Public Petitions Committee, 16 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Police Assaults (PE482)

The first current petition is PE482, by Douglas Keil, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to make it compulsory for assailants and others who have exposed or potentially exposed a police officer to a risk of infection to submit to a blood test or tests that will be made available to the police officer should he so wish, and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to allow the results of those tests to be retained on the police national computer.

The Minister for Justice's response says:

"we will … be publishing our response to this petition, in the form of a consultation document entitled Blood testing following criminal incidents where there is a risk of infection: Proposals for legislation … we intend to bring forward legislation within the forthcoming Police Bill."

That appears to be a bit of a success for the petition. I know that the petitioners see it in that light. We can mark it down as a success for the committee and close the petition. We look forward to seeing the legislation.

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

PE500 is by Alex Anderson on behalf of the Scottish Bus Group Pensioners Action Committee and calls on the Scottish 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.

At its meeting on 15 September 2004, the committee agreed to keep the petition open and to ask the Executive to keep it informed of developments on the final payments to pension fund members. The Executive has sent a further response that says:

"Further payments totalling £3.8 million were paid to former beneficiaries of the schemes on 17 December 2004."

We are joined by Dennis Canavan, who has taken an interest in the petition throughout.

The Executive's letter says that nearly all the £126 million that was allocated for ex gratia payments has been paid. After existing late claims have been dealt with, £235,000 will be left from the sum that was set aside for late claims. If no further late claims are made, that sum should of course be paid to those who submitted valid claims. If there are just over 12,000 claimants, that would work out at an average of less than £20 per claimant, which is a relatively small sum.

The bigger outstanding issues are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Treasury, rather than the Scottish Executive. The convener might recall that the committee received in July last year a letter from Ruth Kelly in her capacity as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That letter referred to a meeting that she had had with George Foulkes, who at the time was the Minister of State at the Scotland Office, with Transport and General Workers Union officials and with a delegation of MSPs—that is a misprint in the letter. The reference should be to MPs, because no MSPs attended the meeting; I certainly was not invited and I know of no other MSPs who were invited. I do not know the details of the outcome of that meeting, but George Foulkes, in his wisdom, should perhaps have submitted an appeal to challenge the integrity of the Treasury's decision. He would have been on safer ground with that than he has been with subsequent decisions that he has challenged.

Ruth Kelly talks absolute nonsense when she claims that Scottish Transport Group pensioners have had parity of treatment with National Bus Company pensioners south of the border. The truth is that the National Bus Company pensioners got about 60 per cent of their gross surplus and paid no income tax, whereas the Scottish Transport Group pensioners are getting only about 47 per cent of their gross surplus and many are having income tax deducted. The STG pensioners are not getting even half the loaf. Additionally, corporation tax was previously deducted at 35 per cent and the UK Treasury also pocketed another £50 million from the surplus. Therefore, the responses from the UK Treasury and the Inland Revenue have been very unsatisfactory. Of course, the UK Treasury and the Inland Revenue are responsible to the Westminster Parliament rather than the Scottish Parliament, so the question arises: where do we go from here?

If the committee had the power to summon Ruth Kelly before it to answer detailed questions on the position of the UK Treasury and the Inland Revenue, I would propose that it did that. Unfortunately, the committee does not have that power, and I do not think that we are making any meaningful progress by continuing the correspondence. We are just getting negative, stone-wall answers. If the committee feels that it has gone as far as it can go, I respectfully suggest that the convener should write to Mr Anderson, who started the petition, expressing regret that the replies from the UK Treasury and the Inland Revenue have been so unsatisfactory and explaining that the UK Treasury and the Inland Revenue are responsible to the Westminster Parliament rather than the Scottish Parliament. The convener might also suggest that the pensioners consider pursuing the income tax matter by taking several test cases through the Inland Revenue appeals procedure.

Thanks very much for those suggestions, Dennis. Do members have any comments to make in response to what Dennis Canavan has said or on the correspondence that we have received?

