Public Petitions Committee, 18 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

Official Report 262KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Clydesdale Horses (Couping) (PE347)

PE347 is on the couping of Clydesdale horses. We dealt with the petition at a meeting in June last year, when we considered responses from the Executive, Dr Sylvia Jackson MSP, the British Equine Veterinary Association and the Clydesdale Horse Society. We agreed to seek the comments of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals working group that was set up to examine couping.

The clerks were advised in July that the SSPCA intended to monitor the implementation of the Clydesdale Horse Society's guidelines for correct shoeing before responding to us and that that would take some time. At last, we have received a response from the SSPCA, which supports further research into the long-term health and welfare implications of couping. In principle, the SSPCA discourages that practice on the ground that it is purely cosmetic in nature. The SSPCA explains that, following meetings of interested parties at its headquarters in 2001, the Clydesdale Horse Society produced basic guidelines for shoeing Clydesdales, and the SSPCA gives details of its assessment of the implementation of those guidelines. The SSPCA also suggests that a way of addressing the problem would be for the Clydesdale Horse Society to encourage judges at shows to disqualify horses that are improperly shod, as happened recently at a show in England. It expresses the view that there now appears to be a greater awareness among horse owners of the need to observe guidelines.

Dr Sylvia Jackson was sent a copy of the SSPCA's response and she has submitted an e-mail to the clerks, urging the committee to seek qualified veterinary advice on the matter to establish exactly what the health and welfare implications of couping are. Regrettably, the petitioner, Mr Kenneth Mitchell, has died since submitting the petition. However, we have received a list of individuals who want to support his petition. The list includes Sylvia Jackson, John F Robins, who is an Animal Concern campaign consultant, Mr James W Sharp, Mrs Myrna Forrester, Mr M Tindall, Mr and Mrs Stuart Cameron, Mr Roy McKeag, Ms Julia K Butler, Ms Wilma Fielding, Mr Alan Mair, Ms Lynne Mitchell, Ms Irene Boyne, Beryl and Don Cook, Shelagh Graham, Advocates for Animals, Iona Henderson and Iona Macdonald.

In addition, several letters and e-mails in support of the petition have been received in recent days. They have expressed the following views: that the Clydesdale Horse Society guidelines are not sufficient to prevent unnecessary suffering by the horses; that further advice should be sought from veterinary experts and equestrian societies; that many areas of Scotland are excluded from the Farriers (Registration) (Amendment) Act 1977; that the Shire Horse Society in England has banned the practice of coup shoeing; and that more detailed consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation as a tribute to the efforts of the late petitioner to have the practice banned.

From the response of the SSPCA, it appears that, although the guidelines that have been introduced by the Clydesdale Horse Society for the shoeing of show horses are having some effect, not all owners and farriers are complying with them. The SSPCA is of the view that the practice should be discouraged and supports further investigation of the issue. Sylvia Jackson has suggested that the committee should seek qualified veterinary advice on the matter. However, the committee has received a response from the British Equine Veterinary Association, which is of the view that the process of coup shoeing is unethical on welfare grounds as the practice leads inevitably to the likelihood of orthopaedic problems developing at a later stage in a horse's life.

The efforts that are being made to deal with the issue centre round the guidelines that have been prepared by the Clydesdale Horse Society. However, the guidelines are in effect a self-regulatory measure and there is no formal control mechanism. It is therefore suggested that the committee should agree to pass the petition and associated correspondence to the relevant justice committee for further consideration, with the recommendation that it consider whether such self-regulation is appropriate and whether legislation might be required to deal with the matter. Do members have any views on the matter?

The Clydesdale Horse Society seems to be at odds with the British Equine Veterinary Association on the long-term effect of couping on horses. It would be worth while for the committee to write to the Clydesdale Horse Society, suggesting that, given that its view is contrary to that of the veterinary experts, it could change its show rules—as it has done in England—and move from the three-degree couping that it allows to a zero couping policy.

In addition to our referring the petition to one of the justice committees?

Yes.

Is that agreed?

In view of the death of the petitioner, we might consider writing to his family. The gentleman has really achieved something and is an example of the kind sort of person who approaches the committee.

The submissions that we have received show the greater alertness of the SSPCA and others to the problem at shows in Scotland and England. However, the petitioner originally asked for couping to be made illegal. Our priority must therefore be to refer the petition to one of the justice committees. Nonetheless, I fully agree to Phil Gallie's suggestion.

I am happy with the action that has been suggested, but I have a query. As Phil Gallie pointed out, there are two views to take into account. If I understand it correctly, the Clydesdale Horse Society believes that because the horses are born in a certain way—which accounts for the way they stand and so on—how they are shoed has no detrimental effect on them. However, the other view, which is supported by the petition, is that couping harms the horse. I do not think that the committee has been given information on that. I wonder whether the Rural Development Committee or some other committee should consider that aspect; I just do not know whether the relevant justice committee will be able to cover everything. Perhaps it could.

As I understand it, we have to refer the petition to one of the justice committees because they have responsibility for criminal sanctions for the protection of domestic and captive wild animals. Legally, that committee is the only one that can consider the matter and suggest changes in the law.

The list of places where Clydesdale horses are viewed is not complete. I know for a fact that the Granton show and the Nairn show have Clydesdales every year.

Well, the SSPCA gave us that information.

I seek members' agreement that we refer the petition to the relevant justice committee, write to the Clydesdale Horse Society in the terms that Phil Gallie suggested and keep the petitioner's family informed. Indeed, I will write personally to the family. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Commissioner for Bullying (PE412)

We move on to PE412, from Elizabeth and Jane Allison Edmund, which calls for the establishment of a commissioner for bullying. We considered the petition at a meeting back in November and agreed to seek the comments of the Executive and the anti-bullying network. However, although the Executive has responded, the anti-bullying network has not.

The Executive has provided a comprehensive response that provides details of current arrangements to address bullying in schools. However, the petitioners were more concerned about bullying in the community by and against young people. Of more relevance to the petitioners is the part of the Executive response that outlines the details of its current initiatives to tackle youth crime in response to the recommendations of the advisory group report on youth crime review. The second page of our briefing on this petition lists 10 separate initiatives that the Executive claims that it has introduced.

The Executive has also responded briefly to the petitioners' points about the ineffectiveness of and intimidation by local authorities in dealing with public concerns about youth crime. It points out that the Scottish public sector ombudsman will consider public complaints about injustice or hardship arising from the activities of public authorities.

The Executive has made it clear that much is being done to address youth crime. It obviously does not support the petitioners' suggestion that a commissioner for bullying should be introduced and provides the reasons for its view. It is therefore suggested that, in view of the wide range of initiatives that have already been introduced and the high profile that the Parliament is giving to the issue, there would be little merit in giving further consideration to the petitioners' proposal. It is recommended that we agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioners and take no further action. We could also send the petitioners a copy of the Official Report of last week's Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on youth justice in the Parliament.

We could ask the Executive whether some of the funding that it has detailed should be spent on investigating this issue. After all, it comes up at MSPs' surgeries. Moreover, it is not just a matter of elderly people being targeted by gangs of children, never mind more advanced teenagers; adults, including those who suffer from mental health problems, are also targeted. That is an appalling form of bullying. The children involved might not have been convicted of anything in the past, so even though the Executive refers to "persistent young offenders", there might be nothing on those children's records. A large number of gentle and harmless people in our communities are suffering misery from children who bully adults. The petitioner is quite right. As a result, we should ask the Executive whether it will kindly consider allocating some funding to investigate and crack down on this problem.

