Public Petitions Committee, 19 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Police Assaults (PE482)

The first current petition is PE482 by Douglas J Keil, which calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to make it compulsory for assailants and others who have exposed or potentially exposed police officers to a risk of infection to submit to a blood test or tests that will be made available to the police officer should he or she so wish and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that the results of such tests can be retained on the police national computer.

At its meeting on 27 October 2004, the committee considered responses from the Executive. We agreed to write to the Minister for Justice expressing some concern at the delay in conducting the public consultation on the issues raised by the petition and requesting details of the timescale for the consultation.

In her response, the Minister for Justice states:

"The Executive's position remains that we are sympathetic to the Federation's concerns and we have been focusing on finding an appropriate legislative solution which would address them. However, the issues are complex and will need to be thoroughly examined, and a public consultation held, before any legislation can be brought forward."

She goes on to say:

"Officials are continuing to address the above issues and a number of other complexities, with a view to setting out workable proposals in a consultation document. I can assure you that this work is being given priority. However, a number of issues require to be looked at in more detail, in order that a consultation document can be prepared."

Do members have any views?

Although I accept the minister's assurance and understand the complexity of some of the issues that underlie the petition, I am very aware that the petition was first submitted to the Parliament in March 2002. We have now entered 2005. As a result, I feel that we should keep the petition live. I wonder whether we should also send back a holding letter to the minister's department that simply asks for the committee to be kept informed of any progress.

I totally agree with Jackie Baillie. The petition was submitted three years ago. I realise that it contains difficult elements, but I wonder whether it would help the minister to grasp some of the issues if we aired them in a parliamentary debate.

I would not be keen to go down that route. However, I share the concerns that have been raised, because Fife constabulary officers made representations on the issue to begin with. I suppose that it does not really matter where the representations have come from; the issue is still very serious.

I agree with Jackie Baillie's comment that we need regular updates to find out where we have reached. I want to reassure John Scott that my mind is not closed to his proposal by suggesting that, if nothing happens and if no satisfactory conclusion is reached in the relatively near future, we ought to be willing to consider further action. That said, I understand the complexities of the matter and know that they are not easy to resolve.

Our previous parliamentary debate on a petition formed part of a process. We wrote to the Executive, but we were not happy with its response; we invited the minister to give evidence, but we were not happy with that; then we took the matter to the Parliamentary Bureau. We could take the same approach towards this petition. If we are not satisfied with the minister's response, we can invite her to come and speak to us and then take the matter forward. We might get a bit ahead of ourselves if we take any further action at this stage.

That approach is very fair.

So we will write to the Executive and await its response. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Disabled People (Local Transport) (PE695)

PE695 by Jan Goodall, on behalf of Dundee accessible transport action group, calls on the Parliament to ensure that local authorities have affordable and accessible local transport available to disabled people who cannot use public transport and to provide ring-fenced funding to local authority and/or community groups to provide dial-a-ride projects for that purpose.

At its meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Scottish Disability Equality Forum and the Disability Rights Commission Scotland on a response from the Scottish Executive and on whether disability issues have been addressed in setting up the strategic transport agency. The committee also agreed to seek comments from the petitioner.

In her response, the petitioner states:

"We note that the Executive intends to undertake an assessment of all the barriers which prevent disabled people from using public transport. To us this is a matter of urgency and it is regrettable that we have heard nothing about it getting underway."

The DRC states in its response:

"we believe that there is a wider issue above and beyond Dial-a-Ride projects. The DRC believes that it is the physical and attitudinal barriers faced by disabled people, and not the nature of their impairment, which excludes them from participation in society as equal citizens."

The SDEF states in its response:

"The two propositions contained in the above petition would, if carried into policy, increase the scope of people affected by disability. SDEF would support any such development."

Do committee members have any views on the petition?

Last week, I met people from the Community Transport Association, which has two main concerns. The first is about those areas in Scotland where the regular public transport is not accessible and the second is about very frail disabled and elderly people who cannot normally access the transport services that other disabled people might access through services such as dial-a-ride. Another of their concerns was that there would not be adequate representation on the proposed new transport agency to reflect the concerns of community transport operators or disabled people. Although I note what the Scottish Executive's letter says, it does not satisfy that point, so we need to reflect a bit further on that and invite comment from the Community Transport Association on the issues that are being raised. The CTA came to the Parliament last week and offered to meet MSPs, but unfortunately, given our diaries, it is not possible for many MSPs to meet all the organisations that come. The CTA was concerned, so we should ask Nicol Stephen to give us an update as to where he considers that the issues that the CTA raised fit in.

That is a fair request. Are committee members happy that we write to the minister and find out where he stands on those matters?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Travelling Show People (PE698)

PE698 by Jane Rodgers, on behalf of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce a national policy for travelling show people.

