Public Petitions Committee, 15 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Official Report 243KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

The bell has gone off again—I do not know whether I should say, "Seconds out, round 2," but we will go on to agenda item 3, which is on current petitions.

The first current petition on the agenda is PE500. Dennis Canavan has informed me that he would like to be in attendance when we discuss the petition, as he has a long-standing involvement with it. He has advised me that he has another commitment this morning and that he will be here as soon as he can. Do members agree to defer consideration of PE500 until Dennis Canavan joins us?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Abandoned Properties (PE602)

The second current petition is PE602, on the recovery of abandoned private sector properties. The petitioners call on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to decentralise to local authorities the previously centralised authority that the Scotland Office held under planning legislation to recover abandoned private sector properties.

At our meeting on 21 January 2004, the committee considered responses from the Executive and the Greater London Authority and agreed to write to the Minister for Communities, COSLA, the Empty Homes Agency, Shelter and each local authority to ask for views on the issues that are raised in the petition. Responses have been received from the minister, the Empty Homes Agency, Shelter and 20 local authorities. Do members have any comments on the responses and on what to do with the petition?

The responses show that the matter is complex. However, given that a number of local authorities say clearly that they have the necessary powers, the issue becomes more about whether those powers are used, whether the issue is a priority for authorities and whether they have sufficient resources. Given that sufficient powers already exist, the creation of another set of powers and duties would not necessarily have the desired effect. Notwithstanding that, it might be worth passing the petition to the Minister for Communities in the context of the emerging private sector housing bill, which is part of the legislative programme. We should ask the Executive to revisit the issue in the light of that proposed legislation and then close the petition.

I support that suggestion. We should get clarity from the minister. Empty properties in my constituency have caused concerns. One difficulty is that some of the property owners who are involved are based not in the UK, but abroad. That creates another set of issues. It would be helpful to write to the minister to say that there is continuing concern about the matter. I support the principle behind the petition.

Given the number of responses that we have received, it seems that not many people regard the matter as a burning issue. Therefore, I do not feel that local authorities have made the case for more powers. The lack of response from COSLA speaks for itself. I am content to pass the petition to the minister, although she has said that the Scottish Executive has no plans to review the mechanisms of compulsory purchase orders and I think that that judgment is perfectly correct.

John Scott is not right: we have not really measured the extent of the problem. All sorts of problems can be caused when owners abandon their properties. For example, in the winter, freezing pipes can cause floods in neighbouring properties. It would be presumptuous to say that there is no problem—if people petition the Parliament, there clearly is a problem. It is important that we act as a conduit to the minister to tell her that there is a problem. The problem might not have the same scale as others that the Parliament has to address, but the petitioners, many of my constituents and I are concerned. By all means, we should close the petition if the minister will take the issue on board. The minister needs to be aware that concerns exist so that she can take them into her calculations in considering future legislative priorities.

I am worried that if we write to the minister and close the petition, we may deny ourselves the opportunity of getting a response. If the minister writes back simply to note our letter and to refer us to her previous response, we could close the petition, all well and good. However, it might be worth leaving the petition open until we receive a response from the minister, at which point we can consider what to do. Do members agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Domestic Abuse Policy (PE644)

The next petition is PE644, which concerns Government policy on domestic abuse. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop its current gender-based policy on domestic abuse to include all other forms of abuse that take place in a domestic setting.

At our meeting on 3 March 2004, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the response. In his response, the petitioner states:

"having taken the view that the Parliament is unlikely to be able to effect a change to this position we would like to withdraw our petition".

The petitioner's wish appears to be based on correspondence from the Deputy Minister for Communities, which, he argues,

"indicates a misunderstanding of the law, is contradictory from letter to letter and indicates clearly that they have no intention of moving to a more inclusive domestic abuse strategy."

After being advised that there is no procedure for the withdrawal of a petition at this stage, the petitioner has submitted a report on the alleged prevalence of domestic abuse among lesbians and gay men. The report has been circulated to members electronically. Do members have any comments on the petition?

I have a deal of sympathy with the petitioner. It may be that the responses quoted are only partial and have been taken out of context, but it would seem an unsatisfactory resolution to the petition and to the petitioner's concern if he felt that he had to withdraw it because the responses that he has received are apparently contradictory. We should go back to the minister, seek clarification of the responses, point out that the petitioner regards them as contradictory and ask her to address the criticisms.