As I understand it, the range of initiatives against youth disorder and youth crime is specifically designed to tackle such activity by children in communities. That is what the money has been directed at. We could write back to the petitioners in those terms. However, I do not think that there is any point in pursuing the proposal to create a commissioner for bullying, because we cannot place such a commissioner above elected local councillors.

I see that.

I agree with Dorothy-Grace Elder that bullying is an horrendous problem and that a lot of people suffer from it. We are right to say that a commissioner is not the correct approach to take to the problem and that a number of approaches are required. Each case is individual and we need to ensure that there are people on the ground and that they deal with people as individuals and not as a batch. The problem is not one that we can put in a pigeonhole.

I am pleased that the Executive is taking action. However, as bullying causes so much misery, we should write back to the Executive to suggest that it keeps the process under review to ensure that measures to tackle bullying stay at the forefront of people's minds.

Once again, I go along with the comments that were made by Dorothy-Grace Elder and Rhoda Grant. However, when we examine the Executive's position, as set out in its response, we see that it missed the point on the petitioners' major concern. The petitioners suggested that guidelines should be produced. I wonder what the guidelines for education authorities are, as that is an area of contact that could produce some results.

In certain circumstances, it is illegal for people to undertake surveillance to obtain proof of the torment that they are in—for example, by using video cameras. An examination by the Scottish Executive of that situation would not go amiss.

I take it from those contributions that no member disagrees with the action that is suggested in respect of PE412. It is proposed that, in addition to writing to the petitioner as outlined, we write to the Executive seeking clarification of the initiatives that it is taking to address bullying that is directed against adults by youngsters in the community.

We should also ask the Executive to examine the means of ensuring that individuals can protect themselves by methods such as surveillance, and better links between the police and the education authorities.

I am advised that we can do that, but if we do so, we should keep the petition open until we receive a further response from the Executive.

Long ago, it would have been the churches of various denominations that would have tried to do something about the problem. It is interesting to note that we are not bringing the churches into our discussions. Should we not send a copy of PE412 to the main churches in Scotland?

I am not sure. What are the main churches?

There are quite a lot of them, but it would not be too difficult to draw up a list.

One of the ways round that would be to send a copy of the petition to Reverend Graham Blount, the Scottish churches parliamentary officer.

We will copy the petition to Graham Blount, for the interest of the churches. In the meantime, we will write to the Executive in the terms that have been suggested and keep the petition open until the Executive's further response is received.

---

Parental Alienation Syndrome<br />(PE413 and PE438)

We move on to consideration of PE413 and PE438, which were lodged by Mr George McAuley on behalf of the UK Men's Movement. PE413 called on the Parliament to recognise parental alienation syndrome and PE438 called for resources to allow children to obtain the right of contact with alienated siblings. We considered the petitions at separate meetings, but asked the Executive to provide its comments in a joint response.

The Executive's response is that parental alienation syndrome is not a medically recognised condition nor is it a term that is used in legislation in Scotland. The response mentions that the term is not used in the definition of child abuse or domestic abuse. The Executive has provided details of the circumstances in which the term is used by parties in a legal context and the types of parental activity that the term is used to define. The Executive does not agree that parental alienation syndrome is a medical term that is sufficiently well defined to make its diagnosis certain. The Executive also does not agree that the use of the term would be appropriate in legislation. It takes the view that Scots law already deals with the issues that may arise and which may be attributed to parental alienation syndrome.

The Executive makes the point that, when a court is making a decision about a child, the paramount concern of the court must be the best interests of the child concerned. It provides details of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which allows the views of children to be taken into account, and of the right of siblings to establish contact with a child through the court system.

On 2 June, an article in the Sunday Herald reported that Dorothy-Grace Elder is to propose an amendment to the proposed family law bill. The report indicated that her amendment would address the issue of sibling access.

I will be brief. I have inquired into the matter and the draft bill is not ready as yet. However, when it is introduced, I propose to lodge an amendment on the right of sibling to sibling access. My amendment will not address parental alienation syndrome. I think that the petitioner has confused two issues and has therefore not done himself justice. However, the evidence that was given by the child who appeared before us, about being unable to see her younger siblings again, was powerful. We must try to end that sort of predicament.

To be fair to the petitioner, he submitted two separate petitions—the one on parental alienation syndrome was separate from the one about resources to pursue through the courts the right to meet siblings.

The article in the Sunday Herald refers to Dr Richard Gardner, whose research was cited by the petitioners as evidence of the existence of parental alienation syndrome and the bias against fathers. In the article, Dr Gardner expresses his concern that PAS can be used by abusive partners to trick courts into believing that they are victims of PAS. He therefore urges legal and medical establishments to become more knowledgeable about the condition.

The Executive's view is that PAS is not a recognised condition and that, therefore, it would not be appropriate for it to be cited in legislation. It is also satisfied that the judiciary is well aware of and takes account of behavioural issues that may be attributable to PAS in reaching decisions involving children. Members may want to take a view on whether the PAS issue that is raised in PE413 should be given further consideration by the Parliament.

On the issue of contact with alienated siblings, which is raised in the other petition, the Executive points out that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 already provides for siblings or any other person with an interest to gain access to a child through the courts. Members may want to consider whether further consideration should be given to the issue by the Parliament, perhaps with a view to establishing whether the existing provisions are adequate or require strengthening.

It is suggested that we take no further action on PE413, but that we refer PE438 to the relevant justice committee for further consideration.

I have two suggestions. For most people, courts are fearsome and expensive. First, could we ask the Law Society of Scotland to inquire whether such a child seeking access to a sibling would get legal aid? We should encourage that, as cost is the big barrier for many people. Secondly, as sheriffs have a lot of flexibility and discretion in awarding custody and considering access rights, could we write to the Sheriff Principals Association, asking it to read these papers and comment on whether sheriffs would at least look sympathetically at the case of a child who was seeking such access?

Arguably, it is for the relevant justice committee to pursue the matter. However, we could recommend that that committee should write to the Sheriff Principals Association.

Yes. That would suit me fine.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I did not hear everything that Winifred Ewing said. Under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the opinions of children from the age of 12 upwards must be taken account of, but those of under-12s are not taken account of, as children of that age are not thought to be responsible enough. We could suggest that one of the justice committees should re-examine that and consider lowering the required age. In my view, children aged seven or eight would be more than capable of giving their opinions, and that fact should be taken account of.

Okay. On PE438, in addition to making the two suggestions from Winnie Ewing, we will make the point that Phil Gallie has raised to the relevant justice committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Is it agreed that we will take no further action on PE413?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Suicides (PE465)

PE465 comes from George McAuley, on behalf of the UK Men's Movement, and calls for a study on the incidence of parents' suicide when the loss of contact with their children is thought to have been a contributing factor to, or the sole factor in, their suicide. The petitioner claims that the significant increase in the number of suicides among adult men in recent years can be attributed, at least in part, to the increase in the number of marital breakdowns and the subsequent separation of parents from their children.