At its meeting on 26 May 2004, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the points that were raised in the response and to advise the committee of the outcome of her meeting with the Minister for Communities. The petitioner states in her response:

"We are disappointed by the response in that it's word for word what we have been told already. … At the moment travelling showpeople in England and Wales are seeking a review of Circular 22/91 in order to make it more effective whilst in Scotland we do not even have it in its original form."

The committee has received a further response from the petitioner, in which she states:

"We have asked for a meeting with the new Communities Minister, Malcolm Chisholm MSP, as a matter of urgency, but have been advised this is unlikely to take place until after the New Year."

Do committee members have a view on the petition? Perhaps we should ask the minister to update us when the meeting has taken place.

That is an eminently sensible suggestion, convener.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Aberdeenshire Harbours (PE716)

PE716, by Robert Stephen, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to annul the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1987 and to replace it with equitable legislation.

At its meeting on 5 October 2004, the committee noted that the Executive's response of 5 August 2004 had failed to address why some harbours were brought under council ownership and others were not. The committee therefore requested a more detailed response on that specific point. The Executive's response states:

"I am afraid that there is little I can add to my previous letters. Harbours in Scotland have traditionally been owned by the local authority or by a locally-elected trust or privately. How and why ownership was originally vested in a particular way would be very difficult and, in many cases, perhaps impossible to ascertain."

The Executive also states:

"As far as the harbours in this case are concerned, only those already in local authority ownership (i.e., owned by a burgh or town council) prior to Regionalisation in the mid-1970s would have been automatically brought under Grampian Regional Council control by the 1987 Act."

There is not much more that we can do, and we will just have to close the petition. The committee has worked hard on the petition and we have pursued every possible avenue, but the Executive seems to have given us a definitive answer, whether we like it or not. A change in legislation would be required for things to be different and all sorts of financial implications would arise in relation to ownership and the buying out of properties. We must accept the Executive's response.

We have come up against a brick wall.

Yes; I think that we have. Is everyone happy that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (Equine Industry Team) (PE723)

PE723 by Ms Muriel Colquhoun calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to appoint a dedicated equine industry team within its Environment and Rural Affairs Department, with responsibility for co-ordinating equine-related policy decisions.

At its meeting on 28 April 2004, the committee noted Frank McAveety's response to a parliamentary question:

"I will be meeting the Scottish Equestrian Association in May to discuss how the Executive can help the industry"—[Official Report, Written Answers, 30 March 2004; S2W-7069.]

The committee therefore agreed to seek an update on the forthcoming discussions with the Scottish equestrian industry, together with an indication of whether the Executive had any plans to follow the lead from England, where both a minister and an official for the horse have been appointed with a view to developing a horse strategy.

The Executive states in its response that, at a meeting involving Mr McAveety and the SEA on 13 May, the minister

"made clear that the Scottish Executive is willing to listen to, and consider, representations from equine interests in Scotland. In this context the Executive is particularly concerned to hear from equine interests about the exact nature of their concerns and how they believe the Executive could assist."

The Executive also states that it is not for ministers

"to take the lead in preparing a strategy for the equine industry's interests in Scotland, although it will be happy to discuss any ideas put forward by SEA even if they are at an early stage of formulation."

We should seek the petitioner's response to the Executive's letter. Perhaps we could ask the petitioner who should or would be prepared to take a lead in this matter if the Executive is not willing. I would have thought that it was the Executive's role to take a lead, but if it says that it is not, we must establish whose role it might be.

I agree with that, but I hope that the discussion that was started in May 2004 has not necessarily concluded. I hope that the petitioner has been involved in dialogue with the Executive to address the concerns. Perhaps we could draw that out in our letter to the petitioner.

We will ask that question.

---

Skye Bridge Tolls (PE727)

PE727 by Robbie the Pict, on behalf of the Scottish People's Mission, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to order the immediate suspension of tolls on the A87 between the Isle of Skye and mainland Scotland.

At its meeting on 15 September 2004, the committee considered a response from the Executive and noted that

"the end of the discredited tolling regime on the Skye Bridge is likely to be achieved by the end of this year."

The committee therefore agreed to ask the Executive to provide details of the timetable for the end of the Skye bridge tolling regime.

The Executive stated in its response:

"Negotiations with Skye Bridge Limited, with a view to achieving that commitment by the end of the year, are ongoing."

On 21 December 2004, however, the First Minister announced that Skye bridge tolls were to be abolished with immediate effect. Therefore, I doubt that we can do much more with the petition other than to congratulate John Farquhar Munro. Unfortunately, he is not with us this morning—perhaps he caught the cold when he was celebrating the removal of the tolls at his Hogmanay party.

He might be in financial ruin if everyone in the United Kingdom arrived at his celebration party to take up his offer of free drinks.

I suggest that we hold a similar party when the Executive takes the step that was justified in its own review and removes the tolls from the Erskine bridge.

