Public Petitions Committee, 17 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 17, 2002

Official Report 312KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Commissioner for Bullying (PE412)

The first current petition is PE412, on establishing a commissioner for bullying in Scotland. We have received a response from the Executive, which members should consider.

The Executive appears to be confident that the wide range of initiatives that are already being taken forward to tackle youth crime will help to address the specific issue of intimidation of adults by children and young people. The Executive has made it clear that it considers the current initiatives to be the way forward and does not support the petitioners' suggestion that a commissioner for bullying should be introduced. It also takes the view that the children's hearings system provides sufficient flexibility to allow it to deal appropriately with cases involving the intimidation of adults and similar behaviour.

The various Executive responses appear to be reasonable and it is therefore suggested that there would be little merit in giving further consideration to the petitioners' proposal. It is recommended that the committee should agree to copy the most recent response from the Executive to the petitioners and take no further action.

I would like to hear the views of members.

The committee will certainly hear my views. The Executive response gives a rosy picture that is not factual in respect of how children's panels are working and in its hopes and aspirations for the treatment of young criminals. I am afraid that I do not accept the Executive's assurances. Whatever is done with the petition, I want to register that I cannot accept the Executive's comments.

The petition is about more general issues of youth crime.

A course of action has been suggested, but the Executive's response is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the Executive is dealing with the matter. I do not know whether a commissioner would be the answer to the problem, but I would like the petitioners to be told that there was a minority view on the committee that the Executive is not dealing with the situation and that the matter needs to be considered further.

The petition deals with the general issue of a commissioner for bullying. You are unhappy and I hear what you are saying, but we must address the petitioners' request. I am sure that your views will be recorded in the Official Report and the committee is happy that they will be.

I think that the Executive is moving towards introducing a children's commissioner and I would have thought that the bullying of children by children should be the commissioner's responsibility. Perhaps the petitioners should be told about that.

Although the Executive has made progress in tackling bullying in the playground, I agree with Phil Gallie that the bullying of adults by children in the community and many other forms of bullying—it is unfortunate that the petition does not include workplace bullying—continue to be a major issue throughout the British isles. Bullying is a nightmare. The Executive has not taken that on board.

I suggest that we copy the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which has been dealing with the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. It could examine the issues that the petition raises and could assess whether the children's commissioner could fulfil some of the roles that the petitioners seek.

That would be a reasonable way to proceed, if members are agreeable.

I do not know whether my suggestion is within the committee's remit, but the petitioners might consider getting an MSP to raise the subject in a members' business debate. There is one member in the room who might be interested in securing a debate on bullying.

We will take on board the suggestions that have been made. It is proposed that we take no further action on the petition and that we copy it to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I am sure that members have noted Dorothy-Grace Elder's suggestion. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Aphasia (PE475)

PE475, which concerns recognition of aphasia, was submitted by Cecilia Yardley. The Executive has provided a more comprehensive response to our second request for information. It claims that recording the levels of treatment for aphasia is difficult and it does not intend to conduct research to establish the number of sufferers, on the grounds that that would be costly and of limited practical use. The Executive also makes it clear that it is content with the current situation, whereby national health service boards decide how best to deploy the resources that are allocated to them to meet the health care needs of those in their areas. The Executive argues that if it were to issue instructions on specific allocations for aphasia services, it would be difficult to resist similar arguments in relation to other conditions.

The Executive also gives details of its work on the development of new models of care, service design and delivery and recruitment and retention of allied health professional staff in Scotland, including speech and language therapists. Additional student places have been made available for that group of professions.

It is suggested that the committee should agree to seek the petitioners' views on the contents of the Executive's response before considering what further action to take on the petition. Do members agree to follow that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I want to make the point that PE475 again shows up the paucity of real statistics on health, which many other sources have told us about. Although we handle a vast health budget, we often do not have an accurate idea of the numbers of people who are affected by particular ailments. When one asks a parliamentary question, one is usually told that the figures are not available centrally. That is true. We must consider the gathering of proper statistics on all sorts of conditions in the future. That would allow more accurate targeting of funds. The paperwork suggests that the Executive's position on aphasia is the same as the British position. That position is the same on almost every ailment.

---

Public-private Partnerships (Schools) (PE526 and PE527)

PE526 and PE527 were submitted by Mr Jeff Knight on behalf of the Rayne North Action Group. The petitions call for a review of public-private partnership funding and the introduction of audit procedures for future public-private partnership bids.

It is suggested that, before considering the detailed responses that the Executive and the Accounts Commission for Scotland have provided, the committee should agree to seek Aberdeenshire Council's comments, as the Executive suggests. The committee would have to make it clear that it was not seeking to interfere with the council's specific proposals for the closure and replacement of schools, but was merely requesting the council's formal comments on the concerns that the petitions raise. It is further suggested that we agree to copy the responses that we have received to the petitioner and to the clerks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and the Finance Committee for information only.

Do members agree to both those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Landfill Sites (PE541 and PE543)

We move on to PE541 and PE543. The planning application relating to PE541 has been withdrawn, which I am sure will please the petitioners from the Roslin Community Action Group.

The Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency both appear to be content that the current framework for addressing the impact of landfill sites on the health and environment of surrounding communities through the planning process is adequate and effective. In addition, the proposals contained in the Executive's consultation paper "Safer Landfill" will increase regulatory standards in relation to landfill sites, leading to better environment and health protection. However, it is suggested that the committee should seek a more independent view on the adequacy of current arrangements before reaching a view on whether any further action should be taken. It is therefore recommended that the committee request comments from the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and the Institute of Environment Management and Assessment, and consider the petition again when responses have been received. In the meantime, the committee may also wish to pass copies of the responses received to both sets of petitioners and to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information only. Do members have any views?