Again, we asked the Executive for its comments, particularly for an update on the national framework for the prevention of suicide and deliberate self-harm in Scotland. The Executive acknowledges that divorce and separation can be risk factors for suicide, but it is not aware of any research that examines the link between suicide and the quality of contact between parents and children. The Executive argues that it would be extremely difficult to obtain meaningful and reliable data on the issue and explains why it thinks that to be the case.

The Executive also provides information about its current project to develop a framework for the prevention of suicide. As part of that, the Executive is analysing responses to its consultation document, including comments from the UK Men's Movement. The Executive is working on two other linked projects and hopes to launch a final version of the framework later this year.

The Executive has given an undertaking that the views of the UK Men's Movement will be made known to the team that is collating the information that is available on suicide in Scotland. The Executive also has a new initiative called "breathing space". The Executive's major project that aims to tackle the issue of suicide and self-harm does not directly address the specific issue raised in the petition, but the petitioners' comments will be taken into account by the Executive as part of the project's consultation exercise. The petitioner's views are also being taken into account as part of other strands of that work.

In view of that on-going work, it is suggested that we agree to take no further action on the petition. However, it could be suggested to the petitioners that, following the publication of the framework for the prevention of suicide later this year, if they are still concerned that certain groups are excluded from the Executive's proposals, they could consider submitting a further petition at that time.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning Legislation (PE484)

The next petition is from Mr and Mrs Shields and concerns the planning system and the lack of clarity in the planning legislation. The petition is prompted by their experience—they allege that Highland Council demonstrated maladministration and non-compliance with set procedures and breached various sections of the national code of conduct for local government in handling a planning application with which they were concerned.

We agreed to write to the Executive about the petitioners' complaints to seek clarification on whether the remit of the new public sector ombudsman would be different in relation to the planning process and whether he would confirm that court action remains the only option for those who wish to raise such matters.

The Executive response reaffirms that the ombudsman cannot question the merits of discretionary decisions and that it is for the courts ultimately to decide on those matters. The Executive confirmed that the role of the local government ombudsman in dealing with complaints will continue under the new Scottish public service ombudsman.

The petitioners are clearly frustrated by what they consider to be the failure of either the council, the ombudsman or the Executive to deal with their allegations of maladministration in a planning matter. Of course, when the ombudsman decides not to investigate a complaint, it is open to the complainant to seek redress through the courts. As many petitioners have pointed out, court action is expensive and beyond the means of the average member of the public. Given the Executive's clear opposition to third-party appeals, however, that would appear to be the only route open at present to those who are aggrieved by planning decisions.

To date, the responsible subject committee—the Transport and the Environment Committee—has been unwilling to consider the issue of third-party planning appeals. In those circumstances, it is suggested that we agree to copy the Executive response to the petitioners—pointing out that court action seems to be the only way in which to deal with such complaints—and that we take no further action.

The only problem that I have with that suggested action is that, as I understand their complaint, the petitioners are challenging not the merits of the discretionary decision that was taken by the relevant authorities, but the means by which that decision was arrived at—in other words, maladministration. However, the ombudsman says that he cannot investigate maladministration if an appeals process exists. I find that strange. I do not see why the ombudsman should not be able to investigate a complaint of maladministration that is separate from an appeal about a discretionary decision. I wonder whether we should write to the ombudsman asking for clarification of that before we close the petition.

I agree with that. I have recently been doing quite a bit of work on the issue, which comes up time and again, not just at this committee but regularly within my constituency. I am aware that the Executive is considering the issue of third-party rights of appeal and that that is out to consultation. However, I share the convener's concern and believe that we should write to the ombudsman. We ought to monitor closely the Executive's current consultation—I think that the Executive is now considering the responses to the consultation paper. I have set up a meeting with the Town and Country Planning Association to consider the wider issues; the meeting will take place in the next two or three weeks.

That is good. The issue is important because, although a developer who was refused planning permission and made a complaint of maladministration could rightly use that complaint as part of an appeal, that is not the case with anyone who objects to a developer's planning application. They have no opportunity to appeal against a decision. For them to be denied the right of a complaint of maladministration is unfair. That is something to which the ombudsman should respond. Do we agree to write to the ombudsman about that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Triple Assessment Breast Examinations (PE491)

The next petition is PE491 from Ms Elaine McNeil on obligatory access to breast examinations. The committee will remember that the petition asked us to introduce legislation to make triple assessment procedures obligatory for all women who present themselves for a breast examination.

We have sought the views of the Executive and have received a reply, which details the various investigative procedures that are used when breast cancer is suspected and explains that triple assessment is a combination of mammography, ultrasound and fine needle aspiration or core biopsy. The last two are invasive procedures. Mammography involves a form of X-ray, which can expose patients to a small risk of radiation-induced cancers. The Executive states that mandatory mammography examination in all women with breast problems would unnecessarily expose thousands of women to an increased risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The Executive also claims that, if triple assessment were to be made mandatory, it would involve unnecessarily subjecting the majority of women to invasive procedures and would require the reporting of thousands of unnecessary mammography and ultrasound images and approximately 19,000 additional and unnecessary fluid specimens.

In its response to the alleged inconsistencies in conducting triple assessments between hospitals throughout Scotland, the Executive states that all breast clinics must comply with the Clinical Standards Board for Scotland standards for breast cancer services. Those include a requirement for triple assessment where a localised abnormality has been detected.

The Executive's view is clearly different from the petitioner's. Although the Executive's response appears reasonable, the petitioner clearly has contrary opinions. We must decide whether to refer the petition straight to the Health and Community Care Committee or write back to the petitioner asking for her response to what the Executive has said.

It would be helpful to write back to the petitioner. I remember her presentation. It was very emotive. We owe it to her to write and get her response. The issue is difficult. Someone who is among the one in seven or eight women who have a confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer would want to be certain that everything that can be done is done.

The committee might recall that the petitioner had an aunt—a blood relative—who died of breast cancer and yet the petitioner was not put through the triple examination and was misdiagnosed. It is astonishing that the Executive makes no reference to the hereditary factor and that type of patient. I am not satisfied with the reply. It should be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee.

I agree with Dorothy-Grace Elder. If we write to the petitioner again, we will just end up with an exchange of letters on a complex subject that needs to be considered by a committee. I suggest that we copy the Executive's response to the petitioner but that, rather than asking her to respond to us, we tell her that we have referred the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, which, I hope, will be able to deal with it and spend more time on it.

Are all committee members of that view?

I add a request that we copy the petition to the cross-party group on cancer.

We can do that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

I welcome the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to the committee and thank him for coming along. We move directly to consideration of PE500. We will come back to PE496 after we have had a chance to talk to the minister.

A large number of members are in attendance—much in excess of the committee's membership—to hear what the minister has to say. If the minister would like to say a few introductory words, he can go ahead.

I am glad to have the opportunity to address any further issues that arise from my letter of 12 June, which was written in response to the convener's letter of 8 May, and to clarify the key issues, which on occasion have been misunderstood or have caused some confusion. I hope to address that today.

The petitioners called for the Executive to increase the amount that is on offer and to expedite payment so that pensioners receive the maximum benefit from the pension fund surplus at the earliest date. The first point that must be clarified is that neither the former pension scheme members nor the Scottish Executive had a claim on the Scottish Transport Group pension scheme surplus on the wind-up of the schemes. The petitioners are aware that, without the intervention of Scottish ministers, the surplus would have gone to the UK Exchequer, in line with the requirements of section 14 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989.