I take a slightly different point of view. The petitioner has indicated that he wants to withdraw the petition and, although there is no mechanism for doing so, we should accede to his request. I do not find the statements that are quoted in the letter to be contradictory, because they could have been taken out of context. When ministers decide where their resources will go, they end up having to prioritise. Several studies into the scale of domestic abuse have indicated that the problem is predominantly about men abusing women. Statistically speaking, that is the largest proportion of domestic abuse, so it is perhaps legitimate for ministers to decide to prioritise their resources in that way.

I would be happy if the minister were to explain that position as eloquently as you have done, Jackie. Let us give her that opportunity and close the petition thereafter if we see fit.

My concern is that the committee should try to ensure that the petitioner is involved at every stage of the petition. If we were to take the petition out of the petitioner's hands, we would be in danger of saying that the petition does not belong to him and I am not sure that we would want to do that. There may still be some unanswered questions on which clarification would be helpful to the committee. However, if the petitioner says that he wants to draw a line under the petition, perhaps we should, as Jackie Baillie suggests, comply with that wish. Under the rules, the petitioner cannot withdraw the petition, but we can close it and say that we accept his view that it should go no further.

I agree with the proposition that, wherever possible, we should try to accede to the petitioner's wishes. We cannot do that in every case—there are sometimes extenuating circumstances—but it is in our powers to do so with this petition and we should agree to the suggestion that you make, convener.

Do we know whether the petitioner was aware that the committee could ask the minister to clarify the situation? The petitioner seems to want to withdraw the petition because he thinks that that is the end of the matter and that he will not get a further answer. Perhaps if we were to ask the minister for clarity, the petitioner would look on that favourably.

I am happy to let the clerk answer that question, but no petition comes to us without there being exacting dialogue and discourse between the clerks and the petitioners so that the petitioners are fully aware at all stages of what can be done with the petition and where it is being dealt with. I would be very surprised if the petitioner was not aware of the process, but I will let Jim Johnston answer that.

My understanding is that the petitioner is fully aware of the process and the options that are open to the committee.

But he still wishes to end the matter.

Yes.

Are members happy that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Shop Workers (Safety) (PE677)

Petition PE677 is on safer shopping partnerships. The petitioners call on the Parliament to work in partnership with retailers, the police and local authorities to improve the safety of shop workers by promoting and resourcing safer shopping partnerships.

At our meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee considered a response from the Executive stating that proposals for new initiatives in that area were being drawn up and that a short-life steering group was expected to report to ministers before the end of March. The committee agreed to write again to the Executive, asking it to advise the committee of the outcome of its deliberations and the likely timescale for the implementation of its proposals.

The latest response from the Executive states that a draft paper has been produced for consideration by ministers, who are expected to make an announcement on how they propose to take matters forward in due course. A ministerial announcement was made yesterday and copies of the relevant Scottish Executive press release have been circulated to members. On that basis, I suggest that the committee might wish to take no further action on the petition. Do members agree with that?

Yes. I must say that the timing is excellent, convener. I commend the minister for that.

I am pleased about the outcome. I visited a couple of local stores during the summer recess and heard about the extent of the problems, some of which were quite horrific. I am therefore pleased that progress has been made.

Are members happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gulf War Syndrome (PE709)

Petition PE709 calls on the Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the health aspects and other devolved issues relating to Gulf war syndrome.

At our meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's comments on the petition and, in particular, to ask whether it has any plans to conduct an inquiry of the nature proposed by the petitioner. We also asked for its views on the accessibility of medical records and the adequacy of treatment of Gulf war veterans in Scotland.

The Executive had yet to respond to the committee when we considered the petition again on 29 June 2004. At that meeting, we agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care expressing our concern about the Executive's delay in responding and inviting him to respond during the summer recess. A response from the minister that appends a more detailed commentary from the Ministry of Defence has been received. The minister states that he would be willing to look into any cases of alleged shortcomings in NHS treatment offered to veterans in Scotland or any evidence that arrangements for prioritising the treatment of war pensioners are not being followed by NHS boards.

The MOD highlights the fact that it is working with the Medical Research Council to determine how further research might be taken forward and it describes how it plans to consult veterans and other stakeholders. Are there any comments?

I am pleased to see the response from the Minister for Health and Community Care. I welcome the fact that he has responded in such a positive way. It has also been helpful to see the response from the MOD. We should perhaps ask what the petitioners think and discuss their response at a future meeting, but I am encouraged and heartened by what I have seen to date.