I congratulate the committee on the action that has been taken. I was not on the committee when Dennis Canavan brought the matter to the Parliament. The committee has pursued the issue as far as it can and has got some good, positive results. Even if we close the petition, we should keep an eye on what happens to the moneys and we should follow Dennis's suggestion of sending Mr Anderson a letter to explain the situation and to encourage him to take up the income tax issue with the Treasury. It is ridiculous that people here are having to pay income tax of 40 per cent and are getting less than anyone else just because it was a Scottish company.

There seems to be a consensus of opinion on that. Are members agreed that we should close the petition but keep an eye on the situation? The matter will not close itself, but we cannot take the petition any further. I will write to Mr Anderson in those terms.

Members indicated agreement.

I place on record my thanks to the committee and its predecessor committee for their tenacity in pursuing the matter. That has led to substantial amounts being paid out to the pensioners, with average ex gratia payments of more than £10,000. As I said, I still think that the pensioners are entitled to more; however, given the fact that the Government and the Scottish Executive originally proposed to give them nothing at all, significant progress has been made. I am sure that the pensioners are grateful to the committee for its endeavours.

Thanks very much, Dennis. Your tenacity has kept the petition alive, and many of the questions that we asked came about because you were not prepared just to accept the responses that you received from Westminster. You are to be congratulated on the support that you have given to the Scottish Transport Group pensioners. The members of the local group that I have been dealing with are very appreciative. They had a meeting with you recently to see whether there was scope to take the issue further. I know that many people are grateful for the effort that you have put in on their behalf.

Thank you, convener.

I have been a member of the committee since it started and can say that Dennis Canavan has worked tenaciously on the issue. What the convener said is absolutely right and I endorse his comment that Dennis, too, must be congratulated.

---

Scottish Airports (Access to Public Roads) (PE528)

PE528 calls on the Scottish Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the consequences for transport infrastructure in Scotland of competition in on-site and off-site car parking at Scottish airports, and to amend legislation as it considers appropriate.

At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee agreed to request an update from the Scottish Executive on the Executive's consideration of the byelaws in relation to the Airports Act 1986 and to request further information from BAA plc, the British airports authority. Members have the response from BAA, but the committee has received no substantive response from the Executive, despite the fact that the clerks have sent a number of reminders.

Before we deal with the substantive issue, we must have an answer from the Minister for Transport. I repeat what I have said in the past: rather than write again to the Executive, the convener should request a meeting with the minister. We cannot allow the committee to be treated in such a way. Some 14 months have passed since we wrote to the Executive and we have received three holding replies. No reason has been given for why we have been sent only holding replies. The convener should seek a meeting with Nicol Stephen, first, to ask why such a long time has passed without our receiving a proper answer and, secondly, to get the answer from the minister in person.

I am more than happy to request such a meeting. I assure members that when I know that letters from ministers are outstanding, I take any opportunity that I can to remind them that we are waiting for their reply. Often, ministers come to me first to let me know that they are still looking into the issue. However, when we have received responses from other organisations and are prevented from considering a petition further only by the absence of a proper response from the minister, I am happy to formalise our approach and to ask the minister to set aside time to meet me to discuss the matter.

We should put it more strongly than that. We took the same approach with Peter Peacock, who came to a meeting of the committee. We should ask Nicol Stephen to come before the committee to answer our questions in person. We should send the Executive a strong, clear message that it is not right for any committee of the Parliament to be treated with disrespect and given no answers, as has happened in this instance.

I agree. I received an e-mail from John McGlynn, of Glasgow Airport Parking Association Ltd. Did other members receive that e-mail?

Yes.

I was expecting the minister to respond to our correspondence and, in so doing, to address the apparent divergence of views about whether the issue has been resolved. BAA says that the issue has been resolved, but GAPA says that it has not been. The minister is best placed to address the matter by carrying out research into the problem, which he should do as a matter of urgency.

