a conclusion.

I speculatively indicate that my sources suggest that the minister is likely to decide whether to accept NHS Grampian's decision in that part of Scotland, where rural maternity services are a particular issue, probably later this month. In the light of that indication, the committee may wish to defer further consideration of the petition until the minister's views are known. I suspect the minister's decision will inform any conclusions that the committee may choose to reach.

The problem is a serious one that relates not only to Fraserburgh. That was brought home to me last Friday when I visited a school in Aberdeen. Groups of children had to give a presentation on an issue and one little boy—he was in primary 6—talked about midwifery services. He said that one mother had had to wait for ages in Aberdeen maternity hospital to get a room because no midwives were available. Because rural services are being closed, the pressure on the main centres is huge. I would like the committee to take that into account when it decides what to do with the petition.

Do members have any suggestions on what we should do with the petition, based on the additional information? Obviously, the pending decision of the Executive will have to be taken into consideration.

We should forward the petition to the Executive, prior to its making a decision.

Once we have sent the information to the Executive and the Executive has made a decision, that could be the end of the petition; the matter will not come back to us for further consideration. However, if the minister is going to make a decision, he should have the information that Stewart Stevenson, Maureen Watt and the petitioner have provided.

If I may, convener, I point out that the minister is about to make a decision in relation to NHS Grampian. Of course, the petition is drawn rather more widely than that. This is entirely up to the committee, but I suspect that you will get a clear indication of the minister's attitude to the issue, which is a concern throughout Scotland, when he makes his decision on NHS Grampian. The implications may be local or national; at this stage, I cannot say which and I suspect that no one but the minister can say that either.

Whatever decision the minister makes, it would be useful for him to have the information that we have been given before he makes it. The decision will come thereafter.

In the information that we have received from the petitioner, I was struck by the comment that the number of deliveries of babies has risen in rural areas, whereas NHS Grampian says that the number has fallen. There is an argument there. The minister should know that the petitioner says the opposite of what the health board says.

The petition should go to the minister. I am not sure whether we can keep the petition open until the result is announced and we have got the petitioner's thoughts on it. I leave that up to the wisdom of the clerks—they will know whether that is allowable.

We can send the petition to the Executive, but I do not know what more we can do. The Official Report of our discussion will go along with the information that we send. The minister will reach his decision at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. When the decision is made, it will not come back to us and we will not sit in judgment on it. Unless the decision is made after a response on the petition comes back to the committee—although I do not know how that would be possible—we will have to say that the petition is closed. Once the minister has made his decision, that will be that.

That is my concern. People cannot resubmit a petition on the same subject, so the petition could not be resubmitted. I seek the clerk's advice on whether there is any way in which we can keep the petition live until the minister makes a decision.

It will be live—that is the point that I am making.

So it will still be live.

It will be live, as information for the minister, but once the minister makes his decision, the petition will have to be closed, because we cannot sit in judgment on that decision.

So the petition is still open at this time. That is fine.

I thank Stewart Stevenson and Maureen Watt.

---

Ownerless Land (PE947)

Petitions PE908 and PE909 were discussed earlier, so our next petition is PE947, by DECIDE—Dornock Eastriggs Creca Initiative Development Enterprise—which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide community groups with the right to take ownership of land when it is currently ownerless or has been abandoned by its owners for seven years.

At its meeting on 19 April, the committee agreed to seek views on the petition from the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, Registers of Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Community Land Network and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received.

Stewart Stevenson has stayed with us, as he has an interest in the petition. I ask him to make any comments, before we consider the petition.

I became aware of the petition only when I looked at today's agenda, but I have a relevant constituency case of which the committee might find it valuable to be aware. In one village in my constituency, people wanted an abandoned house, which had been abandoned for some 10 years when the case first came to me, to be sold to someone simply so that it could be dealt with and would no longer be an eyesore. Initially, it appeared that the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer could be the ultimate owner. However, when advertising boards were put up, a company in Panama identified itself as the owner of the building. Since then, I have spent about £400 of my allowances on translation services in corresponding with the Panamanian company. We may yet get a conclusion.

I give the committee those brief details as a practical illustration of the difficulties that remain in the system of ownership in Scotland. In particular, I point out the lack of any requirement for a foreign owner to have a resident representative and the lack, for historical reasons, of clarity about where ownership lies. The documents that the committee has elicited from various sources are useful, so I will keep them in my personal file for future reference.

The petition provides a useful illustration of how one may proceed, but I encourage the committee to grunt and heave and strain to help not just the petitioners from Dumfries and Galloway but all of us—MSPs and others—who need to deal with the issue, which can occasionally be a serious matter for communities. I congratulate the petitioners on lodging their petition.

