Public Petitions Committee, 17 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Official Report 261KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

Our first current petition is PE504, from Mr and Mrs James Watson, who call for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to stop convicted murderers or members of their families profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.

At its meeting on 17 May, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Justice for an update. The minister's response has been circulated to members, and the petitioners have submitted their response to the consultation with other correspondence that has been made available to the committee this morning. Members will note the petitioners' request that, as the UK Government has indicated its intention to launch a consultation on defamation of deceased victims of crime, which forms a large part of the petitioners' concerns, the petition be kept open until that process is complete. Do members have any views on that?

I am sure that it is pleasing for the petitioners to note that the issue is being actively pursued by both the Minister for Justice and the Home Office, as well as by the Northern Ireland Office. I am sure that everyone around the table warmly welcomes that. In recognition of the fact that the review continues, we should keep the petition open and collectively try to ensure that the wishes of the petitioners are recognised.

I agree with Helen Eadie that the petition should be kept open. I thank Mr and Mrs Watson for their written submission. They ask us for our views on the comments that were made by Shaun Woodward MP about politicians and public figures having a better chance of procuring media coverage if they disagree. I would say that that is just the view of Shaun Woodward MP; it is certainly not the view of all politicians. I concur with what Helen Eadie says about keeping the petition open until we get a further response about the UK Government's consultation.

Yes. It is vital that we keep the petition open. The fact that it will be kept open for a fifth year and into a third parliamentary session is an indication of how seriously the committee has taken the petition. I am pleased—as, I am sure, are other members—that it appears that we are getting movement on the issue, at last. If we are, that probably represents a victory for the committee.

Are members happy with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Environmental Protection Act 1990 (PE884)

Our next petition is PE884, from Sandra Clarkson, on behalf of Prestwick marine neighbourhood watch, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure that local authorities keep beaches free of litter and refuse throughout the year.

At its meeting on 3 May, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses from the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Marine Conservation Society, COSLA and South Ayrshire Council. A response from the petitioner has been circulated. Do members have any comments to make on it?

The petition originated in my constituency. The state of Prestwick beach caused a great deal of concern at the time—indeed, it probably still does. I am sure that the council has taken the petitioners' views on board. As the response from South Ayrshire Council notes, a balance must be struck between what can be reasonably afforded and what is necessary in the petitioners' view. I am slightly disappointed with SEPA's response. It could have taken a stronger view on the issue, but there it is.

There have been health and safety issues with animal carcases on the beach. The council has an absolute duty to ensure that they are removed and, thereafter, to spend as much as it can afford. I hope that the petitioners find that reasonable.

As we cannot intervene in individual council decisions and as there do not appear to be any gaps in the legislation, we have to consider closing the petition. I honestly cannot think of anything else we can do with it, much as I would like to.

Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE889)

The next petition, by James A Mackie, calls for the Scottish Parliament to examine the workings of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and, in particular, the making available of legal representation and legal aid to patients under the influence of prescribed antipsychotic or brain-altering type drugs who have been detained in psychiatric wards or been released into the community.

At its meeting on 3 May, the committee agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the responses from the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health. That response has now been circulated to members. I would welcome members' comments on the responses.

I am sure that everyone will welcome the Law Society's response; it is a fairly positive comment.

It is very good news that the Law Society has established its scheme for the accreditation of lawyers who specialise in mental health issues. As its response has addressed the petition, perhaps we should close it.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Victim Notification Scheme (PE899)

PE899 is by Hazel Reid, who is calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation of the victim notification scheme to ensure that victims of serious violent and sexual crimes are given the right to receive information about the release from prison of an offender who has committed a crime against them, regardless of the length of sentence imposed.

At its meeting on 17 May, the committee agreed to await the outcome of the Scottish Executive review of the victim notification scheme before it considered what further action to take on this petition. The Executive has informed the committee that an independent researcher has now been appointed to contribute to the Executive's assessment of the effectiveness of the statutory scheme.

When I was reading this last night, I was concerned that the responses from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Victim Support Scotland and others suggested that there should not be a time limit. Sacro says:

"It is increasingly recognised that the 4 years point has no particular relevance other than as an administrative toll and the Sentencing Commission has recommended that it disappear in a new approach to sentencing and early release."

Because we have word that the Scottish Executive has commissioned some research, I would like to keep the petition open. There is a real concern. It is not just down to victims and the four-year timescale; the petitioner has raised a very important point. Although I welcome the developments at the Scottish Executive with its review, I would like to see the petition being followed through if possible.

Do members agree? Are there any other comments?

I agree. I am enormously sympathetic to the petition. We should probably keep it open if we can, and see how it all turns out.

I agree with that. If the work is supposed to be completed by the beginning of 2007, that might mean by the end of this month, so we might be able to get hold of the completed research and see what it says. The petitioner will also get a copy of our deliberations on the petition.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Eco-villages (Planning Policy) (PE903)

Our next petition is PE903, by Eurig Scandrett. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop and introduce a Scottish planning policy document on eco-villages. At its meeting on 31 May last year, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses that had been received. The petitioner's response has been received and circulated to members.

Chris Ballance has indicated that he has an interest in the petition.