As I explained in my letter, when we consider the basis and the mode of distribution north and south of the border, it is crucial to acknowledge the difference in the rules of the National Bus Company and the STG schemes on the final destination of surplus funds in the schemes. The rules for the NBC scheme stipulate that any remaining surplus should go to employees, whereas the rules for the STG pension schemes stipulate that any remaining surplus should go to employers, which means the UK Exchequer.

Following a breach of the NBC scheme rules, the actions of the NBC trustees were referred to the pensions ombudsman, who found that the company had acted improperly. The ombudsman ordered the wind-up of the NBC to be reversed and the NBC pension schemes to be restored to the position in which they would have been if they had continued to operate in the intervening years. The petitioners are aware that an out-of-court settlement was agreed with the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. It became clear at that time that members of the NBC schemes would receive an average payment of about £7,000 each.

Although we could identify no legal basis for treating the Scottish schemes in the same way, Scottish ministers were keen to address the perceived detriment to Scottish pensioners and to ensure that they received an outcome that was comparable with the one for their English counterparts, despite the difference in the rules. For that reason, Scottish ministers intervened directly with the UK Government to secure for Scottish pensioners an outcome that was in line with what had been achieved on a different basis south of the border. In December 2000, Henry McLeish, the then First Minister, announced that we had secured £100 million from the pension scheme surplus for disbursement through ex gratia payments, which would provide an average payment of £7,000 for each Scottish pensioner. I stress the word "average", because the numbers vary greatly in Scotland and England.

As members will recall, in November last year I announced that, in addition to the £100 million that had been secured, we had agreed with the Treasury to an increase of a further £18 million, to take account of investment return that had occurred after the initial agreement was made and of a decrease from 40 per cent to 35 per cent in the rate of tax that was payable on the surplus.

We await the final audit, but we expect the final accounts for the STG to reveal that the surplus, net of tax, will be approximately £176 million. Apart from the £118 million that has been set aside for distribution and the £50 million that will go to the Treasury, according to the agreement of December 2000, an additional balance of £8 million remains, which, under statutory requirements, should be remitted to HM Treasury. However, as I said in my letter, we will make further representations to the Treasury on that, with a view to retaining that additional surplus for disbursement to the former STG pension scheme members.

The most important matter—and the one in which most pensioners are interested—is when payments will be made. I confirm that the Scottish Public Pensions Agency will write to individuals around the end of July to indicate their payment, based on their pension scheme record. Individuals will be asked to confirm the data that have been used to calculate those payments. For those who are able to reply to the SPPA with confirmation that the data are correct, payment will be authorised quickly. Cases where there are disputes about the data will clearly take longer. I expect payments to the great majority of pensioners, when the pensioners agree with the figures that are used in calculating their entitlement, to begin by mid-August 2002.

The SPPA will run a media advertising campaign, which will be timed to coincide with letters being sent to individuals. The purpose of the campaign is to cast the net widely for those who think that they may be eligible but have not received a letter from the agency by a specified date. The advertisements will include a contact address and telephone number, in order to assist us in tracking down any potential beneficiaries for whom we do not have complete or accurate records. I hope that that brief summary clarifies the principles involved in the making of the ex gratia payments and that the committee will agree that what the Executive has done goes some way towards meeting the demands of the petitioners. It goes as far as we have been able to go in maximising the sums available for distribution to them. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This is a complex matter. I take it that all members, including those who are not members of the Public Petitions Committee, have the papers. I intend to go through the eight questions that the committee asked the Executive and deal with each in turn. I will ask members whether they want to raise any additional questions on those points. At the end, we will deal with any matters that have not been covered.

The first question asked whether the Executive intended to reopen negotiations with the Treasury. As members have heard, the minister said that the Executive intends to make further representations to the Treasury about an additional £8 million. Are there any questions on that point?

The minister told me in reply to an oral question on 2 May that the pension funds at that time had a surplus of £174 million. He stated:

"We will talk to Treasury ministers about the distribution of that money."—[Official Report, 2 May 2002; c 11565.]

The minister has told us this morning that the net surplus is likely to be £176 million rather than £174 million. In his letter to the committee, he states:

"Scottish Ministers will make further representations to HM Treasury to retain the additional surplus".

However, in the most recent bulletin sent out to members, or former members, of the pension funds, he indicates that the negotiations with the Treasury are only about a sum of £6 million. There is some ambiguity. I understood that the negotiations with the Treasury would be about the total net surplus of £174 million—now £176 million—yet it seems that only the possibility of an additional £6 million is now being negotiated on. How was the figure of £6 million reached? Can the minister clarify what is going on in the negotiations with the Treasury?

I will attempt to do that. Dennis Canavan has correctly identified two points of ambiguity, which I want to clear up. First, the net surplus that we were aware of at the time of our exchange in Parliament—the net surplus until the end of the last financial year, which was 31 March 2002—included £118 million that we had already secured, £50 million that we had agreed with the Treasury in 2000 would go to the Treasury and, at that stage, an additional £6 million, which had been accrued over the financial year that had just finished.

Since then, we have gone through the necessary stages. The pension schemes were wound up, the Scottish Bus Group was put into liquidation and, on 7 June, Scottish ministers dissolved the Scottish Transport Group. Following that process, there is a period between the end of March and 7 June when there has been a further accumulation of surplus. Although we do not yet have a final audited account to confirm a precise figure, our estimate is that it will be in the region of an additional £2 million. At the end of March there was £174 million, which consisted of £118 secured, £50 million agreed to go to the Treasury and a further £6 million. That last figure is now £8 million, so there is a surplus that is not accounted for under the headings of money that has been secured or money that it has been agreed will go to the Treasury.

That is the first point of clarification. If members are happy with that, I will deal with the second point of clarification.

I am not entirely happy that the total net surplus is £176 million, yet the negotiations with the Treasury seem to have been for an additional amount that falls far short of that. Even if the additional £6 million or so is successfully negotiated, the Treasury would pocket about £50 million.

That is the second point that I was about to make, but I wanted to clarify the first point, which is that the sum of £6 million, which Dennis Canavan quoted, is now nearer £8 million. That is because of the accumulation of surplus between the end of March and the beginning of June.

As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the agreement that was reached with the Treasury in 2000 was that the Treasury would get £50 million and that we would secure £100 million for distribution to pensioners. That agreement remains in place. When we open discussions with the Treasury, we will want to talk in particular about the £8 million of additional surplus that has been accrued since the £18 million was secured last November. We are not closing the door to further discussions, but our primary objective at this stage is to address the issue of the £8 million. We will seek to persuade the Treasury that that additional accrual in the surplus should be made available through us for distribution to pensioners.

In the negotiations, is there a possibility of the Executive being successful in persuading the Treasury to give more than £8 million or is that the maximum amount on which negotiations will take place?

The £8 million represents the sum that is not subject to any existing agreement between the Treasury and Scottish ministers. That is why the £8 million is the primary focus of our concern in speaking further to the Treasury.

Will we have a guarantee that the Executive will point out to the Treasury during the negotiations that, under the existing proposals, the Treasury will pocket more than 60 per cent of the total gross surplus, whereas the pensioners will get less than 40 per cent? We should also bear in mind the fact that the Treasury will receive tax on the surplus. If the objective is, as the minister said, to achieve parity or comparability with what happened with the NBC scheme south of the border, why cannot the Executive convince the Treasury that the existing proposals are inadequate? The negotiations must leave scope for a much improved offer rather than just aim for a mere £8 million.