There are a couple of things in the response from the MOD that I am concerned about. I want to put on the record my view that the condemnation of Alexander Izett after what he and his comrades gave for the MOD is a wee bit unpalatable. I see from the papers that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Veterans will be visiting Scotland soon. It would be lovely to have a word with him about the issue. Can we do that?

Ministers from Whitehall have been invited to committees before and there has been dialogue about whether they can be forced. I think that they can be invited, but there are no powers to force them to come—that seemed to be the answer at the time. For what purpose would we bring the minister here?

I would like to hear from the Whitehall minister and I would like him to hear from the committee.

If I thought that major issues were not being dealt with, I would entirely agree with making that request. However, there are two reasons why we should not do so. First, we could discuss the matter with our own minister, Mary Mulligan MSP, who is a member of the veterans task force. Secondly, the petition raises a specific health issue rather than the broad-brush issues that the MOD has kindly addressed. The Minister for Health and Community Care has responded positively on the health issue by asking for examples so that he can do something about it. His letter also states that he has reminded the NHS across Scotland that war veterans should be treated as a priority. We should inform the various associations and the petitioner, Mr Izett, about the positive response that we have received on the health issue and ask them for their comments.

The UK Government's response states that there is no evidence for the multiple symptoms among the veterans, but it does not examine whether those symptoms were caused by the cocktail of drugs that was used. The war veterans are said to be a priority, but it has taken 13 or 14 years to get to this stage. It is time that this Parliament called on that Parliament to ask Dr Lewis Moonie exactly what is going on, why the situation has gone on so long and why we cannot get a positive outcome sooner.

I think that that would be entirely appropriate. We could write to the Whitehall minister to ask those types of question within the context of the petition, so Rosie Kane's request is not unreasonable. That would not mean inviting the minister to come here, but we could take up those questions with him.

He will be in Scotland soon anyway. However, I would certainly like to ask him those questions by some means.

The UK Government's response also mentions that Gulf war veterans are encouraged to attend St Thomas' hospital in London. Are all Gulf war veterans encouraged to go there or are there similar facilities for veterans in Scotland?

The issue was not raised when we discussed the matter previously. The petition is about the health impact of Gulf war syndrome. We need to keep focused on that.

Hospitals are a health matter.

The letter from the Minister for Health and Community Care highlights what the NHS in Scotland can do about the health impact of Gulf war syndrome. We can infer from that that the veterans are treated by the NHS in Scotland. Rosie Kane's question about the contents of the drugs cocktail and some of that technical information is a different matter, although it is still relevant to the petition—

The UK Government's response mentions those details.

We can deal with the petition in two ways. We will act on the petition by taking up the issue with the MOD about the drugs that were given to the veterans. Equally, we will take up the suggestion made by Jackie Baillie and Helen Eadie of writing to the petitioner and the others who were engaged in the initial circulation of the petition to ask them for their comments. Both things are not incompatible. Are members happy that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Skye Bridge Tolls (PE727)

Petition PE727 calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to order the immediate suspension of tolls on the A87 between the Isle of Skye and mainland Scotland.

At our meeting on 28 April 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Executive to seek confirmation of the timescale for ending the toll regime and to ask the Executive to respond to the points that were raised in the submission of Professor Poustie of the University of Strathclyde, which the petitioner supplied. The Executive's response says that the end of the discredited toll regime on the Skye bridge is likely to be achieved by the end of this year. It also states:

"the agreed costs of £23.64 million at 1991 prices have not yet been recovered".

For the committee's consideration, the petitioner has supplied further evidence, which has been circulated with members' committee papers. Have members any comments?

I was heartened when the minister responded to an oral question in the chamber by announcing that there would be a review of all toll bridges in Scotland. He recognised that the Scottish Executive had given a commitment. Progress has been made and we should welcome the minister's position.

I, too, welcome the minister's position and the Executive's commitment to end tolls by the end of the year. The end of the year is not very far away, so has a date for ending the tolls been fixed? If it has not, perhaps we should seek such a date.

The information comes as a surprise to me—I did not realise that tolls would end by the end of the year.

It is a surprise to everyone, but it is a welcome surprise. It would be nice to know what the set date will be.

