Current Petitions
Rural Scotland (Suburbanisation) (PE495)
The first current petition is PE495, from Ian Malcolm, on the suburbanisation of rural Scotland. The petition is based particularly on his experiences in Aberlady and with East Lothian Council in relation to a development by Cala Homes Ltd. We have dealt with the petition several times and have received responses from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Executive and the cross-party architecture and the built environment group of the Scottish Parliament.
At our previous meeting, the committee agreed to seek an update on the review of national planning policy guideline 3, together with further details of the emphasis that is likely to be given to housing design issues in any revised version of the guidelines. The Executive has responded very promptly to our request and has explained that Scottish planning policy guideline 3, entitled "Planning for Housing", and two related planning advice notes place a strong emphasis on promoting quality in the design of new housing.
The Executive also makes it clear that planning permission can be refused on design grounds alone and that it is also open to planning authorities to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission or any other body to assist them in reaching decisions. It further explains that over the next year it will consider how village design statements might be encouraged, possibly through a PAN, and that work on a revision of PAN 36, entitled "Housing in the Countryside" will also start this year.
In view of that on-going work in the development of planning guidance and advice to assist authorities in reaching planning decisions, it is suggested that we take no further action on the petition and that we pass copies of the latest Executive response to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee and to the petitioner, for his information. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)
The next petition is PE500. We had expected to have Dennis Canavan here.
I am here.
Sorry—Dennis Canavan is present. We have received apologies from Sylvia Jackson and an e-mail from Fergus Ewing, which I will read out later.
We have dealt with the issue of the Scottish Transport Group pension funds half a dozen times at various meetings. The committee noted a response from Dennis Canavan, saying that a meeting in October 2002, which involved representatives of HM Treasury, two Westminster MPs and members of the Transport and General Workers Union, did not involve representatives of the Scottish Bus Group pensioners action group. The committee therefore agreed to request again that a meeting be held with a delegation of MSPs, members of the Scottish Bus Group pensioners action group and its financial advisor, Mr Derek Scott, given their real concerns about the handling of the matter. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has now responded, saying that she is not prepared to hold such a meeting.
I invite Dennis Canavan to speak before committee members discuss the suggested action.
The response of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Ruth Kelly, is very disappointing. I am not sure whether there is any merit in pursuing the matter with the Treasury now. The Treasury ministers appear to be absolutely intransigent in refusing to meet the pensioners and their representatives.
An important point still needs to be clarified. Although Treasury ministers are not accountable to us, Scottish Executive ministers are. It may still be worth pursuing the matter with them, even though we have now reached the 11th hour of the parliamentary session, as it were, with just over a week to go before dissolution. It might be worth asking Lewis Macdonald, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, whether he would agree to meet representatives of the pensioners and any interested members of the Parliament.
With your permission, convener, I will distribute the relevant correspondence for members to peruse. I have a copy for each member. You will see that there is a blatant contradiction, whereby the Treasury is apparently saying one thing and the Scottish Executive is saying something completely contrary. The papers that I have just distributed to members include a letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, to Tom Clarke MP. I have highlighted the second last sentence of that letter, which says:
"the legal position was that the pension fund surplus should pass to the Scottish Executive in its entirely."
The other letter was written to John McAllion, the convener of this committee, by the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald. I have highlighted part of the second page, which appears to be a blatant contradiction of Paul Boateng's statement. Lewis Macdonald writes:
"The agreement with HM Treasury took account of the fact that the remaining balance, £50 million (net of tax), would be remitted to the UK Exchequer as required under the 1989 Act."
As I said, the Treasury is saying one thing, while the Scottish Executive is saying something completely different. The pensioners and I are very grateful to the committee for the time that it has spent on this important issue, but I feel that we should now pursue the matter further by requesting a meeting with Lewis Macdonald.
If members agree, I could write to Lewis Macdonald, asking that he agree to meet representatives of the pensioners and interested MSPs to discuss the correspondence that Dennis Canavan has made available. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
We received an e-mail from Fergus Ewing. I will read out the relevant part of it:
"When the Minister addressed the Committee on this issue he was asked by myself what would happen in the event that the total amount of the funds earmarked for distribution was not fully subscribed. What would happen to the remainder? He replied that it would be applied for the benefit of the identified applicants who were declared eligible to received the ex gratia payments.
Would it be in order for the Committee to invite the Minister to clarify, now that the distribution scheme has been approved and has in part been implemented, that the remainder of the residue will be applied for the benefit of the identified applicants found eligible. Can that money be used in order to ensure that widows and other beneficiaries should receive the full amount of the payment rather than receive only half of the amount as most of them will do?"