I am sure that Mr Canavan does not expect me to lay out in advance the detail of the negotiations that we will enter into. That would not be appropriate. However, he can assume that we will continue to make the case that we made in securing the sums that have already been secured to achieve the best possible distribution to Scottish pensioners. Our priority in the negotiations will be to focus on the unallocated sum but, yes, he can assume that, in our discussions with Treasury, we will advance similar arguments to those that were used in previous discussions.

After Fergus Ewing's question, we need to move on to deal with the next point.

Does the minister accept that, since the original proposed package of £100 million for distribution among the pensioners was announced in December 2000, the enhancement of £18 million has arisen purely through growth in the pension fund and a reduction in the tax rate from 40 per cent to 35 per cent? Does he accept that the further £8 million is due purely to the growth in the fund and that, accordingly, there has been no additional contribution from the Treasury since the original proposal?

I accept the first part of what Fergus Ewing said. The £18 million that we secured last year was the result of a reduction in the tax rate from 40 per cent to 35 per cent and from the accumulation of funds in the surplus during that period. Likewise, the £6 million to £8 million figure—it is nearer to £8 million—is a result of an accumulation in the funds.

I do not accept as a logical consequence that there is no further contribution from the Treasury. The Treasury's view would be that the £18 million and the £8 million that has been accumulated legally belongs to them. However, the agreement it has reached with us is that the money should be available to us for distribution to pensioners, even though it has a claim on that money. We have secured the £18 million and we also seek to secure the £8 million.

I understand that that is how the Treasury views matters, but it is certainly not how the SNP views matters. We believe that the negotiations should not merely open the door to the £50 million, but should involve you strongly urging the Treasury that the £50 million is needed to do justice to the pensioners and to tackle all the other points that will no doubt emerge during the debate.

As I said in response to Mr Canavan, we will conduct our negotiations in the most effective way that we can.

Let us move on to the second part of the answer to the first question, which was about the expected time scale of the payments. We have heard from the minister that the Scottish Public Pensions Agency will write to pensioners at the end of July, asking them to confirm the payments to be made to them and informing them that those payments will be made by mid-August.

It seems that one cannot isolate the answer without considering question 7.

We will come to that eventually.

I know, but my point is that the disbursement will not happen if someone makes a legal challenge. Is that the position, minister?

I am sorry, Dr Ewing. Was your question that the payment would not happen in the event of a legal challenge?

Is that the position?

We hope to make payments as quickly as we can. That position would be put in jeopardy if there were a legal challenge that questioned the basis for any payments that we made. I suspect that officials would advise me that we should cease payments until any such legal ambiguity was resolved. I hope that any legal issues that individuals might wish to raise would not be raised during the payment process and cause delay to the distribution to pensioners.

We are dealing with question 7.

The two questions are inextricably linked, convener. If one person makes a legal challenge, nothing will happen in August 2002. Is that the position?

I sincerely hope that that position will not arise. If there is a legal challenge, I will receive advice from officials, but the responsibility for a decision will lie with ministers. Judging by precedent, the advice of civil servants in the circumstances that you describe would be that we should make no payments that might be called into question in a court of law or that might call into question our proper stewardship of public funds.

Does the minister accept my view that there is an element of blackmail? A pensioner has the right to make a legal challenge but, if they do, they might harm their payment and the payments of all the people who do not make a legal challenge.

The position is that anyone who considers making a legal challenge would wish to seek legal advice and to consider it carefully. They should also consider carefully whether there is a realistic basis for pursuing such a challenge. If the rules are as clear as we believe them to be, any surplus belongs to the employer and not to the employee. I would expect any responsible legal adviser to point that out to anyone who is considering taking legal action. The quality of legal advice is always critical.

What a disgraceful mess.

I remind members that we are considering questions 1 and 7 together.

I welcome the fact that payments will start being made in August. I am concerned that many of the people who are eligible to receive payments are elderly. What steps will the Executive take to ensure that eligible people can claim their payments? Elderly people are notorious for not claiming what is due to them, as they might be frail, unwell and unable to make those claims for themselves. Will local authorities help people to make claims? I am thinking particularly of people in nursing homes who would not be able to make their claims without help.

Our intention is to advertise as widely as we can to seek to reach those people who might not be aware of their entitlement. That will be an important aspect of what we do. Likewise, we will seek to ensure that widows, children and widowers of pensioners are aware of their rights and are encouraged to make appropriate claims. Jamie Ross will respond briefly to the question about how local government might assist with that.

The key point is that we are keen for anyone who is eligible for an ex gratia payment to receive it. The minister referred to the extensive advertising campaign that we will conduct throughout Scotland. We are well aware that not everyone will see that, but we will write to people who are on our records and whom we feel will be eligible for ex gratia payments. If we receive no response to that first letter, we will not drop the matter—we will follow it up. We have also had some discussion with other groups such as trade unions and local authorities. We urge anyone who has a role to play it, because we are keen for everyone who should receive an ex gratia payment to receive it. We will make every effort.

The trade unions—particularly the Transport and General Workers Union, which is the largest relevant union—have been closely involved in the process and will, we hope, continue to assist in identifying members.

With regard to double taxation—

We have not reached that subject yet.

I am sorry. I thought that we were on question 2.

We are still dealing with question 1.

What is happening with T&G Scotland? I am here as the T&G representative. What is happening with the formula? Has that been decided? What is the time scale for doing that? The formula must be decided before the letters can be sent.

The criteria for distribution have been decided and discussed with the T&G among others. Members will be aware of the broad criteria. The precise formula for distribution is being worked on, but it will not hold up the process or the timetable that I described. One or two details of the formula will need to be clarified, but its essential shape is clear. The T&G has talked to us about that from an early stage and I think that it is broadly content with our proposal.

Question 2 deals with double taxation and the distinction that has been drawn between NBC members, who it is claimed were paid a lump sum from the pension scheme, and STG beneficiaries, who will receive ex gratia payments from surplus funds, which, on wind-up of the pension schemes, should go to the UK Exchequer.

I will start on the issue because I raised it when the Public Petitions Committee last discussed the petition. Much hinges on whether the settlement up here is comparable with what is happening down south with the National Bus Company. Much information was given at the meeting when the committee last discussed the petition. That showed fairly convincingly that the positions of the two settlements were not comparable. I would like your views on that information.

The question that follows from that concerns unlocking the £50 million for the Treasury, which is essentially tax on the ex gratia payments. As the minister said in his introduction, the NBC scheme rules said that any surplus would go to employees rather than employers, which is why settlements could be made without tax, whereas the Scottish scheme requires tax to be paid. I understand that the Inland Revenue has been consulted and has said that it can see no special case for changing its decision. Was the information that was provided to the committee put before the Inland Revenue? It strikes me that a special case could be made for making the ex gratia payments tax free.

Two points are involved and are worth distinguishing. First, as I said at the outset, the schemes have different rules on the treatment of a remaining surplus or deficit. The second point concerns what the trustees of the different schemes have chosen to do. The trustees of the STG pension scheme did not choose to make pensions payments in the way that happened south of the border. Whereas the NBC pensioners in effect received enhanced pension payments or a lump sum paid out within the terms of that pension scheme, the Scottish pensioners received ex gratia payments outwith the terms of their pension scheme. I suspect that that is the key distinction, as individuals are liable to personal taxation upon receipt of ex gratia payments.