And from the Forth road bridge.

Will Jackie Baillie lodge a petition on that issue?

As an MSP, I have been discouraged from lodging any petition, but I am sure that I can find other people to do that for me.

I can confirm that Fife will also challenge that review.

---

Health Service Provision (North Clyde) (PE735)<br />NHS Clinical Strategies (Cross-boundary Working) (PE772)

PE735 and PE772 concern NHS boards and their emerging clinical strategies. In PE735, Vivien Dance calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to require Argyll and Clyde NHS Board and Greater Glasgow NHS Board to enter into a special agreement on transferring responsibility for the design and provision of health services in the north Clyde area. She also calls on the Parliament to amend, where appropriate, existing legislation so that the boundaries of the two health boards are adjusted to achieve the transfer of authority for the north Clyde area from the former health board to the latter. In PE772, Jackie Baillie MSP calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that any proposed clinical strategy that emerges from health boards, such as NHS Argyll and Clyde, clearly demonstrates cross-boundary working in the interests of patient care.

At its meeting on 5 October 2004, the committee agreed to link PE735 and PE772 and to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care. On PE735, the minister's response states:

"In giving evidence to the Health and Community Care Committee on 2 November, I was asked specifically whether I would rule out the abolition of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board. I would repeat the answer I gave then: I rule nothing out and I rule nothing in."

On PE772, the minister states:

"Whilst I am aware of a number of examples of successful cross-boundary co-operation taking place among NHS Boards, I am clear that regional planning needs to go much further. I recognise that a lack of understanding and dialogue between Boards could result in a position where clinical strategies do not fit together coherently within a regional and national context."

Perhaps Jackie Baillie can update us on events.

We probably do not have sufficient time for me to provide the committee with a full update on everything that has happened locally, but suffice it to say that I want both petitions to be kept open. I welcome the petitioners from my area who are attending today's meeting.

The petitions should be kept open for a number of reasons, one of which has been highlighted by the convener. First, the minister has ruled nothing in and nothing out in the debate about whether the boundaries of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board should be redrawn, so the issue is still under deliberation. Secondly, the minister has been very strong and clear in expressing his view about the absolute need for cross-boundary working. Indeed, he states:

"I would not be prepared to endorse any proposals for service change unless the Board—

that is, Argyll and Clyde NHS Board—

"had met its obligations to demonstrate cross-boundary working".

I could go on ad nauseam in explaining how the board has failed to demonstrate such working to date.

We should keep both petitions open, not least because the Audit Committee is taking a close look at the finances of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board. That is a related point. In addition, Professor David Kerr's advisory group has still to publish its report, which will inform the clinical strategy of Argyll and Clyde NHS Board that has yet to reach a conclusion. Therefore, I suggest that the petitions are very much current. Perhaps we should send the petitions to the Health Committee for its information.

I take those suggestions on board, but I want to be careful that we do not leave Jackie Baillie open to any problems. If the rest of us decide what to do with the petitions, that will mean that we, rather than Jackie Baillie, have made the decision.

I am happy to support Jackie Baillie's proposal. We still do not have an outcome for the petitions and, in my view, they are very much live. Keeping the petitions open provides us with a way of monitoring the eventual outcomes. That will allow us to make our views on those outcomes known as and when that is appropriate.

The publication—on 28 January, I think—of the Health Committee's interim report on workforce planning should help to inform the debate a little bit more. I support the views that have been expressed and the proposal to keep the petitions open.

This is another situation in which we do not yet have a decision on what the petitioners call for, so it is appropriate to keep the petitions open.

We will keep the petitions open and consider them when appropriate.

---

Food Supplements (European Directive) (PE738)

PE738 by Joanna Blythman calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that the voice of consumers of vitamin and mineral supplements is heard as the European Commission prepares to set maximum permitted levels as part of the food supplements directive, and to consider all options, including a derogation to allow Scots consumers access to supplements with the vitamin and mineral potencies that are currently available.

At its meeting on 29 September 2004, the committee noted from the Executive's response that a formal reference for a preliminary ruling on the directive's validity was sent to the European Court of Justice in March 2004, and agreed to ask the Minister for Health and Community Care to provide an update on developments. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care's response says:

"Following a Court decision in January 2004, formal reference to the European Court of Justice … was sent in March 2004. The ECJ normally takes approximately 24 months to give a preliminary ruling; however the national court has requested expedition by the ECJ."

What do we do with the petition?

Perhaps we could ask the petitioners for their views on the response and to report on their perception of their meeting with the deputy minister. That would help. I am pleased to note that someone is pushing for expedition by the ECJ, which I am sure will help all concerned.

Are members happy with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

We will wait for those responses before we reconsider the petition.

We dealt with PE765 earlier, so that concludes consideration of current petitions.