However, the clerks have pointed out to me that Lewis Macdonald dealt with that issue in his letter to me of November last year, which stated:
"In making these payments Scottish Ministers are required to adopt a fair and reasonable approach to their distribution of the available surplus, and that is most readily done by following the rules of the STG pension schemes. Changing the basis for payment would move away from the established principle of utilising the rules of the schemes for payments and would have an effect of decreasing the final expected sums for the vast majority of recipients. Scottish Ministers believe that a departure from the basis of the distribution would increase the potential risk of overpayment and therefore of legal challenge. Scottish Ministers fully evaluated the matter recently when considering the amendment to the distribution criteria in relation to those widowed on or after 18 December 2000. Accordingly Scottish Ministers have decided that there will be no change to the basis for distribution for those widowed before 18 December 2000."
As the minister dealt with the point that Fergus Ewing wants us to raise with him, I do not know whether there is any point in us pursuing the issue further, because we will get the same answer.
Perhaps we should send a copy of that letter to Fergus Ewing and point out that the matter has been dealt with.
Yes. Is it agreed to do that and to take up Dennis Canavan's suggestion of writing to Lewis Macdonald to ask for a meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
Fergus Ewing raised a further point in the statement that he sent to me. It was a simple request. The first tranche of payments has been made, but a significant amount of money is unpaid, which means that secondary payments will be made to virtually everyone who received a first payment. Obviously, it would be an advantage for some of the pensioners if the second payment were made in the next tax year. Fergus Ewing has written to the Executive about that, although it is fairly obvious that the Executive will comply with the request because there are only two weeks left in this tax year. It would be of benefit to some of the pensioners if we ensured that the Executive postpones the payments until the next tax year.
When we write to the minister asking for a meeting, we will make that point. We will also make it clear that we want the meeting with him to be held before the dissolution of the Parliament.
Yes—I would like it to be held before Parliament is dissolved.
Do members agree to those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Early-years Education and Child Care (PE523)
Petition PE523, which is from Carol Ball, calls for a national inquiry into early-years education and child care, with a view to producing a report and recommendations on the way forward. When we dealt with the petition previously, we asked the Executive for an update on the on-going discussions with employers and others on proposals for a sector skills council for the early-years work force. We have now received a response.
Members should note that, since last February, when we considered responses to the petition, the Executive and the National Training Organisation for Sport, Recreation and Allied Occupations—SPRITO—have undertaken a significant amount of work to try to increase the number of qualified workers in early-years education and child care and to promote career opportunities in the sector. The latest response from the Executive provides details of the discussions that are taking place at the UK level—in which the Executive is involved—to ensure that any sector skills council that covers the interests of the early-years and child care work force will reflect the increasingly integrated nature of children's services. The Executive believes that there is a danger that initiating a national inquiry, as requested by the petitioners, might delay rather than encourage policy developments in early-years education and would therefore be unhelpful.
The work that the Executive and other bodies are undertaking appears to represent progress in addressing the petitioners' concerns, but it is suggested that we should establish whether the petitioners are encouraged by the work that is being done. Our successor committee could then consider the petition in the new session.
I suggest that we follow the officials' recommendation and that we also consider seeking the views of Children in Scotland, which has expressed an interest in the matter. The successor committee should be allowed some time in the new session to monitor what takes place nationally. If the committee monitors the situation for four or five months, it would be able to get a better view of the progress that is being made.
We have sought views on the petition from Children in Scotland, which the Executive has appointed to research gaps and overlaps in the framework, but there is no reason why we should not ask Children in Scotland to comment when we ask the petitioners whether they are happy. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (PE452)<br />Psychiatric Services (PE538)
Autism (Treatment) (PE577)
Mr James Mackie submitted two petitions on autistic spectrum disorder and we have received the Executive's latest response to them. As those petitions are connected with PE577, which is also on ASD, I suggest that we deal with the three petitions together.
Petition PE577 is from Mr Steve Law, on behalf of Action Against Autism. We asked for and have received the Executive's response to the petition. The Executive does not support the proposal to establish an autism-specific facility, as it does not believe that a centralised facility would provide the best service for people throughout Scotland. It prefers a managed clinical network that would provide better multi-agency care and support that is appropriate to meet individual needs. However, the petitioner, who was supported by medical experts with vast experience of working with autism, made a strong presentation to the committee at its meeting on 14 January in support of a dedicated autism facility. It is suggested that linking PE577 with PE452 and PE538 would have merit, as it would allow the range of autism-related issues that has been raised to be considered further together. It is recommended that all the petitions be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee's successor committee in the new session.
It is clear from the responses to Mr Mackie's closely related petitions that the Executive is undertaking a significant amount of work with a view to improving the diagnosis and treatment of people with ASD. Notably, the Executive has identified the need for improvements in diagnosis, joint working, training and research, although it cannot yet confirm how or within what time frame those priorities will be delivered. The Executive is also conducting research to identify the number of people with ASD and learning difficulties in secure settings.
