Public Petitions Committee, 17 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Official Report 199KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Crime Victims (PE408)

We now move to consideration of current petitions, which are those on which we have already made some progress.

The first petition is PE408, from Ms Aileen McDermott, on support for victims of crime. The petition called for more information, support and advice to be provided for victims of crime and their families. The petition was prompted by the circumstances surrounding the death of the petitioner's sister, Marilyn McKenna. Some members may be aware of the case and that might help the discussion. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the details of the case, but other committee members could perhaps provide some information.

The Public Petitions Committee considered the petition in the previous session, on 25 March 2003. It was agreed to seek the petitioner's comments on the range of steps that the Executive had already taken in relation to the concerns that she had raised. Members should note that the petitioner has responded and broadly welcomes the steps that the Executive has taken on the treatment of victims of crime and their families, although she is still concerned about the delay in settling some claims for criminal compensation. The petitioner also seems unsure about the practical operation of the new procedures on protection from harassment. The petitioner also has some concerns about sentencing policy; it seems worth pointing out that the Scottish Executive is addressing such issues through the sentencing commission, so that is another issue that is being considered.

Do members have views on the issues that are still outstanding as far as Ms McDermott is concerned and on what we should now do with the petition?

The petitioner acknowledges that, since she first submitted the petition, the Executive has taken considerable steps in its work for victims generally and victims of harassment specifically. The petitioner's correspondence indicates that she is broadly content with the steps that have been taken.

Issues arise over the practicalities of the operation of the new procedures. The operation may need to be spelled out more clearly and I wonder whether we could ask the Executive to provide the petitioner with that kind of practical information. In light of the petitioner's response, we should take no further action. As you rightly pointed out, the Executive will be considering sentencing in its broadest context through the proposed sentencing commission.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Tolls (Trunk Roads) (PE445)

The next petition is PE445, from the Scottish Peoples Mission, on the Skye bridge. This petition came from Robbie the Pict, who made a presentation in support of it on 25 June 2003. The petition argued that no lawful tolling regime is in place, that any attempt to demand tolls is a criminal offence, and that there is no basis for prosecution of the public. Having listened to the petitioner, the committee agreed not to pursue his concerns on the legal status of the documents in question, on the basis that the courts had ruled that they were valid. However, we agreed to write to the Executive to ask it to provide details of the proposed review of bridge tolls in Scotland, and to ask it how it proposes to approach the issue of negotiations to end the toll regime for the Skye bridge.

The Executive has responded, indicating that initial discussions have been held with Skye Bridge Ltd to

"outline the proposed review and to explore … options for the future of tolling."

It says that "detailed financial information" provided by the company is now being considered.

The Executive makes clear its commitment to examining

"all the possible options for ending the existing toll regime"

and to finding

"the best possible solution in terms of both Bridge users and the wider Scottish public."

The Executive is also

"considering the implications for the other tolled bridges in Scotland."

It says that, although it is

"too early to speculate about the eventual outcome of the review",

these matters are being taken forward

"as a priority".

The petitioners have made their case over many years and have not succeeded in getting the courts to agree that the documents are not legal. This has been through every court in the land. We have heard the petition previously at the committee and we now have the response from the Executive, which is taking this forward "as a priority". At our previous meeting, we decided that we should leave it to the Executive to take negotiations forward. We should maintain that position.

I hear what John Farquhar Munro says. We have been considering this matter over a number of years and the petitioners have gone to every court in the land to try to get questions over the legitimacy of tolls resolved. We have now passed that stage. When he says that the Executive is considering this, I wonder whether John is suggesting that we should also keep an eye on this petition as it goes through the Executive's process, so that we can learn whether anything comes up regarding costs. You mentioned "detailed financial information", convener. I suggest that we certainly should keep an eye on the petition, although I do not know whether John was suggesting that too. I would like to know what comes out of consideration of the financial information that the company has provided.

We are now hearing different recommendations. One is that we monitor the petition and the other, from John Farquhar Munro, is that we should say that that is that. I am sure that, as the local MSP, John will keep an interest in the matter. It is not that we will not hear about it again. The question is whether the committee should take action.

