Public Petitions Committee, 19 Apr 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Official Report 240KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Erskine Bridge Tolls (PE869 and PE926)

PE869, which was lodged by Councillor Andrew White, calls on the Scottish Parliament to require the Scottish Executive to remove the tolls from the Erskine bridge; and PE926, which was lodged by Councillor Sam Mullin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to remove the tolls from the Erskine Bridge at the earliest possible opportunity. At its meeting on 8 February, the committee agreed to link consideration of the two petitions and to await the outcome of the Scottish Executive review of the future management of Scotland's tolled bridges. That review is now complete and tolling on the Erskine bridge ended on 31 March, so there is not much to be done on the petitions.

I point to the success of the Public Petitions Committee on the matter and suggest that we close the petition, because the tollbooths have been removed.

That augurs well for the Forth and Tay bridges.

So we agree to close that petition.

Members indicated agreement.

There is not much more we can do once the tollbooths have closed.

---

Global Campaign for Education (PE734)

Our next petition is PE734, by Angela O'Hagan, on behalf of Oxfam in Scotland, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to endorse the aims of the Global Campaign for Education to achieve the millennium development goals and make the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child a reality in Scotland. The petition also calls on the Parliament to consider practical steps by which it and the Executive could promote those aims.

At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee considered a response from the petitioner and agreed to seek further comments from the Scottish Executive. A response from the Executive has been circulated to members. I seek members' views on the petition.

I suggest that we send a copy of the response to the petitioners. However, given the Executive's response, I suggest that we close the petition.

Are members happy to agree that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Agenda for Change (PE768)

The next petition is PE768, by Susan Bannatyne and Nicola Orr, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the proposed agenda for change legislation for speech and language therapy services and service users in the national health service. At its meeting on 5 October 2005, the committee considered a response from the petitioner and agreed to write to Amicus. A response from Amicus has been circulated to members. A further response has been received from the petitioner, which has also been circulated.

Amicus requests in its letter that

"consideration of a response by the committee be further delayed until adequate information is available in September 2006."

I suggest that we agree to that request and keep the petition open until further information is available in September.

Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Community Hospitals<br />(Scottish Executive Policy) (PE806)

Our next petition is PE806, by Mr Len Wyse, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on community hospitals and, in the meantime, to introduce a moratorium on the closure of such hospitals, which are vital to the NHS in Scotland, particularly in rural areas such as the Scottish Borders. At its meeting on 26 October 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the petitioner to responses received from Borders NHS Board, the Minister for Health and Community Care, the national workforce committee and the national advisory group on service change. The petitioner's response has been circulated to members. Members' views on it and on what we do now would be welcome.

The committee has given attention to and done work on the petition. Given the responses that we have had, we appear to have done all that we can. The committee's position is that we do not interfere with the decisions of local authorities or health boards. I urge that we continue that position. In this instance, we should simply agree that we have done what we can. Ultimately, what happens is down to Borders NHS Board. I flag up for members' attention the fact that Bill Butler will introduce a bill in due course, which people may or may not like to support, whose aim is to ensure more democracy in local health boards.

I have often been told in the committee that we cannot interfere with health boards and so on, although I wish sometimes that we had the power to do so. Perhaps we should push for legislation that would enable us to do that because it is a shame that the petitioners are losing the facility to which they refer. I am sure that I am reading correctly what the petitioner says, but can it be clarified that he says in his response that he feels that there is nothing much more that we can do? Is that right?

Yes.

In light of that, I will agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion.

So we agree to close the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Food Chain (Supermarkets) (PE807)

Our next petition is PE807, by James Mackie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct an inquiry into the influence of supermarkets on the food chain and to examine in particular safety issues arising from the use of chemicals to extend the shelf-life of products and from central purchasing and distribution, and the impact of supermarket trading on local economies and small producers. At its meeting on 26 October 2005, the committee considered responses from the Office of Fair Trading, the Food Standards Agency, the Scottish Consumer Council, the National Farmers Union Scotland, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Executive and the Institute of Grocery Distribution and agreed to write again to the OFT and the Scottish Executive. Those responses have been received and circulated.

The clerk has advised me that in February 2006, the Environment and Rural Development Committee took evidence from several organisations as part of a short inquiry to examine issues to do with the food supply chain. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has considered the evidence that it has received to date and written to the OFT and the United Kingdom Government minister who is responsible for competition on several issues that were raised during the inquiry. The committee agreed to consider how to proceed with the inquiry after receiving those replies.

