Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Official Report 240KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

Item 2 is current petitions. The first current petition is PE504, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication. At its meeting on 18 January 2006, the committee considered a further response from the Home Office and agreed to seek the views of the Minister for Justice on that response. A response has been received from the minister and circulated to members.

The response is more helpful than the ones that we received previously, in that it says that a consultation paper will be published during 2006. Previously, we did not have a date. That moves the matter forward. We should agree to keep the petition open and we should be advised of the progress of the consultation and the input that the Scottish Executive makes to it.

We will also make sure that the petitioner gets the information that we received. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Packaging (PE905)

The next current petition is PE905, 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 21 December 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Executive. The responses from SEPA and the Scottish Executive have been circulated to members and the response from the Scottish Retail Consortium was made available to members this morning.

I had a quick read of the SRC's response before the meeting and I was pleased with the conclusion. The SRC has been in direct contact with the pupils at Trinity primary school and has agreed to arrange a visit to a member supermarket on 30 May. The visit will allow the children in primary 7 to experience at first hand the way in which the retailer works.

When the petition came to the committee, the petitioners made one of the most effective presentations that we have heard; we should congratulate the school on the petition's success. The children have joined us again this morning and are sitting in the public gallery. I would be interested to hear their views on all the responses from SEPA and the other organisations. I suggest that we write to the school and ask the pupils to give us their views and to tell us about their visit to the supermarket. That would be most useful.

I heard on the radio this morning that some of the major supermarkets are going to use biodegradable materials in their packaging, and I would be interested in the pupils' views on that as well. We will write to the school to ask the pupils how successful they think their petition has been so far.

I should declare an interest before saying this, but the Co-operative has been using biodegradable carrier bags for many years.

It will be interesting to hear the pupils' views. We will also pass on—again—Charlie Gordon's thanks for the chocolate he got that morning.

Are members happy that we write to the school?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gaelic Language Teachers (PE857)

Our next petition is PE857 by Mrs C A Jackson, on behalf of Bowmore primary school, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take urgent action to ensure adequate provision of Gaelic language teachers.

At its meeting on 7 December 2005, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and the national group of parents of children in Gaelic-medium education. We agreed to seek the petitioner's views on those responses. We also agreed to seek the views of Argyll and Bute Council. Responses have now been received. Do members have any suggestions?

Shall we seek the views of the petitioner on the response from Argyll and Bute Council?

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

There seems to be a problem all over the country; it is not particular to Bowmore. I have been in contact with people at the school and we should ask them what they think of the responses that we have received.

John Farquhar Munro is right to emphasise the fact that there is a problem in different parts of the country. The city of Glasgow could, in some respects, claim to be the capital of Gaeldom. Glasgow City Council is committed to the development of a Gaelic-medium secondary school to serve the entire greater Glasgow area, but it will take some time to get that project up and running. One of the major challenges will be the future supply of teachers to teach, in the medium of Gaelic, a range of subjects so as to provide a full secondary school curriculum.

We will write to the school and ask for its views.

---

Maternity Services (Rural Areas) (PE898)

The next petition is PE898 by 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 the quality of services and to ensure that access is retained locally.

At its meeting on 7 December 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of Grampian NHS Board, the Scottish Executive and the Royal College of Midwives. Responses have been received and circulated.

Stewart Stevenson has an interest in the petition. Do you have a comment to make before we consider the petition?

I was particularly struck by the response from the minister. He said:

"Midwife-led units are likely to be particularly important in rural areas where alternatives to consultant-led care will be desirable".

I note that the RCM said:

"The provision of low intervention midwife led care has become a cornerstone of maternity services in Scotland today".

I have a slight concern with the response from NHS Grampian and the way in which it describes the participation of the citizens panel. It says that the citizens panel is made up of 1,200-plus Aberdeenshire residents, which is of course correct. However, I understand that NHS Grampian used a process under which it brought a number of panels into a meeting; it consulted them in that way. I understand that the number involved was 38, of whom only 13 came from my constituency. Again, of those 13, I believe that only two were under the age of 35.

In addition, NHS Grampian appears to have dropped its previous adherence to an association between low throughput maternity-led units and enhanced risk. I contrast what it says with a document that I have received from NHS Highland. I apologise for the fact that committee members do not have a copy before them, but I received it only yesterday. In the document, NHS Highland praises its achievement in the Broadford unit on the Isle of Skye where it has managed to raise the number of deliveries from a total of eight in 2003 to 24 in 2005; that is less than half the throughput of the unit that is under threat in the north-east of Scotland. NHS Highland is delighted with and supportive of the unit and convinced that the model is entirely safe. I will, of course, pass the document to the committee for members' perusal. I hope that the committee can find a way forward for PE898.