Either I approach the minister and ask him to speed up his response, or we cut to the chase and invite the minister to attend a meeting at which we will put questions directly to him. If he will not respond in writing, we can take the bull by the horns and ask him to the meeting. Are members satisfied that that is the appropriate way forward?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Institutional Child Abuse (PE535)

PE535, which was lodged by Chris Daly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to order an inquiry into past institutional child abuse, in particular in relation to children who were in the care of the state under the supervision of religious orders, to make unreserved apology for said state bodies and to urge the religious orders to apologise unconditionally.

At its meeting on 22 December, the committee agreed to write again to the Catholic Church to seek clarification of the nature of the apology that was made in December 2001 and to ascertain whether the Catholic Church is minded to allow access to the files that it holds on victims. In its response, the Catholic Church said:

"the Cardinal's apology of December 2001 was an unreserved apology which was clearly and distinctively directed towards all victims of institutional child abuse."

In relation to access to files, the Church says:

"Religious orders are autonomous orders within the Church and they are independent in the areas of administration, legal, financial and fiscal, the Bishop's Conference therefore does not maintain the records pertinent to your enquiry."

Do members have suggestions about how we should deal with the matter? It might be appropriate to ask the petitioner to comment on the response to find out whether it satisfies the request for an apology. We must take it as read that, within the church structures, religious orders are autonomous bodies and so the Bishops' Conference of Scotland is not responsible for handing over the information that is requested. However, the inquiry that was set up will approach the orders for the information. We could ask the Scottish information commissioner about whether he can access it.

Mr Daly is, I think, a member of the In Care Abused Support/In Care Abuse Survivors group—INCAS—from which we have received a response to the Catholic Parliamentary Office's letter of 21 February. I do not disagree that we should ask Mr Daly for his comments, but it would be surprising if he said anything different from what INCAS has already said.

That might be the case. We have always had an issue—it is not a difficulty—with the fact that Mr Daly is a petitioner in his own right. Although he is involved with INCAS and will probably take a similar view to it, we cannot assume that his view will be the same. He did not submit the petition on behalf of INCAS—it was his petition—so we must get back to him.

I accept that.

He might well agree with INCAS about the response, but that is a matter for him to advise us on. Do members agree that we should write to Chris Daly to ask for his views and to the information commissioner to ask for an update?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sustainable Development (Communities) (PE741)

Our next petition is PE741, which calls on the Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the impact of Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise development targets and incentives on balanced and sustainable development at community level.

At its meeting on 23 June 2004, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Minister for Communities, the Govan Initiative and Scottish Enterprise Glasgow. The responses have been circulated to members, along with submissions from the petitioners and three Glasgow City Council councillors.

It is difficult to read between the lines of information about a body such as the Govan Initiative, which has relations with Scottish Enterprise, among other agencies. I have been pretty critical of some social inclusion partnership projects and I have looked at the report that the petitioners provided, but I have also spoken to people who are involved in the SIP in Govan and to other people and I believe that it would not be right to examine the Govan Initiative directly. The issue is not just about the Govan Initiative; it is much bigger than that. We cannot go much further with the petition.

Those are valid points and members seem to be happy with the responses. Do members agree that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sewage Sludge (PE749)

PE749 calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek a moratorium on the spreading of sewage sludge, pending a full inquiry into the safety of the practice by a parliamentary committee. Depending on the outcome of the inquiry, the petition also calls on the Parliament as a minimum to initiate legislation at the earliest opportunity to discontinue the current exemptions for spreading sewage sludge and to ensure that it is subject to planning control, including a public local inquiry.

At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee agreed to write again to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the petitioners, Sanquhar and district community council and David Mundell MSP to invite their comments on the responses from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Scottish Water and SEPA. The committee has also received a response from Envar. The responses have been circulated to members.

SEPA's response states that it is Scottish Water's responsibility to provide evidence that will reassure the public and SEPA that its activities are not harmful. However, there is no evidence that Scottish Water has done that—I am sure that SEPA would have told us if it had had such an assurance. We should ask Scottish Water to do that.