Members will recall that we agreed at a previous meeting that the Executive was moving to do away with the toll regime and that it had been suggested to us that that would happen by the end of the year. We are still on course to achieve that. If we weaken the argument or lengthen the discussion by incorporating other elements into our aim of getting rid of the tolls, we will prolong the issue beyond the end of the year. I would not be happy with that; we have a commitment and we should hold to it.

Are you happy with the commitment that has been made?

The petitioner has presented new evidence on a royal charter that has been through the courts in the past few days.

My suggestion was not that we should consider new evidence, but that we should ask a simple question about the date on which the Executive's commitment will be honoured. That is the issue that concerns most people.

That is the question, because the Executive's letter states:

"The second phase will include an examination of the broader issues, relating to the management, operation and maintenance of the tolled bridges. This will also include an assessment of how the tolled bridges relate to the new regional and national transport arrangements. This phase should be completed by summer 2005."

I do not know where the reference to the end of 2004 comes from.

The letter also states that during a debate on 3 June the Deputy First Minister

"restated the Executive's commitment to ending the discredited toll regime on the Skye Bridge. During that debate he stated the Executive's belief that we can achieve our goal by the end of this year."

I do not think that the minister's commitment to end the Skye bridge toll regime by the end of the year is changed by the fact that that will happen within the context of a broader review. John Scott is asking whether it will happen on 31 December or on a date prior to that.

It may have meant one year from when the Deputy First Minister made the statement.

The review of the wider issue of tolls throughout Scotland will be completed by the summer of 2005.

Unlike Helen Eadie, I am not suggesting that we consider the wider review of tolls. I am seeking merely a one-line answer.

We are at cross-purposes. The letter from the Executive states:

"The first phase, which is beginning now, will assess all existing tolls including the way in which potential changes to tolls could help achieve our environmental and economic objectives … We expect this phase to be complete within 3 months."

In other words, the first phase relates to all tolled bridges.

In the final sentence of the next paragraph of the letter, it is made clear that during the debate on 3 June, the minister

"stated the Executive's belief that we can achieve our goal by the end of this year."

To my mind, that means 31 December. Do we need further clarification?

John Scott hit the nail on the head. There are other issues that we could discuss and debate, but we need a simple answer to a simple question: when will tolls be removed from the Skye bridge?

I see no harm in our asking that specific question. I imagine that if the Executive can provide a date we will get the answer that we are seeking. Do we agree to put the question to the Executive in writing?

Members indicated agreement.

We will await the minister's response.

---

Egg Stamping Legislation (PE733)

PE733 concerns guidance on legislation regarding egg stamping. The petitioner calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to provide guidance to egg producers in Scotland on relevant legislation relating to egg stamping, and asks whether that is compatible with the provisions of the Council of the European Union's decision 94/371/EC.

At its meeting on 26 May, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's views on the issues that the petition raises, in particular the compatibility of the Council regulation on egg stamping and the European Commission regulation on the prevention of the washing and cleaning of eggs. We also asked the Executive whether it plans to produce guidance on the new egg-stamping requirements for egg producers. We have received a response from the Executive, which states:

"The Executive does not consider the two Regulations to be incompatible."

The response goes on to say that

"The Executive has produced an explanatory leaflet covering all aspects of the EC Egg Marketing Standards Regulations".

It concludes:

"The Executive will continue to work closely with individual producers and their representative organisations on all aspects of egg production."

The petitioner has written to the committee to request an opportunity to comment on the Executive's response and to suggest that the committee obtain a copy of a report on salmonella by Professor Heather Dick. I invite members' views on the petition.

For clarification, does the petitioner seek to come back before the committee or does he want to comment in writing?

He wants to comment in writing. I think that the purpose of his letter to the committee was to refer us to the research paper.

I thought that our normal practice was to encourage petitioners to give us their views on the Executive's responses as a matter of course.

The normal practice is for the committee to consider the response first and then to decide whether to invite the petitioner to comment.

I welcome the Scottish Executive's response. The situation in relation to the petitioner's question seems to be quite clear cut: the two regulations are not incompatible. I am happy with that response. I suspect that the petitioner is trying to raise a different issue about salmonella, which was not in the petition. If he thinks that there is a problem with the compatibility of the regulations, perhaps we should allow him to tell us about that, but the Executive's response is pretty clear.

Are members happy to close the petition?

No. We should ask the petitioner why he thinks the Executive is wrong; the Executive's position does not appear to be wrong.