I would also suggest that Friends of the Earth Scotland be contacted.

Perhaps we should also contact Scottish Environment LINK, another very worthwhile organisation that we could approach for an independent view.

Is Friends of the Earth Scotland not part of Scottish Environment LINK, which is a kind of amalgam?

It is an umbrella organisation.

It could give an overarching view on this very important subject.

Perhaps we can leave it to the committee clerks to clarify that point and seek advice. An independent view would be worth while. I see heads nodding, which seems to indicate agreement to the actions that are being suggested. If members agree, we shall move on to the next current petition.

---

Housing Stock Transfer (Glasgow)<br />(PE545 and PE553)

PE545 is from Miss M McDonald on behalf of the Glasgow campaign against housing stock transfer and PE553 is from Mr John Carracher on behalf of the Scottish tenants a real choice campaign. Both petitions relate to housing stock transfer.

The Executive considers the housing stock transfer ballot in Glasgow to be valid and is content that it was conducted in line with all statutory requirements. It would, of course, be open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the ballot in the courts. That is an option that they have considered but have not yet pursued. The Executive is also content that the procedures that are in place for the organisation and running of such ballots are in order, as is the mechanism for the funding of stock transfer programmes.

The Executive is also clearly not in favour of exploring any alternative method of writing off housing debt in Glasgow, although it makes it clear that councils have alternative options available to them for improving their housing stock. In addition, it would seem extremely unlikely that the Social Justice Committee would see any merit in examining the issues raised in the petition, given that it has already conducted a major inquiry following which it endorsed the principle of stock transfer. On that basis, it is suggested that the committee could agree to take no further action in relation to PE545 and PE553, other than to pass a copy of the Executive response to both petitioners and to the clerk to the Social Justice Committee for information only. Do members have views on that?

I have a question about the suggested action. On what ground could the petitioners challenge the validity of the ballot? Is it a question of a majority or a minority?

The ballot gave no alternative. It did not propose a council deal as an alternative to the stock transfer, which would have given the voters a choice.

The clerk advises me that it had to do with the title of the organisation as shown on the ballot.

So there was a question of validity.

The word "Limited" was not included. That implied that the Glasgow Housing Association was a normal housing association.

Do members agree to the course of action proposed?

I am sorry to be a nark, but I wonder whether we should pass the petitions to the Justice 2 Committee. The Social Justice Committee might take a rather different view to that of the Justice 2 Committee. The petitions touch on questions of public accountability and of treating the public fairly. The date of the housing stock transfer has changed three or four times. There are real problems with it and there is real discontent in Glasgow over how the matter has been handled and over how things will go in future. I wonder whether the Justice 2 Committee might be minded to have a look at the petitions.

The petitions are about the ballot itself. PE545 points out that the Glasgow Housing Association was fined £100 by the Financial Services Authority for not using its full registered title in adverts and letters, but there was no evidence to suggest that there had been a deliberate attempt to mislead tenants. As the issue is over the ballot itself, we have no option but to agree to the course of action that is set out in our papers. If members are agreeable to that, we will move on.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Housing Stock Transfer (Hamilton) (PE562)

PE562 is from Mr John Carracher, on behalf of the South Lanarkshire Tenants Federation. It is also on stock transfer. Members are aware of the background to the petition and of the circumstances surrounding the housing stock transfer in Hamilton. It is suggested that it would be inappropriate for the Parliament to interfere in the decisions or actions of Scottish Homes—now Communities Scotland—in relation to the specific circumstances surrounding the housing stock transfer in Hamilton.

The petitioners are calling for an option for Scottish Homes tenants to transfer to a local authority landlord. Such an option would be available where the local authority in question was in a position to acquire housing stock and had expressed an interest in doing so. In the case of the stock transfer in Hamilton, however, the local council is not in such a position.

In addition, the Executive has confirmed that it is satisfied that proper procedures have been followed and that approval for the ballot of tenants has been given. It is therefore suggested that the committee should agree to take no further action in relation to the petition, other than to pass copies of the papers to the petitioner and to the clerk to the Social Justice Committee for information only. Do members agree to that course of action?

I would once again request that the papers be passed to the Justice 2 Committee, as there is so much discontent throughout Scotland about the way in which the stock transfers are being handled. We are talking about billions of pounds of public money.

But that is not the committee that deals with the whole issue of the housing stock transfer.

I am aware of that.

We would have to provide justification for passing the petition to that committee.

It is more of a public information and public consultation issue, and relates to the fact that the public are not given any choice on any ballot paper.

But I think that it is the Social Justice Committee that would have to deal with the matter; if we referred the matter anywhere, it would be to that committee. The matter has been through all the processes, as I said in relation to PE545 and PE553. I do not see any particular reason to go down the route that Dorothy-Grace Elder suggests.

I will make a suggestion that may help Dorothy-Grace Elder in relation to her comments on the petitions concerning the Glasgow stock transfer, although I go along with what the convener is proposing now. I suggest that if people want to change the focus of their petitions, they might wish to talk to the clerk with a view to lodging a petition that addresses the issues that Dorothy-Grace believes to be of concern to them.

That is a good idea.

That is a reasonable proposition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.