The Executive does not think it appropriate to define ASD as a distinct category of mental disorder in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Bill, but it is intended that people within the range of ASDs should receive the protection that the bill affords when necessary.
If we put all the petitions together and refer them to the Health and Community Care Committee, its successor can deal with them in the new session. Is that agreed?
I agree. Has a consultation document been issued on special needs?
There is an education consultation document.
I wonder whether that consultation relates to the petitions. I would not like the petitioners to miss the consultation.
The petitions are health-service focused. Members might remember that three doctors gave evidence to us in the chamber on petition PE577. Their approach was orientated towards the health service, diagnosis and treatment.
Okay.
Psychiatric Drugs (Side Effects) (PE547)<br />Ritalin (Effects on Children) (PE548)
Clozapine (Safety Issues) (PE549)
Petitions PE547, PE548 and PE549 are from Mr Mackie. They concern the use of psychiatric drugs and alternative treatments and of psychiatric drug treatment for attention deficit disorder, and call for an investigation into the use of Clozapine, which is a neuroleptic drug. We have received responses from the Scottish Executive, the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. We also received a brief response from the chairperson of Trust: A Carers Connection, who is concerned by the petitioner's comments about the use of Clozapine. She has direct experience of the benefits that the drug can bring to patients and her view is that taking the drug off the market would have a significant adverse effect on users.
As members can see from the responses, the regulation and safety of medicines is a reserved matter and falls wholly within Westminster's remit, so it is suggested that we should agree to take no further action on the petitions, to copy the responses to the petitioner and to suggest that he might pursue the matter at Westminster via his local MP. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning Process (PE554)
Petition PE554 is from Mr Neil Henriksen and calls for improvements to the planning process. He wants the necessary steps to be taken to improve the planning process so that once a planning application has been refused and not appealed, or appealed and refused, no substantially similar planning application for the same site can be accepted unless a material change in circumstances takes place.
We have considered the petition at previous meetings. The last time that it was considered, we agreed to ask the Executive to provide details of the proposed time scale for its discussions with planning authorities before we agreed whether to take further action on the petition. The Executive confirmed that it issued a letter on 27 January to the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning, which was copied to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in which it asked for the society's views on repeat planning applications. Responses have been requested by the end of this month, after which the Executive will decide how it intends to deal with the matter. It is to be welcomed that the letter to the society refers to the petition and it is encouraging that the Executive is taking such action as a direct result of the petition.
It is suggested that we agree to defer further action on the petition until that process has been completed and that we ask the Executive to report to the committee on how it intends to deal with the matter as soon as it can do so. We can also pass a copy of the latest Executive response to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information only. It is nice to see a success. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Law (Protection of Minors) (PE565)
The next petition for consideration is PE565, from Miss Jacqueline Shields. The petition asks the Parliament to take necessary steps to provide a protective mechanism to ensure that the welfare concerns of minors are paramount in Scottish law.
We sought the views of a range of different groups: the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Child Law Centre, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on children and young people and the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights. As members can see, responses from those organisations have now been received. The committee is reminded that the Parliament is unable to comment specifically on the circumstances of the petitioner's case, given that she is the child of parents who are currently engaged in litigation that involves parental rights and responsibilities in relation to her.
From the responses that we have received, it would appear that there is no particular call for a change in the law as it stands, which states that the welfare of a child should be paramount in all legal matters. However, the responses from the Scottish Child Law Centre, the Scottish Alliance for Children's Rights and the cross-party group make the point that the procedures that support children who are involved in civil law and other court proceedings are insufficient. It is claimed that there is a lack of public information to advise children and young people on their right to obtain independent legal representation in private family law cases. Concerns are also expressed about the fact that there are few accredited child law specialists and that such accreditation does not require training in child development or child psychology. Questions are also raised about the ability of children to obtain legal aid.
In the light of those comments, it is suggested that we agree to refer the petition in the new session to the successors of the justice committees, with a recommendation that the matters are given further consideration. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Taxis (Use by Disabled People) (PE568)
The next petition for consideration is from Mr Alan Rees and concerns the use of taxis by disabled people. We sought the views of the Executive, COSLA, VisitScotland and the Scottish Taxi Federation, responses from all of which have now been received.
The Executive makes it clear that taxi accessibility regulations are reserved and that the Department for Transport is not yet in a position to say when they will be introduced. Once they are commenced, the Executive will consult widely on the proposals with a view to introducing similar regulations in Scotland. The Executive also states that it has written on two occasions to local authorities to update them on the introduction of the taxi provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. On each occasion, the opportunity was taken to encourage councils to improve the accessibility of taxis to those with disabilities in advance of any regulations being introduced. There are no immediate plans to send out a further letter, although the position will be kept under review. However, the action that has been taken appears to address the concerns that the petitioners have expressed.