Do members agree to give the petitioner the opportunity to respond?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Houses in Multiple Occupation (PE736)

PE736 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to make the necessary legislative changes to ensure that the impact on locality is taken into account when licenses are granted for houses in multiple occupation.

At its meeting on 12 May, the committee agreed to write to the Executive to seek comments on the issues that the petition raises and to invite the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council, the University of Edinburgh accommodation services and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to provide details of their experiences in the matter. In its response, the Executive said that revised guidance on HMO licensing would be published in July 2004 and would take account of the results of its review of the system, which was completed in March 2003. The Executive's response also states:

"if there is a need for control in a particular area, the Executive believes that the planning system is the correct mechanism for taking into account the impact on the locality of any development. The Scottish Executive has no plans … to constrain local authorities' discretion in this regard."

The City of Edinburgh Council states in its response that there will be a review of

"all aspects of planning policy in relation to HMOs, with specific consideration to be given to the introduction, in Edinburgh, of a percentage threshold for each area."

The response from the University of Edinburgh accommodation services states that it is the university's contention that HMO density limits are not required. The response includes copies of letters from Shelter Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, which were published in the Edinburgh Evening News on 7 February 2004 and appear to oppose proposals to restrict the number of houses in multiple occupation in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh University students association submitted a paper on the issue—although it was not formally asked to respond to the petition—which has been circulated with committee papers. Do members have comments on the petition?

I agree entirely with the Executive. It is a planning matter and the impact on any given locality of HMOs can be determined through the planning system. That is evidenced by the fact that Glasgow City Council has managed to do what the petitioners want to have done in Edinburgh. I do not think that there is a case for more powers or regulations; they exist if a local authority is minded to use them. Given that it is therefore a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council—which appears to be taking things forward, following a request from the HMO working group in the city—I recommend that we take no further action on the petition.

I agree, but with the caveat that we should ensure that we pass a copy of the report to the City of Edinburgh Council and say that we welcome the progress that it is making on behalf of the petitioners. It is important to underpin the work that was started off by the petitioners, and it is to the petitioners' credit that they have highlighted an important issue.

Is it agreed that we close the petition at that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

Unfortunately, Dennis Canavan has not made it to the meeting, and we have to deal with PE500 before we go on to item 4. I hope that Dennis Canavan will arrive while we are considering it, but we have to address it.

The petition concerns increased payments to pensioners from the Scottish Transport Group pension fund. The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to increase at the earliest possible date the amount that is on offer to former members of the Scottish transport group pension funds, so that they receive maximum benefit from the pension fund surplus. The petition is prompted by the petitioners' concerns about the continued failure to make payments to former members of the Scottish Transport Group pension fund from the pension fund surplus, despite the fact that it is 10 years since privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.

At our meeting on 9 June 2004, the committee considered another response from the Minister for Transport, along with comments from the Inland Revenue. The committee expressed a number of concerns relating to the minister's response and agreed to invite further comment from him, particularly in relation to interest on late payments and a final timescale for the payments from the surplus funds that remain outstanding. The committee agreed to ask Her Majesty's Treasury whether it is satisfied that there has been parity in the treatment of Scottish Transport Group pensioners and National Bus Company pensioners. In addition, the minister issued a news release on 6 August 2004 in which he states:

"A third and final round of payments due to members will be made by the end of the year."

Do members have any comments?

I think that the Minister for Transport will be very busy at the end of this year, given everything that is likely to happen. My inclination is to keep the petition open until those payments are made, simply because of the length of time that has elapsed. I am not suggesting for a minute that I doubt the Executive's word on that, but I feel that it would be unwise to close the petition at this stage.

Are members generally happy with that?

A substantial amount of the pension fund has been paid out to members. The current delay has come about because quite a number of individuals and families who would benefit from the fund cannot be traced, so the pension fund managers are sitting with quite a substantial amount until they can ensure that the recipients or their relatives are no longer around. Once they have determined that, the rest of the money will be disposed of to the existing pensioners.

I think that something to that effect has been decided. There are issues about non-take-up of moneys that the Scottish Public Pensions Agency knows should have been distributed to people. However, while that money lies in the pension fund, it accrues interest, which means that the pool of money is actually increasing as it lies there. There is a host of issues relating to that, so I tend to agree with Jackie Baillie that the issue will probably have a bit to run before it is resolved. However, we could ask the minister to keep us updated so that, if there are any further developments, we get the opportunity to consider them, which will allow us to keep the petition open pending more information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.