The decision to proceed in that way lay with the trustees of the respective schemes. Scottish ministers had no say or role in that decision. However, I understand that the STG trustees made the decision on the basis that payments had already been made to their pensioners. A distinction must be drawn between the legal ownership of the remaining surplus, which I have already touched on, and the way in which the trustees chose to make payments. That was the second point.

On the arguments that were put to the Inland Revenue, I may need to call on one of my officials, who was involved in the technical side of the discussions, to respond to that question. In essence, we made a case from a number of different angles and sought to identify a basis for special consideration. However, at the end of the day, the judgment is for the Inland Revenue, which decided that the Scottish pensioners have no basis for claiming tax-free payments because the money is being paid outwith the terms of the pension scheme. That is the fundamental issue.

Perhaps Jamie Ross can speak more about the particulars of that discussion.

I will reinforce that point. One approach is to look at the wider issue and try to secure parity so that Scottish pensioners can feel that they are being treated equally and in the same way as those down south. However, the Inland Revenue views the situation as a taxation issue. Obviously, we gave the Inland Revenue the background on why we were keen to make a case for the payments to be tax free but, as the minister has explained, the fact is that the payments are not being made under a pension scheme nor are they redundancy payments. The payments are very much ex gratia by their nature because the legal position was that the money could have passed to the Exchequer. In our representations to the Inland Revenue, we reinforced the point that obtaining tax-free payments would help us secure parity.

Returning to the earlier point that was raised, I want to mention the wider context. Obviously, although the NBC scheme has a finite amount of money with a finite number of pensioners, our research has shown that there is a huge range in the value of payments that can be made. We have always talked about trying to obtain parity on an average basis, so I think that no one will dispute the fact that some individuals may get huge amounts while some may get low amounts. All that links into the principle of fairness, which is that the payment is linked to service and to the individual's contribution history in the pension scheme.

To summarise, in our representations to the Inland Revenue, we explained why we were trying to make the case and we explained the need for parity. However, the Inland Revenue's position was that it saw no special reasons why it should agree to our proposal.

I have one follow-up question.

You must ask it quickly. We are not making progress and I have three groups of petitioners waiting to speak to subsequent petitions.

What special circumstances will the Inland Revenue take into account so that people need not pay tax? Can Jamie Ross provide some examples?

To be honest, I am not sure that any of the officials could quote them.

Special circumstances can exist, but if Sylvia Jackson wants to pursue the question, perhaps she would be best to address it to the Inland Revenue.

We all want an answer to Sylvia Jackson's question.

However complicated the vagaries of pension law and tax law may be, I think that the minister and Mr Ross have in effect admitted that the Executive has asked the Inland Revenue for a deal that would allow the Scottish pensioners to be treated in broadly the same way as their counterparts south of the border, but that the Inland Revenue has said no. That means that Scottish pensioners will receive a worse deal than those in England. That is true, is it not? If it is, surely the way to resolve that is to get the £50 million to set matters right.

I do not agree. It is certainly our intention that the assertion that you made will not be the case. The deal that Scottish pensioners receive should be comparable with that south of the border. We secured £100 million in the first negotiation. That would have provided, on average, a sum before tax of £7,000, comparable with the average sum received by an English pensioner of £7,000. The additional £18 million that we have secured means that the average receipt for a Scottish pensioner will be more like £8,000. That goes a significant way towards dealing with the taxation issue.

The position of individuals will depend on their other income and on whether their existing pension income renders them liable to tax. Sadly, as we know, in many cases transport company operatives have in the past not received generous pension payments, so I suspect that a significant number will not be liable for tax in any case. By securing additional funds, we have sought as far as possible to meet the difference in the tax position. It has not been a matter for political negotiation. As Fergus Ewing said, it is a matter of pension law and tax law. We have sought to maximise the arguments where that will lead to benefit for Scottish pensioners.

You state in your letter, that you have met representatives of the pensioners action committee. Could you tell us when that was and who you met? None of the representatives of that committee to whom I have spoken have met you. Will you meet Derek Scott? He gave evidence to the committee at a previous meeting and has subsequently made specific recommendations of a technical nature as to how the payments could be made. His recommendations would have the effect of avoiding the situation in which tax was due to be paid by the pensioners. When did your meeting with representatives of the action committee take place? Will you meet Derek Scott, who is an expert accountant on those issues, to see if there is a way to get out of this morass?

Those points refer to question 8, which we intended to come to later, but the minister could answer the point now and get it out of the way.

I met a group of four representatives of the pensioners action committee, one of whom was Jim Donnelly. The meeting took place in Perth on 23 February. It allowed us to address a number of the issues that were of concern to the pensioners action committee. As I indicated in my reply to the convener, we have responded to a significant number of the points that have been raised since then either by correspondence or in Parliament. We will consider on its merits any request for a further meeting that follows the meeting today.

I want to be clear about this point. It relates to the question that Sylvia Jackson asked. Has the evidence that Mr Derek Scott gave to the committee formed any part of the Executive's considerations or the negotiations with the Inland Revenue?

That evidence is certainly something of which we have been aware. Do either of my officials wish to comment on that point?

Have the points that Mr Scott made to the committee been raised with the Inland Revenue?

We have the points that were raised at a previous meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. The discussions with the Inland Revenue had taken place prior to that point.

So they have not been raised with the Inland Revenue. That is clear. We will move on.

As well as giving evidence to the committee, Derek Scott sent an e-mail to the Scottish Executive on 9 June. The e-mail outlined in detail some options whereby payments could possibly be made to the pensioners without them incurring double taxation. He has not to my knowledge received a reply to his e-mail. When is he likely to receive a reply? Does it not reinforce the case for another meeting with the pensioners action committee and Mr Scott to discuss the contents of the e-mail?

Those matters are complex. We appreciate that the minister is not responsible for the Inland Revenue, but we feel strongly that the SPPA may not have considered all the possible options and may not have put all possible options to the Inland Revenue. Bearing in mind the time constraints on this meeting, a future meeting between the minister and the action committee to try to find solutions to the outstanding matters would be helpful.

As you say, we received an e-mail from Mr Scott just over a week ago. We will consider carefully the points in it and respond to it. If there is additional information or interpretation in the e-mail that we feel might be useful, we will certainly consider how best to act upon it. On that basis, we will consider carefully whether there would be advantage in a meeting. I do not close the door to that possibility, but we must consider it. I will take advice on that in the next few days.

The next set of questions deals with the fact that the STG pensioners made four years of additional contributions because of the late privatisation of their organisation. They also had an agreement in 1983 that promised enhanced pension payments in return for a wage settlement. As no one wishes to ask questions about the minister's answers on those points, we will move on to the decision of the 27 pension trustees to award themselves payments that totalled almost £700,000 to compensate for the loss of privileges such as private medical cover.

The STG board made a bad contract. Few people are guaranteed payment for life. In few situations in our society are we told, "We will pay you for life." The promise of BUPA—British United Provident Association—cover until death was extraordinary and the result of that was payments totalling £500,000. We are talking about poor old pensioners, yet those people helped themselves to £500,000. The contract seems extraordinarily bad. Does the minister have any comment on that?