Both the Executive and VisitScotland are against the introduction of a standard concessionary scheme and are of the view that the operation of such schemes should be a matter for each local authority. The Scottish Taxi Federation suggests that a standard scheme would place a significant financial burden on local authorities. The federation is also concerned about the lack of financial incentives available to taxi operators to convert existing vehicles or to purchase new wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
The Executive seems to be committed to the introduction of appropriate taxi accessibility regulations in Scotland. However, that may take several years, in view of the reserved nature of the regulations and the delay in their introduction by the Department for Transport. In the circumstances, members may consider that the Executive's proposals for progressing this issue are reasonable. They may also wish to agree to take no further action on the petition.
Alternatively, the committee may take the view that in the new session the Parliament should give further consideration to the issues raised, perhaps with a view to accelerating the process.
It would be a real shame if our successor committee did not reconsider the issue in the new session. This is the European year of disabled people. The fundamental point is that we are being told that it will cost money to give equal rights to people who have disabilities. We all know that that will cost money, but people with disabilities should be given equal rights. It should not be for local authorities to decide whether they want to give people with disabilities equal access rights. They should be required to respect the law, which calls for people to be given access to taxis.
I feel very strongly about the issue. We should seek the views of the Disability Rights Commission. This morning, we have heard that a variety of commissions exist to deal with equality issues. We ought to push this petition to the limit because people with disabilities are isolated and require to be given the opportunity to travel in the same way as everybody else. It will cost money—there is no escaping that—but local authorities should not be allowed off the hook because it will cost them money.
I suggest that we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee and copy it to the Equal Opportunities Committee. There are problems not only with taxis but with many other transport modes. For example, there are buses that can be used by people in wheelchairs, but kerbs and so on need to be altered so that the system works. There should be a strategy to make transport—whether taxis or public transport—available to disabled people. If we send the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee we will be making a statement that the matter should be considered not as different but as mainstream. Perhaps the Equal Opportunities Committee could keep a watching brief on what the Transport and the Environment Committee does with the petition.
I support that suggestion, but I would also ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to consider not only buses and taxis but access at railway stations. It is absurd that, at at least two railway stations in Fife, people have to take the long way—right round the Fife circle line—to be able to travel. If railway stations were accessible, people could take the short cut and go the direct way. Such situations are far too common throughout Scotland and have been mentioned in motion after motion and during members' business debates. It is time that someone gets a grip of the issue and says that something has to happen. As I said, this is the European year of disabled people and there is no reason not to do something. Rhoda Grant is right—sending the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee would mainstream the issue. That is a good way forward.
There are two alternatives. Whatever happens, we cannot do anything in this session. If we refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee, it will become the concern of their successors. We can pass the petition on to the successor committees after the election or we can seek the comments of the Disability Rights Commission and bring the petition back to this committee in the new session. Which way is best?
Just refer it and the committees can perhaps—
Is the suggestion that we should just refer the petition to the successor to the Transport and the Environment Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Robin Rigg Wind Farm (PE605)
The final current petition is from George Makins, on behalf of the Auchencairn community council, calling for a public inquiry into the planning application for wind turbines. We formally referred the petition to the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, urging him to take it into consideration as part of the decision-making process. Unfortunately, he made a decision last Friday, after the papers were sent out: the wind turbines will go ahead, despite the petition. However, the deputy minister took the petition into consideration in the decision-making process. I suggest that since a decision has been made there is not much else that we can do.
I do not know—I think that we could reply to the minister. He said that the project is a forerunner to a number of other projects. We are talking about a major landmark. Local authorities on both sides of the Solway firth and everyone in the area were up in arms over the project. I cannot understand why the minister did not go for the public inquiry, as the petition asks. He has called in planning applications on other occasions. With such a major application, it would have been wise to have taken on board the impact that it will have on the area and the fact that such projects could spread throughout Scotland. If he does not call a public inquiry on this occasion, it is the death of any chance of anybody else, from anywhere else, having a public inquiry.
We cannot get involved in individual planning applications. The minister announced last Friday that the decision is to approve the planning application. There is not a great deal that we can do about it. Political points can certainly be made at the minister's expense, with the forthcoming election—
I do not see it as a political point; I just feel that—
The decision has been taken. It is too late now—that is the problem.
I am informed that other petitions that are currently with the committee deal with the general issues of wind farms and the Executive's strategy in relation to them. However, PE605 was specifically about the application to build 60 wind turbines at Robin rigg in the Solway firth. That decision has been taken and I do not think that there is anything that we can do about it now.
The petition called for a public inquiry.
There will not be one now that the planning application has been granted. That is the problem. We can certainly raise the matter under one of the other petitions that deal with the general strategy on wind farms, such as whether there should be some kind of inquiry into them and so on. However, a decision has been taken on this matter and it cannot be overturned.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.