Rather than both committees continuing to pursue the issue separately, it might be more appropriate for this committee to refer the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee as part of its scrutiny of the issues. Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Common Good Assets (PE875)<br />Listed Buildings<br />(Consultation on Disposal) (PE896)

PE875, by Mary Mackenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that all moveable and heritable common good assets throughout Scotland are properly recorded, audited and insured, and to introduce legislation to ensure that such assets are properly safeguarded.

At its meeting on 5 October 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Audit Scotland, Historic Scotland, the Accounts Commission, the Registers of Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The responses have been received and circulated. Members have also received letters in support of the petition from Peebles Civic Society and Dingwall community council, and the petitioner has sent us some relevant newspaper clippings.

Are members happy to link the petition with PE896?

Members indicated agreement.

PE896 is from Ms Florence Boyle, on behalf of West Dunbartonshire Heritage Ltd, and it calls for local authorities to be required to conduct structured and meaningful public consultation before any disposal of listed buildings, common land or related endowments held in public ownership or trusteeship. At its meeting on 9 November 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of Historic Scotland, COSLA, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Civic Trust. Responses have been received and passed to members.

Do members have any ideas about how to deal with the two petitions?

I do not quite know what to do with them but I was concerned to see that every response mentions best value. As far as I know, a common good fund is for the common good of the people and was never supposed to be linked to best value, which I think was brought out by the Executive in 2003. Is it within the committee's remit to write to COSLA and ask if legislation requires that best value has to be taken into account when local authorities are disposing of common good land? The Executive's letter says:

"The Best Value duty also has direct implications for asset management".

I did not think that common good land was supposed to be subject to best value, but it seems from that letter as if it is and I am concerned about that.

COSLA's response is:

"COSLA does not consider that there is any need for legislative change. Common good property of all kinds is already recorded and audited as part of the legislative audit regime and there is a requirement to keep a separate common good account."

The requirement to keep a common good fund is fine and people can see it if it is open and accountable. However, it is the link with best value that the Executive has imposed on local government that concerns me. Best value means that a council will be looking for the best amount of money for the common good.

Is any committee considering common good property issues? The most relevant committee is probably the Local Government and Transport Committee, but if we send the petitions to that committee and they disappear we will not have served the petitioners well at all.

I am asking because many issues to do with common good property are disputed, including what is and is not common good property. Most local authorities seem to assume that anything that belonged to the previous local authority now belongs to them. That is disputed and legal judgments have determined in some cases that land that belonged to the former burgh councils should have been recorded as common good, but was not and went instead into the land file of the local authority.

I wrote to North Ayrshire Council's senior legal officer and asked him to prove unequivocally that the council owned a certain piece of land. He wrote back and said that he did not have to do that. An individual who wanted to challenge that would have to go to the Court of Session and employ a Queen's counsel at huge expense. That will not happen. Councils are getting away with operating on the presumption that the land belongs to them. Someone needs to challenge that presumption because a legal judgment is required to give clear guidance on what is and is not common good. If the Parliament has not done that, perhaps we should. The question is how to go about it.

The suggestion is that we ask the Local Government and Transport Committee to look into the matter.

The first point of contact should be the Local Government and Transport Committee, to establish whether it is willing to take on the work. If it is, that is the most appropriate place for the work to be done.

I will return to some of the issues that are raised in the petitions. Campbell Martin is right to say that there are not just one or two issues—there is a plethora. Are matters being properly recorded? Are councils acting in accordance with the best value duty in relation to the disposal of assets? How are they involving the community? Those questions have not been fully answered. The minister's letter points to things that local authorities should be doing; perhaps they are in some cases, but in other cases they might not be aware of the full requirements that are placed on them. It is sensible to send the petitions to the Local Government and Transport Committee.

I point out that—unlike the other petitioner—Florence Boyle, whose petition is on behalf of West Dunbartonshire Heritage Ltd, has not been sent a copy of the responses. I would be grateful if that could be done.

Yes. That would be appropriate.

Christine Grahame has had an interest in the matter from the outset.

Yes. I commend Ms Mackenzie for her petition. I endorse Jackie Baillie's comments about the Local Government and Transport Committee conducting an inquiry—I am sorry that I missed the previous remarks.