I support John Farquhar Munro's position. It is always important to pay particular regard to the local member when he or she is involved in something such as this. The committee has undertaken a lot of work on this subject—in the previous session as well as this one—so I think that we should draw a line under it. We should agree with John's recommendation.

I come over the Forth road bridge every day so I am glad that the Executive is also committed to considering the implications for other tolled bridges in Scotland. I presume that someone is going to come in and say the Erskine bridge—

The Erskine bridge.

We said that in chorus.

Indeed.

Interesting effect.

I am content with what John Farquhar Munro proposed. I will support that view.

Do the rest of the committee concur with that view? I know that Sandra White takes a different view of the matter.

No. I was simply seeking clarification of what John Farquhar Munro said.

In case there is another point that needs clarification, I will take Linda Fabiani before I ask John Farquhar Munro to clarify.

What the Executive has come back with is all fine and well, but it does not relate to the basis of PE445, which is concerned with the legal basis of the ability to charge tolls. There is no merit in the committee pretending to maintain an interest in the original petition by asking the Executive to keep us informed about its progress on the abolition of tolling. Rightly or wrongly, our consideration of PE445 has reached a natural end. There is nothing more that we can do. I hope that MSPs such as John Farquhar Munro who represent the local area and other MSPs who deal with transport issues will scrutinise what the Executive does about the tolling regime on the Skye bridge.

As the process develops, further information could be released that might relate back to PE445. If so, that could be taken up at the time. There is no merit in our pretending to continue the petition when the Executive response does not reflect the basis of the petition. To do so would only be patronising.

Do you want to make another comment, John?

No. At its previous meeting, the committee made the point that PE445 has been considered fairly extensively by the Scottish Executive, by our parliamentary committees, at Westminster and in the courts. That position has been repeated today. Every time we consider the issue, we end up in a situation in which there is no acceptance of the illegality of the tolling regime. That is the position in which we have found ourselves over the past four or five years. If we were to continue down this road, we would find ourselves in the same position again in three or four years' time.

As everybody knows, the partnership agreement contains a commitment to address the issue of tolls on the Skye bridge, and on other bridges. I keep asking the Minister for Transport about the current position. His answer is similar to that which is set out in the Executive response to the petition, which is that a debate is on-going.

Nobody will say how much it will cost to buy out the toll regime. Indeed, it would be remiss of the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament to put a definitive figure on it at this stage while negotiations continue to be held.

I suggest that we adhere to the position that was stated previously and accept the recommendations that are presented to us today.

Does the committee agree with that position?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Community Volunteers (PE447)

The next petition is PE447 on social inclusion partnerships. The petitioners called for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to put in place across Scotland all necessary structures and regulations to ensure that local community volunteers are able to develop or pursue local health and social inclusion projects in parallel with, or independently of, the strategic objectives of statutory agencies.

The petition was prompted by the petitioners' concern that successful projects that were being run by the Clydebank health alliance had broken down as a result of the strategic policies of the statutory agencies, including West Dunbartonshire health strategy group. Members will note that the predecessor committee considered the response from the Executive, which was of the view that, in this case, an unfortunate situation had arisen where some of the people in two of the nine SIP areas in West Dunbartonshire wanted to use the SIP funding for their own areas and priorities. The Executive said that local priorities were not being ignored so that national priorities could be pursued. The Executive believed that the SIP had allocated funding for its agreed health priorities over the whole SIP area.

The committee agreed to seek the views of the petitioners and Des McNulty MSP—who supports the petition—on the Executive's response. The responses that were received refute the Executive's claims and say that the Executive's response contains inaccuracies. Mr McNulty highlighted his concern that

"excellent projects were being discontinued under the pretence of responding to concerns across the SIP when in fact the trigger came from Greater Glasgow Health Board seeking to meet its own priorities rather than from the communities concerned."

He stated:

"As a result of this process, a much valued project was lost"

and it seemed to him

"that the outcome of the change, even looking at the impact on the broader work of the Social Inclusion Partnership, has been a worsening of service".

I declare a slight constituency interest, as my constituency is within West Dunbartonshire.

My colleague Des McNulty stated:

"excellent projects were being discontinued under the pretence of responding to concerns across the SIP when in fact the trigger came from Greater Glasgow Health Board".