I do not disagree. It surprised me to discover that a publicly owned industry had put such a generous contract in place for private health care. The legal advice that the Government received was that, on the wind-up of the Scottish Transport Group, a liability existed that had to be met by the STG or by the Government. It is important that the liability was met by the STG and not from the pension schemes.

Would the relevant minister at the time have agreed to the contract?

I assume so. That was significantly before my time, not to mention the fact that I am a member of entirely the wrong party to be asked about that. I assume that ministers were aware of the contract.

We will move on to seek to clarify whether the sums for pensioners who have passed away will be paid to pensioners' widows and widowers, added to the surplus for the benefit of the remaining pensioners or retained by the Treasury.

After a meeting of STG pensioners in Inverness, a lady told me that she had been the common-law wife and was now the widow of a scheme member—if one regarded them as husband and wife—who sadly passed away. As happens sometimes in Scotland, no legal ceremony took place. Will that lady and others who are in the same situation qualify?

Yes. The intention is that such people will qualify.

I am pleased to hear that. Will the share that a widow or widower receives be equivalent to the share that the deceased spouse would have received, or will it be 50 per cent or some other proportion?

It will be 50 per cent.

Should it not be 100 per cent? Although the amount is a facet of pension law, we are dealing not with pension law but with ex gratia payments. The people who are involved have lost a loved one and will be penalised for the delay. We are talking about the situation since 1993. If their partners had survived, the full payment would be received. Not only have those people lost a loved one, but they will receive only 50 per cent. In many cases—such as that of my constituent, the widow of Alex Munro—that is because the pensioner passed away in the time since the Parliament was established. Could that decision be reconsidered?

Although the payments are ex gratia, they are within the scheme's rules. What we can pay will accord with the scheme's rules. For widowers whose wives were pensioners, we have gone beyond the rules of the scheme. We have found a way to include widowers in the scheme.

Will you reconsider the matter? I urge you to do that. The penalty seems extraordinarily unfair. We are not dealing with pensions law. You have the power to make the full payment if you wish.

I can certainly investigate the issue. I cannot today offer an assurance as to the outcome of that investigation, but I am prepared to examine whether there is anything that we can do.

I am grateful for that undertaking.

I would be grateful if the Public Petitions Committee could be kept informed of developments.

I am sure that that will happen.

Question 6 concerns a statement made in a parliamentary debate in November 2001 about the failure of individual pensioners to convince the pensions ombudsman that there is any legal basis for them to make a claim on the surplus. We thought that the minister had made the statement, but in fact it was made by Nora Radcliffe MSP.

In his response, the minister states:

"the Rules for the STG schemes stipulated that any remaining surplus should go to the employers".

However, that was the case only after a rule change that was made in 1989. Believe it or not, fewer than 100 members out of more than 9,000 active members took part in the vote that produced that rule change. The Executive should take into account the fact that the rules were changed in a very undemocratic manner. The trustees did not try very hard to encourage participation by the members of the scheme.

I note that point. The position is as I described, although I am grateful to Mr Canavan for the further information that he provides on the circumstances in which the rules were changed. The situation may be a matter for regret, but the rules are as they stand. The pension schemes have been wound up and the trustees are trustees no longer. The trustees took a number of decisions that might have been taken differently. Unfortunately, those decisions cannot be remedied, because they were taken by trustees who were acting within the rules of the schemes.

Sylvia Jackson made a point about this being a special case. Some 100 out of 9,000 members were responsible for a bad rule change. Should the Inland Revenue not have highlighted that point? This situation reminds me of the signing of the Treaty of Union, in which only 0.001 per cent of the folk of Scotland had a say. That treaty has been in place for hundreds of years. Dennis Canavan has provided us with an incredible piece of information. What was the STG board doing letting down people in that way? It is absolutely dreadful. Surely the Inland Revenue should take the point into account.

I understand Dr Ewing's long-standing antipathy to the Act of Union, but in 300 years no challenge to the legal standing of the act has been sustained. I fear that the same may be true in this case. However, we will take the point into account when considering whether there are additional grounds for discussion.

We dealt with question 7 when dealing with question 1. Question 8 has also been dealt with.

I would like to make a brief point about the minister's answer to question 7.

The question was about the implications of any legal challenge mounted by the pensioners.

The issue was referred to at the committee's last meeting. The minister is aware of the legal opinion that Mr Trotter of MacRoberts provided for the Scottish Bus Group pensioners action committee. That opinion was circulated to the minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and just about everyone else—I have a copy of it in front of me—and it raises a number of technical issues.

Does the minister agree that grounds—some of which Mr Canavan has suggested—may well exist for a challenge to the conduct of the trustees? Has the minister taken advice and does he accept that there may be a prima facie case? If so, will he comment on the fact that a gun has been put to the head of any pensioner who wishes to pursue his or her legal rights on the basis of what appears to be the solid opinion of an expert in the field?

I would not wish to assert a legal view, but we have acted on the best advice on the legal entitlement to ownership of the pension surpluses. On that basis, we have proceeded in the way that I have described. We have secured as much as possible of the surplus by agreement with the Treasury. We believe that that was the right course to follow.

As is the way of these things, the legal advice from our advisers was full and frank, and so was received in confidence. We listened to that advice before coming to a view. We feel that we have received the best possible deal for pensioners. Clearly, others have the right to take a different view. As I have stressed, having finally secured the funds at the beginning of this month, following the wind-up of the pension schemes, our priority now is to distribute them as quickly as we can. If people feel that there is a prima facie case, as described by Mr Ewing, we would encourage them to consider carefully not only the substance of that case but the timing.

We have covered most of the issues and I thank the minister for his open and honest answers. He has been very co-operative and I thank him on behalf of the committee.

We must now consider our response to what we have heard. The matter is complex and detailed. The committee's only power is to refer the petition to another subject committee. We are not really sure which committee would be appropriate. The Finance Committee has looked into the matter but complaints arose over the way in which it dealt with it. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee may also have a view on the petition as it concerns a commercial enterprise.

It is suggested that we take time to consider the matter and put the issue on the agenda of our next meeting, which will be the committee's final meeting before the recess. In the meantime, the clerks will liaise with other committees to decide which committee would be the appropriate one to deal with the petition. We should not rush things.

I am not a member of the committee but I would like to make a suggestion. When they questioned the minister, several members proposed that he should meet members of the pensioners committee and their adviser, Mr Derek Scott. It would be helpful if the committee could formally endorse that proposal and put it to the minister.

I do not have a problem with that. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will have to consider how to deal with the taxation question, which was not answered this morning.

I would like to read the Official Report of the meeting so that, at the next meeting, we are better placed to discuss what can and cannot be done.

When is the next meeting?

A week today. It will be the last meeting before the recess, so we will decide then.

I agree with your proposal that the matter should go on the agenda for that meeting. I also propose that we ask Derek Scott to put to us his suggestions to the minister about ways of resolving the matter without double taxation. I was not satisfied with the way in which the minister brushed aside questions about whom he had met and when. We need to know whether the points in the vital e-mail have been put to the Inland Revenue. We got the admission that they had not. As far as I am concerned, the matter is still open.

We could invite Mr Scott to the next meeting to discuss the petition.

I want to pick up on what Helen Eadie said. There is the unresolved issue of special cases in which the Inland Revenue changes its mind and there is also the issue of what the minister will do. Now that he has the information that was available at the previous meeting of the Public Petitions Committee, which he and his staff admitted they did not have when they went to the Inland Revenue, will he put the case to the Inland Revenue again?