The issue of how democratically accountable councillors are for the use of common good funds has been raised. In Peebles the common good revenues were used to support a bus service. One has to ask whether funding for such a service should come out of the local authority's grant-aided expenditure rather than out of common good funds. There is a lack of awareness among the public—until it is too late—of what the common good fund contains; it can contain artefacts as well as land and revenues. The common good funds have been inherited by local authorities. The matter must be examined to ensure that there is democratic accountability. Common good funds should not be used in place of local funding through council tax or GAE; they should represent the icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.

An audit of artefacts is required. I mentioned at a previous meeting that a chair from the City of Edinburgh Council chambers appeared in an antique shop. It was identified because someone recognised the coat of arms on it. We are losing historic artefacts. An inquiry by the Local Government and Transport Committee is a grand idea.

Are members happy that we refer the petition on to the Local Government and Transport Committee?

I am not unhappy about the suggestion, but because of what has sometimes happened when petitions have gone to other committees I am concerned about what will happen. The concern is not that the petition will be put aside—I have great faith in the Local Government and Transport Committee not to do that. Is there nothing else that we can do in addition to sending the petition to the committee?

When we write to the Local Government and Transport Committee we can specifically ask it to look into the matter. Paul Martin and I are both on that committee and we have heard the debate this morning.

Thank you very much.

Convener, think of the interesting visits that you could make round the country.

Are members happy to refer the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Dementia Treatment (PE886)

Our next petition is PE886, by James McKillop, on behalf of the Scottish dementia working group. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to ensure the continued availability on prescription of medications such as donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.

At its meeting on 5 October 2005, the committee agreed to seek the comments of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. A response has been received and circulated. Further correspondence has been received from the petitioner, which has been circulated to members. Having seen that information, do members have any comments to make?

Perhaps we could consider writing to NICE to ask it to provide the committee with details of the new guidance when it is published. We could also invite the views of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland on the guidance. I know that my colleague Irene Oldfather has led a short-life cross-party working group on the issue.

I am glad that there was more to say after "short life".

Perhaps it would be appropriate to send copies of the documents to Irene Oldfather and seek her comments on the issues that have been raised.

Should we also write to NHS QIS to seek its views?

Yes.

Okay. We will do that.

---

Justice System (Child Sex Offenders) (PE862)

Petition PE862 is the last of our current petitions. It is by Margaret Ann Cummings and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a full review of the current system for dealing with and monitoring convicted child sex offenders.

At its meeting on 21 December 2005, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on it. A response from the petitioner has been received and circulated. We are joined by Paul Martin, who has had an interest in the petition from the beginning. Do you have any comments to make or information to share with us before we consider what to do with the petition?

Yes, thank you, convener. The petition was lodged on 27 May last year. The petitioner, Margaret Ann Cummings, and I and other elected members acknowledge that there has been significant progress on the issue, with the focus on the need for additional legislation and on Professor Irving's report. In her latest correspondence of 10 March this year, Margaret Ann Cummings set out a template that the Justice 2 Committee might use for a comprehensive investigation into how effective legislation has been and what we can learn from international examples of managing sex offenders.

Margaret Ann Cummings has said that we need to acknowledge that there is an issue with disclosure and to consider how it has been approached in different parts of the world and how effective that has been. We all have different views on disclosure.

I call on the committee to refer the petition to the Justice 2 Committee and to suggest that it produces a comprehensive report as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the issues that Margaret Ann Cummings has set out clearly in her latest correspondence are considered.

Do members have views on that? My experience of a constituent being run out of his home because he was suspected of being a paedophile when he was totally innocent has always made me wary about such issues. However, as Paul Martin said, the letter that Margaret Ann Cummings has sent back to us is rational and reasonable in suggesting how to proceed and questioning how we can protect our communities sensibly. It is worth considering further. We should consider seriously the suggestion that we refer the petition to the Justice 2 Committee.

I agree that the petition should be sent to the Justice 2 Committee so that it can consider the issue. There is great concern out there. As the convener said, people can be accused falsely. One of the things that we have found out through not just the letter but meetings is the number of people on registers who are put in deprived areas. All those issues have to be considered. People have a right to know if a registered sex offender is in their community, although they should not necessarily know their name. We should be able to monitor where sex offenders are. What is happening at the moment is not good enough. I agree with the recommendation.

Are members happy with the suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Paul Martin for attending.