I take that very much to heart. There needs to be a challenge. The whole basis of urban regeneration is that a bottom-up approach should be taken and that communities in which one seeks to effect change are engaged with. The case seems to involve a large agency's priorities dominating something that could happen at a local level. Principles are therefore involved that go beyond the specific circumstances of the case in question and those principles are worth exploring.

I wonder whether we should refer the petition to the Health Committee on the basis that a bottom-up approach should be taken with such health projects. I understand that it is a priority that ministers should be committed to including people in the development of their services. This case does not represent an example of the good use of inclusion policy.

For part of the previous session, I was a member of the Social Justice Committee, which is now the Communities Committee. A general study of SIPs was conducted in the previous session and I think that there was an intention to revisit that study at some point in the current session. Sending the petition to the Communities Committee, too, might be worth while if that committee wants to consider the wider aspects of SIPs, how they operate and the procedures under which they operate with respect to statutory agencies. If that committee decides to reconsider SIPs in general in order to complement the original study, it can consider the petition.

I think that Linda Fabiani is referring to community planning partnerships, which are to be introduced in April next year. The integration of SIPs will be involved. I see the benefits of doing what Linda Fabiani suggests, but can we refer the petition to two committees simultaneously?

I was going to suggest that we refer the petition to the Health Committee and ask it to liaise with the Communities Committee.

Absolutely.

I was a bit dubious about our sending it to two committees at the same time.

I do not know whether we should send it to two committees, but perhaps we should send it to one committee and ask it to—

We could just send it to all of them.

I am not convinced that there is a problem with the SIP, which is why I made play of the point in Des McNulty's letter. Des McNulty has clearly identified a problem with the differing priorities that are set by Greater Glasgow NHS Board. The SIP is incidental to the matter—it was the vehicle by which things happened.

Perhaps similar things are happening to others. My suggestion might be an option.

I take on board what Mike Watson says about sending the petition to two committees. We could send it to the Health Committee and ask it to liaise with the Communities Committee about wider SIP issues where that is appropriate. Perhaps we could say to the Health Committee that if it thinks that there is a wider issue, it could ask the Communities Committee to look into it. Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Water Industry (PE469)

Petition PE469, from Mr Phil Traish, on the water industry in Scotland, called on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to resist privatisation and fragmentation of the water industry in Scotland.

The previous Public Petitions Committee considered the petition on 26 February 2002 and agreed to write to the Executive to request its views on it in the light of the passing of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. The Executive's response, which is dated 15 November 2002, has only just been received by the clerks following the issue of three separate reminders.

The Executive, in its response, states its position that a strong Scottish Water, as created by the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002, will ensure a strong and efficient public sector water industry. It also states that Scottish Water will be best placed to make the necessary investments to improve water quality and environmental protection standards while easing pressure on charges for customers. It makes clear that there is nothing in the act or in the subsequent Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 that will lead to the fragmentation or privatisation of the industry.

I am a bit concerned that the Executive needed to be reminded three times before it responded and I think that we should take that on board from the outset. However, I would like to hear members' views on the general matter.

I agree that it is unacceptable that the Executive should need three reminders before providing a response.

Having served on the Transport and Environment Committee when the bills were being considered, I can say that it is clear that there is absolutely no likelihood of privatisation. That is not really an issue. There is a political point to be made, of course, as I am not entirely sure that the Executive is correct when it says that the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 will ensure a strong and efficient water industry. However, I am sure that it will ensure that we do not have a privatised water industry. Whether that is of great benefit of communities and businesses in Scotland is yet to be decided, but it appears to be the case. I do not think that the industry will be privatised.

Restrain yourselves, folks. It might be tempting to respond to that point, but I would ask for comments on what we should do with the petition. Do we draw a line under it, given that relevant acts have been passed and the fact that the issue was fully debated in that process?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Multiple Sclerosis (Respite Homes) (PE572)

Patrick and Jennifer Woods submitted petition PE572, on the provision of respite homes for sufferers of multiple sclerosis. They called on the Scottish Parliament to investigate whether there is adequate provision in Scotland of respite homes with no upper age limit for sufferers of MS and other disabling conditions.

The petition was prompted by the petitioners' concerns surrounding the decision by the Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland to close its holiday respite care centre at Holmhill, Grantown-on-Spey, and the failure to provide an adequate period of time for consultation and debate on the issue.