We will make the petitioners aware of the responses that we have received and ask them for a further response. Perhaps Stewart Stevenson can encourage those who are involved in his constituency case to make their correspondence available to us for future consideration along with the petition.

If the committee's intention is to keep the petition open, I will certainly be happy to see what I can provide that might further inform the committee's considerations.

That would be helpful. Are members happy that we proceed in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (Conservation) (PE956)<br />Forth Estuary Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (PE982)

The next two petitions are PE956 and PE982.

Petition PE956, by Mary Douglas, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, as amended, are applied in relation to ship-to-ship oil transfers in Scotland.

Petition PE982, by B Linden Jarvis, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of proposed ship-to-ship transfers of oil between vessels at anchor in the Forth estuary. The petition asks that the consideration and debate should focus specifically on the likely impact of such operations upon wildlife, tourism and local authority funding of clean-up. The petition also asks the Parliament to consider how it might use its powers within the 12-mile tidal limits to protect the local ecology, scenery and environment and areas of special scientific interest and habitat within the estuary.

At its meeting on 3 May, the committee agreed to seek views on petition PE956 from a wide range of organisations, including local authorities, conservation bodies and the companies directly involved, and to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses once they were received. The Scottish Parliament information centre has provided a summary of the written evidence, for which I record our gratitude. We have also received additional information from the RSPB, which has been circulated this morning.

I had hoped that we would be joined by Marilyn Livingstone, who is the local MSP, but she contacted me to say that she would be tied up with this morning's meeting of the Education Committee, although she hoped to join us for this discussion. However, we have been joined by Mark Ruskell and Bruce Crawford, both of whom have an interest in the issue. Marilyn Livingstone suggested to me that we should take cognisance of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's inquiry, so we can bear that in mind. We might want to send the petitions to that committee.

As Helen Eadie is a member of this committee, I ask for her comments before I ask for those of her colleagues.

Thank you, convener. Marilyn Livingstone, Christine May, Scott Barrie and I have worked closely in considering ship-to-ship oil transfers, so I know a bit about what Marilyn Livingstone thinks are the issues involved. She did indeed want to be at this meeting.

I am grateful to the SPICe researcher Alan Rehfisch—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—for providing us with a good summary of the written evidence. We asked for and received technical and legal advice from the 17 organisations to which we wrote. In addition, six of the respondents said that they supported the petitioners, which is interesting. I was especially pleased about that. However, I was disappointed that no responses were received from the harbour authority—Forth Ports plc—or from Melbourne Marine Services, to which my colleague Christine May has written seeking a meeting with its representatives. I am pleased that she has done so.

I submitted a public petition to the European Parliament, which Marilyn Livingstone, Christine May and Scott Barrie supported, because we think that several issues arise, particularly with regard to the European requirement that no authority should have a conflict of interest when it is making a decision on an application. We all know that the Scottish Executive must call in planning applications that relate to local authorities' own land or properties. There should be a similar requirement on member states to call in proposals from which organisations such as Forth Ports stand to benefit. That is why we submitted our petition to the European Parliament. Catherine Stihler, who is the member of the European Parliament for the area, helped us when we wrote to that Parliament.

I hope that we can keep the matter alive. Can we send petition PE956 and a copy of the Official Report of the relevant debate that was held in the Scottish Parliament to the President of the European Parliament to refer to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, so that it will consider petition PE956 when it considers the petition that we submitted? Furthermore, can we copy the correspondence to Her Majesty's Government? I say that because one of the City of Edinburgh Council's key concerns is the role of the harbour authority. It has stated:

"Forth Ports will require to demonstrate a lack of bias in the approval process as clearly they have a perceived conflict of interest between acting as approval authority and beneficiary".

As a result of a ruling by the European Court of Justice on 20 October, I do not agree with Ross Finnie's view that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Forth Ports are competent authorities to deal with the matter. That ruling found against the United Kingdom for failing to transpose EU habitats directive 92/43/EEC directly into UK law. Given that the UK has been found guilty in that respect, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not have a basis on which to arrive at its view, which is why I question its competence to deal with the matter. I would like that to be highlighted when we write to Her Majesty's Government. I feel strongly that a decision is being thrust on us that is against the will of the City of Edinburgh Council, West Lothian Council and Fife Council.

Another key point arises from the SPICe briefing, which I emphasise was helpful. Costs will be met by council tax payers, but there will be no income stream from which to recover those costs. We know that there has not yet been an oil spill, but when formulating budgets councils must have a degree of preparedness. The proposal has cost implications for emergency planning and the emergency services. The taxpayer alone will have to pick up the cost of a commercial venture that is being driven forward by Forth Ports. That is a particularly powerful argument.