It has been suggested that, as well as asking Derek Scott to be present, we could ask for an urgent response from the Inland Revenue in respect of special cases so that that will be available for the next committee meeting.

I appreciate that I am not a member of the committee, so I welcome the opportunity to participate in the discussion. It is obvious that if payments are to be made over the summer—I think that we all want payments to be made—our only opportunity to progress matters as perhaps all of us would like will be next week. Will the convener confirm that Mr Scott and the Inland Revenue should provide a response next week, now that we have the benefit of the minister's comments? That would enable us successfully to put further pressure on the minister before the recess, safe in the knowledge that the statutory instrument will probably be laid shortly thereafter.

As far as the Public Petitions Committee is concerned, the intention is to resolve the issue at the next meeting. We realise the urgency of the matter and want the Inland Revenue to respond by next week. We will ask it to do so in order that the committee can reach a decision. That is why we want Derek Scott to be present, too. If he cannot be present, we cannot do anything about that, but we can consider the points that he made at the previous meeting.

Is the intention to invite the Inland Revenue to give evidence to the committee?

We can invite the Inland Revenue, but it is under no compulsion to attend any meeting of a committee of the Parliament. At this stage, we simply want to obtain the information that Sylvia Jackson wants. We are trying to pressurise the Scottish ministers in their negotiations with the Inland Revenue. I do not think that we can take the place of the Scottish ministers in negotiations at this stage. We should apply the maximum pressure to get ministers to reopen the issues.

I fully accept what you say. However, would not it be useful if Mr Scott and the Inland Revenue attended the meeting? Mr Scott could then make his points, safe in the knowledge that there will be the opportunity to get a direct response from the Inland Revenue. Despite everybody's good intentions, I fear that we will not otherwise get the necessary response. I propose that the Inland Revenue should be invited to give evidence next week.

There is no guarantee that an Inland Revenue representative will come and I am concerned that ministers would see that approach as gross interference in negotiations that they are conducting on behalf of the Scottish Executive. At this stage, it would be better simply to obtain the information and try to process it.

If we invite the Inland Revenue, at least it will have to turn the invitation down.

It would be very short notice for Inland Revenue civil servants to come up from London.

What about the poor old people who are not getting any money? I suggest that we invite the Inland Revenue—at least, it can then turn us down. Our final meeting is next week and there are constraints on our time. That is not our fault.

We can invite the Inland Revenue. Does any member oppose that?

I am a wee bit concerned about Winnie Ewing's tone. She wants to invite the Inland Revenue simply so that it can turn us down. It is not fair to invite representatives at such short notice so that we can use their turning us down against them. Sending an invitation is no problem, but in doing so, we should take cognisance of the short notice and the fact that representatives might not be able to come.

I am sorry if my tone offends Rhoda Grant, but we do not need to give warning to Inland Revenue representatives. They know the law. We are not asking them to carry out sudden preparation. They have all the required knowledge at their fingertips.

We intend to seek information from the Inland Revenue about special cases that it allows to be tax exempt. We could ask the Inland Revenue either to write to us or send a representative to explain what the exemptions are so that we can reach a conclusion about the petition. However, we should not invite the Inland Revenue up here to conduct negotiations that should be carried out by ministers. The committee's role does not include getting involved in negotiations—its role is to obtain as much information as we can to help us to resolve the petition.

Are members agreed on the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members. The issue will be on the agenda for the next meeting.

---

Domestic Abuse (Advertising Strategy) (PE496)

We move to the final current petition, PE496 from Mr George McAulay, which deals with the handling of the Scottish Executive's recent domestic abuse advisory strategy. Members will remember that Mr McAulay believed that the Executive had deliberately manipulated the Scottish crime survey 2000 statistics as part of the domestic abuse campaign that was launched last December, and that that had a bad social impact and created a negative and partial portrayal of men.

We sought the Executive's formal views. The Executive has replied to say that the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the words "constant fear" should be removed from the statement:

"a recent survey suggested that 1 in 5 women live in constant fear of domestic abuse".

The statement has since been changed to:

"as many as 1 in 5 women in Scotland will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime",

which is substantiated by the Scottish crime survey 2000 statistics.

The response also indicated that research conducted by the Executive confirms that the ratio of male to female victims of domestic abuse is 7 per cent to 93 per cent, and that equal funding to promote awareness of male victims would not be appropriate. It considers that resources for advertising are best used to address the problem of women being abused by male partners. However, the problem of male victims is being addressed through the national strategy on domestic abuse.

The responsible body, the Advertising Standards Authority, has ruled that some of the wording used in the Executive's campaign should be changed and it has agreed the revised wording. Members will wish to consider whether there is any requirement for further investigation to be carried out of the petitioner's claims about the handling of the Executive's campaign. The Executive has addressed those claims and there appears to be little doubt that it is justified in conducting such a campaign in view of the findings of the Scottish crime survey and other research. There also appears to be no justification for providing equal funding to promote awareness of male victims of abuse, given the relatively small numbers involved. It is suggested that we agree to send a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioner and to take no further action.

I agree with the recommendations.

One point that concerns me is that information is still around that contains the wording that was criticised by the Advertising Standards Authority. Schools and various other organisations have copies of the video containing the old wording. Those videos should be withdrawn or, at the very least, edited in some way.

Are you saying that the videos still contain the phrase "constant fear"?

I understand that the videos that were put out at the time remain in circulation.

We will check that out.

I would go further. Guidelines from the Scottish Executive may suggest that teachers should point out the change in wording, but suggesting that it should be pointed out does not necessarily guarantee that it will be. We must find a means of guaranteeing it.

It is suggested that we write back to the Executive asking it to ensure that material that is in the public domain is consistent with the Advertising Standards Authority's ruling. Is that okay?

That is fine.

I do not think that anyone here believes that the Executive's advertising was ill intentioned. When you write to the Executive, could you press it a bit more on the research that it is bringing out in July? So far, the ratio of male to female victims of domestic abuse is quoted as 7 per cent to 93 per cent, and we all accept that the male abuser does a great deal more damage. However, that figure of 7 per cent is questionable. We know that it has taken a couple of generations to get women to speak about being abused domestically. It is much harder to get men to speak.

I have had encounters with males who have come to me to report abuse. For instance, I met a man who said that his wife tried to electrocute him by the simple process of chucking a bucket of water over him while he was fast asleep in bed on top of an electric blanket. Another male reported that his dearly beloved slashed him with a knife every so often. He was too ashamed to tell the police or anyone else so he went round to his old mum and got her to patch him up every time. A small percentage of men do live in fear of violence. We must accept that there is a minority of horrible women as well as a minority of horrible men and that the male sex overall certainly does not deserve to be demonised. I would like you to inquire of the Executive about that figure of 7 per cent, because I think that the true figure might be higher. Nevertheless, we all know that the vast majority of domestic abuse is inflicted upon females and that our first priority must be to protect them.

Do you suggest that we should ask the Executive those questions before we close the petition?

Yes. We should query the 7 per cent figure and the Executive's sources. It appears that money has not been allocated to investigate the level of abuse of men—I might be mistaken, but I see no reference to such an allocation.

Do members agree to keep our consideration of the petition open until we receive further responses from the Scottish Executive?

Members indicated agreement.