I do indeed have an interest in the petition, through a community group in the Scottish Borders that has been trying to set up an eco-village—a small, self-organised development of ecologically built housing. The group has not been able to get anywhere, despite positive noises being made by everyone around them and a lot of support, even from planning officials in Scottish Borders Council. The group has entirely failed to get any mention in the local plan. That demonstrates how the system is simply not working to allow small community-based groups to develop their own housing of that sort.

The Public Petitions Committee has previously indicated a degree of support for the aims of the petition, and widespread support for the aims of the petition has been shown in the responses that the committee has received. However, there is a certain disagreement as to the best way forward. I therefore suggest to the committee that it might, if possible, refer the whole matter to the Communities Committee so that it can look into possible steps of action. The alternative might be for this committee to write to the Executive and indicate its support for an Executive inquiry into how the system is working at the moment.

Do members have any comments on Chris Ballance's suggestion that we send the petition to the Communities Committee?

I agree. I had in fact written down that we should send the petition to the Communities Committee, as well as bring it to the attention of the Executive. As Chris Ballance said, the group has received loads of support from everywhere, yet it is up against—pardon the pun—a brick wall. I think that the petition should go to the Communities Committee, so if it considers a relevant subject in the next session, the petition will be there. Perhaps a working party could be set up—as has been suggested by the petitioner. We cannot just leave the matter; we have to do something with the petition.

I agree. The eco-village seems to be a popular idea, but it is perhaps not popular enough yet. It could be an idea whose time has not yet come. Perhaps it is a matter of a prophet without honour—as ever. It would be reasonable to pass the petition to another committee or to the Executive. I am perfectly happy for us to do that.

Are members happy for us to send the petition on to the Communities Committee and keep it alive in that way? We can close our own consideration of it, having done that.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Breast Cancer (Screening) (PE904)

PE904, by Katie Moffat, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider introducing an early breast cancer screening programme, to start from the age of 30.

At its meeting on 31 May, the committee agreed to invite the petitioner's views on the responses that had been received. The petitioner's response has now been received and has been circulated. Are members happy that the matter has been given serious consideration, and that there is really not much more that can be done? If the petitioner is still of the view that the proposal is a worthwhile exercise, she is entitled to hold that view, but I do not believe that the medical experts think that it is something they can support.

The Cancer Research UK study is significant. It does not appear that it would be effective to do what the petitioner proposes—notwithstanding her absolute sincerity on the matter. It is fortunate that that organisation has undertaken such a significant piece of research. It is undoubted that the issue has been well aired and considered. There is probably not much more that we can reasonably do.

Are members happy that we close the petition at this point?

I am not happy, as I hate to see any petition close. We have, however, done everything we can. The petition has made people more aware of new techniques and aired the subject very well. I hope that the information that we have gleaned from it might prompt an MSP or someone on a health board to pursue the matter. I think that we need to lower the age for screening and consider new screening methods. Having said that, I think that the committee has done everything possible to push the petition through. Reluctantly, I agree that we have to close it.

It has served a useful purpose in heightening awareness of getting enough scans.

That is right. Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Packaging (PE905)

Our next current petition is by Ellie MacDonald and Faith Waddell on behalf of Trinity primary school. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the use of excessive packaging in supermarkets with a view to encouraging the use of recycled alternatives.

At its meeting on 17 May, the committee agreed to invite the petitioners' views on the responses. Do members have any comments? I note that one of the petitioners is with us this morning in the public gallery, so members should bear that in mind when they discuss the issue.

It has been a really worthwhile petition. Scarcely a week goes by without our seeing some item on the news about negotiations on or developments in the subject. Only this week, Marks and Spencer has been talking about how it has tackled the issue, and BBC breakfast news has run a series on it. The points have been taken on board by us all, and we can be much more informed about the choices that we make.

I want again to congratulate the school, teachers and children, and the companies and the Scottish Retail Consortium, which has helped them with the work. The children have done splendid work, and they deserve our total support and congratulations. As the petitioners have achieved what they set out to do, we might want to close the petition.

As Sandra White mentioned when we were talking about the previous petition, it is always a problem to close a petition.

Can we recycle it? [Laughter.]

There is no question but that the petition has achieved results. Given that the process was started by school students looking at a project and bringing it as far as the Scottish Parliament, getting the SRC—a huge lobbying organisation—to act as it did is a major achievement. The petitioners need the congratulations of not only this committee but the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people for their efforts to improve our environment. Well done to them on all that they have achieved.

---

Ancient Woodland (PE858)

Our next current petition is by Andrew Fairbairn on behalf of the Woodland Trust Scotland, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to address the threat to the fragmented remnants of ancient woodland by fulfilling its commitment under the United Kingdom forest partnership for action to protect the nation's rarest and richest wildlife habitat, which was made in preparation for the world summit on sustainable development 2002.

At its meeting on 31 May, the committee agreed to invite the Scottish Executive's views on the response received from the petitioner. That was done. Do members have any views on the response? We could send it to the petitioner for his view on the Executive's response and keep it open in that way.

That is what the petitioner will be expecting.

We will look forward to the petitioner's response to the letter.

Meeting closed at 12:18.