The North Sea Commission, which comprises all the local authorities in the North sea area, including authorities in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Belgium and Holland, is united in its view that the effects of oil spills can be devastating. We know that the economies of Fife, Edinburgh and the coastal parts of the Borders depend on the benefit that tourism brings. It would be crass, stupid and totally unjust for us to allow the proposal to go ahead when there are such serious economic development issues to be addressed. I appeal to the convener and other members of the committee to support my suggestion that we refer the petition to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in support of the petition that we have already submitted.

I have no difficulty with our doing that. We can refer the petition to the European Parliament and to Her Majesty's Government for information. If we refer the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for consideration during its inquiry, we cannot keep it open; any responses that we receive will have to be sent to that committee.

The petition is too urgent to go into the melting pot and to be referred to another committee for consideration. We should hold on to the petition and press it on the agenda of every meeting between now and when the decision is made. We must also ask about the timescale for any decision.

I will give other members a chance to make recommendations.

Helen Eadie gave us a useful rundown of some of the current issues. It is clear that there is cross-party support for dealing with the issues that the petition raises in a timely fashion. Time is running out: Forth Ports may make a decision within months. It is important that a committee considers the issue sooner rather than later. The Environment and Rural Development Committee is in an excellent position to do that, because it is already collecting written evidence for its marine inquiry. I know of petitioners and others from Fife communities who are contributing written evidence on this important issue to the inquiry. Given that the committee will take oral evidence at a series of meetings in the new year, it would be most timely and appropriate for the petition to be referred to it. I would like that to happen as quickly as possible.

I am sorry for giving you such short notice of my attendance at this morning's meeting, convener.

I thank the petitioners for ensuring that there continues to be a focus on ship-to-ship oil transfer. It is obviously important, for the reasons that Helen Eadie outlined. There is significant concern in the coastal communities surrounding the Forth about the matter. The issue has been dealt with reasonably on an all-party basis, and everyone is doing what they can to push forward the agenda. Alyn Smith MEP and I met representatives of the European Commission's environment directorate-general in Brussels to discuss the issue. On behalf of the communities affected, we lodged a complaint about the proposal with the European Commission.

Helen Eadie is right to suggest that we should refer the petition to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions. Depending on the guidance that the convener gives us about the impact on other committees of our doing that, it might also be useful to send our deliberations and the petitions to the European Commission environment directorate-general, because it is still investigating the complaint that was raised with it and is actively discussing the matter with the United Kingdom representatives in the European Union.

The legislation is incredibly complex. When Forth Ports was privatised by the former Tory Government, I do not think that anyone foresaw the circumstances that we are in today. I am loth to attack Forth Ports, because in many ways it has been left in the situation and must deal with the legislation that is in place. However, I have no doubt in my mind that there is a conflict. The environmental concerns are serious. The report produced by consultants for Forth Ports admits that there will be oil spills and admits to the significant difficulties that exist in the estuary. The risk assessment work exists for all to see.

That brings me neatly to what ministers could still do using the powers that are available to them under the regulations under the habitats directive. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development has powers under the regulations to consider the impact on conservation areas in the River Forth, of which there are many categories in the area. I am glad that the minister accepts that he has some responsibility, through Scottish Natural Heritage, if not for signing off the decision or giving approval, for saying whether the work that is being carried out by Forth Ports is valid.

In addition to what has already been suggested, it would be of value for the committee to contact Ross Finnie to establish what point the Executive has reached in its deliberations on regulation 44. The minister told me off the record that the Executive accepts its responsibility. Dr Ladyman, who is the Minister of State for Transport at Westminster, responded earlier this year to a written question from Mike Weir of the SNP. He stated:

"Furthermore, under regulation 44 of the Habitats Regulations, there is provision to license activities that could disturb a European protected species, or damage or destroy breeding sites or resting places."

That is exactly what is under threat. He continued:

"As this is for a devolved purpose, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to determine whether a licence would be required for ship-to-ship transfers in the Firth of Forth."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 25 July 2006; Vol 449, c 1308W.]

That is a clear statement by the UK Minister of State for Transport. We must press the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to accept that position and seek his view on the outcome of any potential licensing process.

The issue has been addressed on an all-party basis. Marilyn Livingstone has also expressed concerns: I spoke to her about the issue at the Equal Opportunities Committee. There is great concern not only about the impact on the habitat but about the other impacts of oil spills. The issue is serious.

If the petitions were sent somewhere other than to the Environment and Rural Development Committee while it is holding its marine inquiry, I would be concerned that the Parliament would lose control of them. Bruce Crawford mentioned the habitats directive. SEPA is also under the control of the Scottish Parliament. We must look for something to be done about the matter under the current legislation.