The petition was considered on 17 December 2002. It was agreed that the Executive's comments should be sought on the range of issues raised in the petition and that the MS Society Scotland should be asked to provide details of its formal position in relation to the proposed closure at Holmhill and of its policy on the provision of respite care and short breaks for MS sufferers. Responses have now been received.

The Executive says that it has provided new funding of £11 million for respite services, which should help local authorities to provide an additional 22,000 weeks of respite across Scotland each year by 2004. The Executive expects older disabled people, including people with MS, to benefit from this measure.

The Executive also explains that respite care will, in the main, be regulated and registered by the care commission and that service providers will be subject to the statutory requirement to provide notice of a cancellation of registration to users and their families. This includes the requirement to ensure that users of the service at that time will continue to receive a similar service.

The Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland provides full details of the background to the closure of its respite facility at Holmhill, making clear that this was an extremely difficult decision that was taken after lengthy consideration and consultation and a thorough review of its two similar homes in Scotland. It explains that the review confirmed that Holmhill had been underused for many years and that none of the alternative uses that were considered proved to be practically or financially viable. It was decided that much better use could be made of the resources that were used to run Holmhill. The society says that the closure of the facility has allowed it to make improvements to its other activities, including an increase in the number of specialist nurses.

However, the society expresses the view that specialist respite care in Scotland for those with MS is poor and says that many young adults with the condition have to take places in homes for the elderly.

Respite care in general is an important issue. All members, no matter what part of the country they represent, will have heard complaints about lack of respite care. The Executive has said that it is dealing with the problem and it will be interesting to see how the situation pans out.

However, the petitioners deal specifically with MS sufferers, pointing out that the type of illness that they have and the age range of the sufferers make them a special case. It would be worth sending this petition to the Health Committee and asking it to decide whether the issue of respite care for MS sufferers should be examined. The Health Committee should make that decision rather than this committee recommending that such an examination be undertaken, because members of the Health Committee have broader knowledge of what is going on in the sector and in relation to the Executive's plans for respite care.

I agree with Linda Fabiani. Having read the evidence of the two petitioners and the MS Society, it seems obvious to me that everyone is concerned about trying to find the best way forward for people who suffer from MS. I am very concerned, as I think everyone is, to know that young kids are being put into old people's homes. That does not happen just with MS, but with other forms of respite care too. I echo what Linda said. We should send the petition to the Health Committee for its consideration.

Are members content with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Legal Aid Certificates (PE610)

Petition PE610 from James Duff, on the conditions of acquisition of legal aid certificates, called for the Scottish Parliament to investigate how legal aid certificates acquired by members of the Scottish legal profession for their clients are granted and disposed of when cases involve alleged fraudulent conduct by members of the legal profession.

The petitioner submitted this, his seventh petition at that time, following a lengthy history of dispute regarding the handling of the sequestration of his estate and that of his firm by various sections of the legal profession since 1984. The previous six petitions, also in connection with Mr Duff's sequestration, related to complaints against solicitors and the police, judicial appointments and the alleged failure of current bankruptcy procedures. The Executive responded by indicating that currently all legal aid accounts are carefully scrutinised by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It also confirmed that some of the concerns that were raised in the petition will be addressed as part of the package of proposed reforms of civil legal aid. Those reforms will require solicitors to report to the board when a particular procedural stage passes, and in lengthy cases to submit a report every 12 months. That will allow the board to assess whether legal aid should continue, and take action where cases drag on without good reason. The Executive considers that an inquiry along the lines suggested by the petitioner is therefore unnecessary. Does the committee agree? I see a lot of nodding, but I do not hear anything.

The difficulty with any of those cases is to look beyond the individual circumstances to the principles that the petitioner is raising with us. I agree that the Executive has plans to address many of the concerns that the petitioner has raised, and on that basis I suggest that we do nothing further with this petition, because some of the measures, particularly the reporting to the board, the requirement for solicitors to report at particular procedural stages, and indeed to submit a report once a year, would take care of many of the points raised, which relate back to the petitioner's claim that a certificate for legal aid, which was issued to a firm of solicitors in 1991 for the purposes of defending his heritable property, was withdrawn in 1996 when the firm failed to put up any defence on his behalf.