Thank you. Our normal procedure is to write to the petitioner at this point to seek their views on the responses. Obviously, your comments will be added to those considerations. When we have received the petitioner's views, we will consider the petition again. Are members agreed that we will take that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Victim Notification Scheme (PE899)

The next petition is PE899 by Hazel Reid, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation of the victim notification scheme to ensure that the 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 that was imposed.

At its meeting on 7 December 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland, Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending and the Scottish Executive. Those responses have been received. Are members happy with the content of the responses?

I was particularly taken by this point in the ACPOS response:

"The decision to limit the service to those cases where the offender is sentenced to four or more years in custody seems arbitrary".

We should reflect further on what ACPOS says. If it is telling us that the system is not working in the best possible way, we need to think through how to impress that view on others and whether more can be done in that regard.

ACPOS goes on to say that, particularly in the case of domestic abuse,

"It is acknowledged that there must be some form of qualifying criteria however a more holistic evaluation of individual cases may be more appropriate."

ACPOS makes a serious point. I suggest that we hold on to what it says for a moment.

I will listen to what other members say on the subject. The Executive has an on-going review of the victim notification scheme, so colleagues may share the view that we need not take any further action on PE899 other than to pass the responses to the petitioner and the VNS implementation group. I am not entirely happy that it is appropriate to close the petition, but we could do so having told the implementation group that we were particularly taken with the point that ACPOS made.

I suggest that we write to the petitioner so that she is aware of the responses, some of which are very positive. I agree that we should write to the implementation group. We have a habit of keeping petitions open until the deed is done. My preference is to keep PE899 live, as a backstop position that will encourage the Executive—although, in this case, it needs no encouragement—to address the issue by 2007.

Are members happy that we keep open PE899 and that we make people aware of the points that Helen Eadie and Jackie Baillie have raised?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Wind Farm Developments<br />(Property Values) (PE816)

Our next petition is PE816 by Mrs Judith Hodgson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the issue of financial compensation for individuals whose property values and businesses are affected by the construction of a wind farm development.

At its meeting on 21 December 2005, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive, the Department for Trade and Industry and Views of Scotland and agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses. Members have received a copy of the petitioner's response. Does any member have a view on what we should do? Are members happy that we close PE816?

I think so.

Yes, I do not think that we will get any further.

What has happened in that locality has been quite legal, and I think that people should be left to sort it out for themselves.

Are members happy that we just close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Housing Stock Transfer (PE829)

The next 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 21 December 2005, the committee considered responses from Communities Scotland, Glasgow Housing Association, Keystone Tenant Managed Homes and the Property Managers Association Scotland, and agreed to seek the petitioners' comments on those responses. Their comments have been received and circulated.

It is obvious that the petitioners are disappointed with the responses that they have received, and there is still no movement. I know that the petitioners are present today, and I met people from the area at the weekend regarding the petition. They are still unhappy that no pilot scheme has gone ahead, but I have just received information that the British Research Establishment is looking into matters to do with the type of house in question. There has been no report back on that—I have certainly not received a report—so I ask the committee to keep the petition live until the British Research Establishment report has been published, because it might throw further light on why nothing has been done to the houses after 18 months or two years. I crave the committee's indulgence in keeping the petition live and increasing the pressure in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome.

If there is further information that might give us a broader view of the circumstances, I see no reason why we could not keep the petition open and await that information, if you can assure us that you know where it is coming from.

I believe that Glasgow City Council and the GHA have written to the British Research Establishment asking it to conduct a survey, which has not yet appeared.

We should write back to the GHA, given that it was quick to refute the impression that was given at the previous meeting on 27 April. If it wants to give us an update, I am sure that we would want to avail ourselves of that opportunity.

We shall wait for that information and then write back to the GHA.

---

Drinking Water (Chloramine Treatment) (PE842)

Our final petition this morning is PE842, from Mrs F C Bowman, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the use of chloramines disinfectant in the treatment of drinking water.

At its meeting on 18 January 2006, the committee considered responses from Scottish Water, the Scottish Executive, the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, SEPA and the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health, and agreed to write again to the Scottish Executive and to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses received. Responses from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and from the petitioner have been received. Do members have views on what we should do now, or is everyone happy to close the petition?

Given the responses and the fact that the situation has been reviewed in a de facto way by virtue of all those organisations having responded to us, I think that we have probably completed what was asked of us.

Are members happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank everyone for attending.

Meeting closed at 11:58.