I also want to mention the issue that was raised in the late submission that we received from an organisation called Envar of which I was not aware before I read its submission. Envar seems to draw a distinction between treated and partially treated sewage sludge. In the response that we received, Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, said:

"almost half of Scotland's sludge is co-incinerated … Most of Scotland's remaining sewage sludge is recycled".

Can we ask the minister to clarify whether he is talking about all sludge or just treated or partially treated sludge? It might be a fine point, but Envar seems to be saying that there are different types of sludge, yet the Executive seems not to differentiate between the two.

I am not sure when we received Ross Finnie's response. Committee members might or might not be aware that the practice of burning sewage sludge in pelletised form has been stopped. Previously, Scottish Water and Scottish Power had an arrangement under which pellets were being burnt at a power station. A very real issue is involved if we cannot burn treated sewage sludge, put it in landfill or spread it on agricultural land. The Environment and Rural Development Committee needs to examine the issue. At the same time, I pose the question of how we are to dispose of the material.

Although I would not dream of trying to tell a committee how to do its work, as part of its investigation, the Environment and Rural Development Committee should take on board David Mundell's comment that SEPA is not taking a proactive enough role in the matter. The issue that David Mundell raised is also worthy of investigation.

David Mundell has sent his apologies; he had hoped to be at the committee this morning, but he cannot make it. Unfortunately, that means that we cannot question him directly on the point. Do we ask the Environment and Rural Development Committee to consider the information that we have at the moment, or do we wait for a response to Mike Watson's questions before sending the information on to the Environment and Rural Development Committee? I leave that question hanging.

We should get answers to the questions that Mike Watson has posed. I read the e-mail from Envar last night, which seems to suggest that the process that is going on in Newcastleton is not safe. As for any other health and safety issue, one would want an immediate prohibition of the practice, pending further investigations. The right environmental people should become involved so that a prohibition notice can be served on the developer, pending the outcome of any discussions.

I agree that we should seek a response. If we have the powers to do so, we should ask SEPA to stop the process until we have the information that we seek. My reading of the Envar e-mail tells me that something irregular is happening at Newcastleton. It should not be happening and we should move to try to stop it.

Colleagues on the Public Petitions Committee will be aware of my unhealthy preoccupation over the years with matters relating to sewage. There is a link between the area in which I have a particular interest, which is the processing of sewage at waste water treatment plants and related odour problems, and the subject of PE749.

I note that in his response the minister made reference to legislative change. I am not sure whether the reference is to the late inclusions that we managed to make to the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill that were linked to odour control. I know that odour is only one aspect of the petition, but it is an important aspect nonetheless. I am instinctively sympathetic to much of what underpins the petition, which is the need for the issue to be taken more seriously. I am instinctively unsympathetic to calls for moratoriums, but that is another matter.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee is well placed to say what is the current state of play on the panoply of sewage processing issues and to consider the associated problems. That ties in with what I have said before about the fact that we seem to keep revisiting the same questions but not moving on.

I remember that the Environment and Rural Development Committee has considered the matter, as I am sure the Public Petitions Committee has. In the first session, the Transport and the Environment Committee produced a very good report on the issue and the Executive has done work subsequently. The question to which I would like to know the answer is whether that has made a difference, so that the matter is moving forward, or whether everybody just keeps exchanging letters and thoughts on the issue and not doing anything to address the concerns of the petitioners.

That is a long-winded way of saying that the work that has taken place does not preclude our getting answers to the questions that Mike Watson has raised. I am attracted to the idea of the Environment and Rural Development Committee considering the matter, because of its accumulated expertise and insights.

I agree that the Environment and Rural Development Committee should certainly consider the matter.

I add, by way of clarification, that I said in my initial comments that it was the Envar submission that raised the different types of sewage: in fact, I have now noticed that it was Mrs Diana Johnson who did so in her e-mail to the committee. I think that she is from the Blairingone community group. For the record, that is where the point was made, although the issues that relate to it remain the same.