If the petitions go to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, they stay with the Parliament. The issue on which I seek clarification relates to the fact that Helen Eadie wants us to send them to the Committee on Petitions and to Her Majesty's Government. I have no problem with that, but the petitions can be sent on for their information only if we pass them to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. Once we pass the petitions to another committee of the Parliament, it becomes its responsibility to take them forward. Any responses that we get from the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, the European Union or Her Majesty's Government would go to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for it to handle. The petitions would still be in the possession of the Parliament; I would not want us to relinquish them.

I agree.

That is precisely what I hoped for. We have already submitted a petition to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions; it went there a couple of months ago. I was seeking—you have given your blessing to the suggestion—that the petitions should go to the Committee on Petitions for information.

I was not aware that the Environment and Rural Development Committee had reached the point that it has on the matter. I was just worried that we would be in a queue waiting for the business to be conducted. However, if the issue is already being acted on, I am quite happy with that. I am comforted by Mark Ruskell's words.

I want to pick up on Bruce Crawford's point about the habitats directive.

Could you do so briefly, Helen, because we need to get on?

The habitats directive has been found wanting by the European Court of Justice. It has been ruled to be defective, which is one of our concerns.

Are members happy for us to send the petitions to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and to the two levels of Government that Helen Eadie mentioned for their information?

Members indicated agreement.

Could we also highlight the fact that we did not receive replies from—

Yes, that concerns me. As Helen Eadie said, Melbourne Marine Services and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association did not reply to us. I am disappointed that they could not find the time to do so, given that we asked them for information. I am more surprised that we did not receive responses from Friends of the Earth Scotland and Greenpeace. They might want to respond to the Environment and Rural Development Committee when it considers the petitions further. If we rebuke them for not replying to us, it might encourage them to participate in the Environment and Rural Development Committee's work on the petitions.

RSPB Scotland should be complimented, because it has given us good briefings on this matter all the way through.

Yes. That has been helpful. We will take forward the petitions in that way.

---

Borderline Theatre Company (Funding) (PE959)<br />7:84 Theatre Company (Closure) (PE970)

Our next two petitions are PE959, by Eddie Jackson, on behalf of Borderline Theatre Company, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to act urgently to ensure the continuation of Borderline Theatre Company's innovative touring and lifelong learning programme; and PE970, by Chris Bartter, on behalf of 7:84 Theatre Company, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to act urgently to prevent the closure of 7:84 Theatre Company.

At its meeting on 28 June, the committee took oral evidence on the petitions and agreed to consider at a future meeting the evidence and what further action to take. Responses have now been received and circulated.

I welcome the fact that 7:84's appeal has been successful, but I am dismayed that Borderline's appeal has not been successful. The Scottish Arts Council does not come out of this at all well. Borderline has been discriminated against by the SAC, which changed the criteria for assessing applications after they were submitted. I believe that Borderline's assessment of what has happened is accurate. It is a very professional organisation and always has been, so it would not make such allegations lightly. I am disappointed at how the SAC has handled the matter. That said, I am not sure what we should do. I appreciate the letter from the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, but I am disappointed that she feels unable to do anything, particularly as Borderline is in my constituency.

It is one of those things. Once the decision has been made, we are not going to be able to overturn it, no matter how much we might express our disappointment.

I have to admit that, grudgingly, but I am utterly frustrated that a company of the quality of Borderline in my constituency should be put in jeopardy by the Scottish Arts Council for being too audience focused. It is utterly outrageous.

It is a ridiculous state of affairs. We all expressed that opinion at the time. We just have to close the petitions. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Housing Stock Transfer (PE829)

Our last petition is PE829, by Mrs Anne Ayres, on behalf of Carntyne Winget Residents Association, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the impact of housing stock transfer on Scottish communities. At its meeting on 17 May, the committee agreed to write to Glasgow Housing Association. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition? I welcome the additional information that we were given this morning.

I got that information this morning, as did everyone else. Some of the information from Anne Ayres is different from that contained in the reply from Michael Lennon. Anne Ayres said that the pilot scheme would be starting next year, but the letter from Michael Lennon said that it would be starting in November 2006. I do not know how to proceed with the petition. We have written to GHA and the Scottish Executive, but GHA does not seem to be moving on the petition. I am worried that we are just getting platitudes. Could we write to the Minister for Communities for his thoughts on the petition?

I do not see why not, given that issues have been raised about timescales. Are members happy for me to draw up a letter to the Minister for Communities to ask questions about the information that we received this morning?

Members indicated agreement.

That would be smashing. Thank you.

Meeting closed at 12:10.