I think that what the Executive has told us covers those principles.

Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Disciplined Fitness (PE612)

The next petition is PE612, by Thomas Ross, on the effects of disciplined fitness on children's health. The petitioner called for the Parliament to ask the Executive how to discuss and consider the effects of disciplined fitness and how it could result in improvements to the psychological and physical health of children and to their social and moral behaviour.

The petition was prompted by the petitioner's belief that problems such as the lack of concentration of children at school, bullying and violence could be addressed by implementing and encouraging a fitness and discipline programme in Scottish schools, based on sports such as boxing and football.

Our predecessor committee considered the petition on 18 March 2003 and agreed to write to the Scottish Executive seeking its comments and an update on developments with the physical education review group.

The Executive's reply indicates that publication of the group's recommendations was expected during the summer period, although the clerks have established that this has now been delayed until around the end of the year. The response makes it clear that the petition has been passed to the group to allow it to take into account the views expressed in relation to disciplined fitness.

Do members have any suggestions, other than asking members of the Scottish Parliament to take up boxing and football to introduce a bit of discipline into the proceedings?

Jackie Baillie and I are sitting here thinking that we would have loved boxing and football at school.

Do not include me in your fantasies, Helen.

Does Linda Fabiani have something sensible to say?

My comment is not sensible either. I would simply like to state, on behalf of all the non-sporty types, that I hated every minute of physical education at school. I hated being forced into it. It made me miserable. I have grown up to be fairly fit and am very disciplined.

Very good.

The idea of using football to impose discipline is perhaps questionable, in the light of recent events. However, there is a serious point underlying the petition. Regular physical activity in schools is a good thing for all sorts of reasons—

For some people.

I do not agree. To say, "Fit in body, fit in mind" is to make a generalisation; however, I do not think that there is enough physical activity in schools. Part of the reason for that is that not enough time is made available for it on a regular basis. I am a firm believer in schools allocating two hours a week to physical activity as a minimum, but few schools—primary or secondary—reach even that. There is general acceptance that physical activity is a good way in which to promote healthier lifestyles. I am not talking about competitive sport: there is a difference. I am not advocating competitive sports.

Nice gentle walks. I could go for that.

It could be dance or another non-sporting physical activity. The physical education review group will deal with those issues, and on that basis I do not think that there is any further action that we could usefully take at this stage.

I agree with Mike Watson that there is a serious aspect to the petition. Whether it is competitive or not, physical exercise is vital to the proper development of young people. With the obvious problems of obesity among the young nowadays—I make no reference to any members of the committee—that are storing up health problems for the future, we should be very much in favour of exercise in schools.

John Scott makes a good point about storing up problems for the future. The Westminster Government is promoting cycling to school, and the Scottish Executive is trying to encourage such activity, too. That is exactly the kind of thing that we should encourage young people and their families to do. The UK Government is to be congratulated on that initiative, and we should do more to encourage cycling to school in Scotland by providing more resources for special bicycling lanes, and so on.

We see the worth in the petition, but there is nothing more that we can usefully do on it. Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Renewable Energy Projects (Funding) (PE615)

The petitioner called on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to reconsider the funding of renewable energy projects to encourage the development of sustainable sources that contribute towards the Kyoto agreement. PE615 was prompted by the petitioner's concerns about the manner of distribution of ROS—renewable obligation Scotland—certificates, which place an obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase green electricity.

The Executive has responded, pointing out that renewables obligations certificates are issued by Ofgem, not by the Executive, and that they are issued in respect of all renewables technologies qualifying under the ROS, including those that are less commercially viable. The Executive appears to counter the claims that are made by the petitioner and points out that it is keen to support the development of a wide variety of renewables technologies, including alternative renewable sources such as biomass, wave and tidal energy. The Executive makes it clear that such projects can be eligible for grants under the Scottish community renewables initiative.

Can we agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioner, seeking his views on it, and defer consideration of the matter until we have received further responses from the petitioner?

I am told that the petitioner is knowledgeable on the subject; therefore, it might be useful to get his views on what the Executive has said.

I agree. The Executive has given a reasonable response, and it will be interesting to hear what the petitioner says.

Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.