I was interested to hear Susan Deacon's comments. There is a huge issue that needs to be investigated again. We need solutions and I do not know that we are getting them. We perhaps also need to examine whether SEPA is playing a sufficiently proactive role. Solutions could perhaps be found with better guidance from SEPA. SEPA's role in all of this is that it is currently preventing solutions from being found to the problem. I refer specifically to the burning of pellets as fuel under an agreement negotiated between Scottish Water and Scottish Power. That is a huge problem for Scottish Water. Jon Hargreaves, the chief executive of Scottish Water, has raised the specific issue with me. He is wringing his hands as to how to address it. It was SEPA that brought the action.

The key point that Diana Johnson makes in her e-mail—she is right to highlight it—is that when the Public Petitions Committee conducted a major inquiry, it took that role on board. We heard evidence from SEPA and various witnesses.

The point that Diana Johnson makes about partially treated sewage and Dr Curnow's recommendation should now be urgently addressed. She states:

"Dr Curnow's recommendation is well supported by 16 Professors of Public Health and Soil Science from the National Academy of Science in America".

She goes on to state that a report concluded that spreading sewage to land was based on "outdated science".

It would be right for the Environment and Rural Development Committee to take the matter on board. It would also be helpful, for our own purposes, if we could get the information that Mike Watson has called for in the meantime.

I was going to suggest that we do that. If we get the petition into the system with the Environment and Rural Development Committee, we can pass on the recommendation that it should take on board the specific points that Mike Watson has raised. If we send the questions to the specific bodies, we will be able to send on the responses to the Environment and Rural Development Committee when they come back, but consideration of the petition will be in that committee's system. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Green-belt Land (Legal Protection) (PE712)<br />Green-belt Sites (Scottish Executive Policy) (PE724)

The next two petitions are PE712 and PE724. PE712 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that green-belt land is given the appropriate legal protection. PE724 calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review its policy on green-belt sites.

At its meeting on 23 February, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to express its concern at the lack of response. The committee subsequently received a response from the Executive on 4 March, which has been circulated. The Executive states:

"A review of green belt policy has recently been carried out for the Executive by Heriot-Watt University/Andrew Robinson Associates … Following on from the research, the Executive has now begun the process of preparing a new Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) on green belts … A draft SPP is due to be published for public consultation in spring 2005, in advance of a possible Planning Bill."

Do members have views on the matter?

The petitioners could be invited to respond to the Executive's public consultation and the petition could be closed.

It looks as though there is potential for legislation to be produced, so the petitioners will have the chance to participate in that process. Are members happy that we do what Helen Eadie suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sir William Wallace (PE781)

Our last current petition is PE781, calling on the Scottish Parliament to commemorate the 700th anniversary of Sir William Wallace's death on 23 August 2005; to mark the day as an annual event in the Scottish calendar thereafter; to acknowledge on the public record that William Wallace was not guilty of the charge of treason; and to make representations to the UK Parliament for a declaration of his innocence and that he be exonerated of that charge.

At its meeting of 10 November 2004, the committee agreed to seek the comments of the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. The committee also agreed to seek a legal perspective from the Crown Office and an academic perspective from Professor Cowan of the department of history at the University of Glasgow, as well as to write to the clan Wallace. The responses that have been received have been circulated to the committee. Do members have any views on the petition?

I welcome the planned celebrations for the 700th anniversary of William Wallace's death. However, we should note that the Crown Office's response is that it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It makes sense to suggest that the petitioners pursue the matter with Scottish MPs, inviting them to bring it up at Westminster if they feel that that is appropriate. It is outwith the gift of Scotland to pursue the matter any further.

The Crown Office has done its best, and I also thank the clan Wallace for writing to the committee. We have discussed the petition and have done all that we can, although I would have liked an immediate apology. I support John Scott's suggestion that the petitioners be encouraged to write to all the Scottish MPs, asking that William Wallace gets an apology because he did not commit treason. I also invite everybody to join in the celebrations and to take part in the walk from Lanark or Stirling down to Westminster. I am going down there on 23 August to commemorate William Wallace's death, and others should feel free to do so.

Are members agreed that we should follow John Scott's suggestion and close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.