Public Petitions Committee, 19 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002

Official Report 320KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Social Services Policies (PE432)

The first current petition is PE432 from William McCormack, on the subject of independent appeals and review panels. The petition was prompted by his concerns about Dumfries and Galloway Council's charging policy for the provision of non-residential community care. The petitioner calls on the Parliament to recommend to local authorities that review panels or independent appeals panels should be empowered to alter or change faulty social services policies and not simply to make recommendations back to the committees that originally authorised the faulty or illegal policy.

We considered the petition on 18 December 2001 and asked for the views of the Scottish Executive and Dumfries and Galloway Council. The Scottish Executive response arrived rapidly—I think that it was in March—but we did not receive Dumfries and Galloway Council's response until more recently. The council has provided comprehensive details of the background to its complaints system and the Executive has provided information on a number of initiatives that, it hopes, will improve the system for complaints about local authority social work functions.

The Executive has identified three initiatives. First, it has pointed out its process of advising local authorities that complaints review committees should consist of three independent members, whereas the previous requirement was for one. Secondly, the Executive has stated that it proposes to review complaints procedures. Thirdly, the Executive has stated that the work that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is carrying out on inconsistencies in charging for non-residential care by local authorities will also be pursued.

Given the time that has passed since the Executive's response was prepared in March 2002, it is suggested that we write to the Executive to ask for details of any progress on those initiatives before we decide what to do with the petition. At this stage, we should simply send a copy of the responses from the Executive and Dumfries and Galloway Council to the petitioner and wait until we receive a further response from the Executive. Are those suggestions agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

The next petition is from Mr James Watson, on convicted murderers who profit from their crimes by publishing and selling accounts of those crimes. We considered the petition on 6 June and 24 September, when we agreed to seek clarification from the Executive. We have received the response from the Executive, details of which are given in the briefing that members have. One point to highlight is that the Executive does not agree that it should take action on the criminal memoirs issue in advance of the completion of the work that is being done on the matter by the Home Office.

I have received a further letter, in which Mrs Watson provides details of the publication of criminal memoirs by the person who was convicted of murdering her daughter. Mrs Watson makes it clear that the petition's intention is not to deny convicted murderers the right to free speech, but to stop them from profiting from selling accounts of their crimes. The petitioners request a means by which false or misleading statements in such material can be challenged. Mrs Watson states that victims' families want the same rights in law as convicted murderers and their families have.

The Executive remains of the view that it does not make sense to take action in Scotland before the Home Office has completed its work. We have a number of alternatives. We can take the view that the Executive's response is reasonable and take no further action until the Home Office completes its work. Alternatively, we could take the view that there is merit in the Parliament investigating the matter further and refer the petition to one of the justice committees. We could also write to the Home Office to ask what the situation is. It is certainly the committee's view that action should be taken in Scotland.

I want to pass the matter to one of the justice committees. According to the clerk's note on the petition, the Executive has said that visits from journalists to prisoners to talk about their crimes are not permitted, but the letter to the convener demonstrates that such a visit happened and that a distressing article was produced thereafter. The committee is limited in that it cannot follow up such issues, but I would like to query the Executive on why that visit was allowed.

My fear in passing the matter to one of the justice committees is that, because of their busy agendas, the matter will not get immediate attention. I suggest that we write to the Executive and highlight the inconsistencies between its reply and the letter from the petitioners. I also suggest that we write to the Home Office to ask when it will complete its work. We cannot complete our work until we know what the Home Office is doing.

As Phil Gallie said, despite the assurances that prisoners cannot do certain things when they are in prison or out on licence, we have information about a case in which such things happened. According to the Executive, prison governors are given a lot of jurisdiction over what is allowed in prisons, such as phone calls and so on.

Could we not write to the head of the Scottish Prison Service, saying that, despite the assurances that we have been given about the law, it seems that the law is not always enforced in prisons?

There is a problem because we are talking about two different units. The first is the Kerelaw secure unit, which does not come under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Prison Service—it is secure accommodation. The second is Cornton Vale prison, which is run by the SPS. I suggest that we ask the Executive to ask the governor or whoever is in charge of the Kerelaw unit and the governor of Cornton Vale to comment on the fact that journalists were allowed to interview prisoners. We must ask them why that was allowed on both occasions.

We could also ask the Home Office when it will address the matter.

The more recent letter from Mrs Watson makes an excellent suggestion, which is cited in Steve Farrell's note under the heading "Petitioner's letter". She does not want convicted murderers to be denied the right to free speech, but she also does not want them to profit from selling their accounts. She also wants to stop them from making inaccurate statements, and she requests a means by which victims' relatives can challenge false or misleading statements in such material.

Such statements are as devastatingly wounding to the families as the fact that the criminal may make some money out of the interview. It is a supreme injustice that someone who has murdered another human being is allowed to defame and libel them and make inaccurate statements. In some cases in England, the whole case has been turned against the victim by the murderer. Mrs Watson's request is terribly reasonable. Could that please be highlighted in the correspondence?

I suggest that we copy Mrs Watson's letter to the Home Office and the Executive, asking them to respond to that point.

If they knew that there would be some comeback, it would also stop the manipulative murderer who adores being interviewed by the press and the press going too far in what they say. Newspaper stories are vetted all the time in advance of their publication—even simple, movie star stories and that sort of nonsense.

We will agree to raise the matter with the Home Office and the Executive.

The family of a victim of homicide should also have the right to receive a transcript of the trial without incurring enormous cost.

I am not sure that that issue is part of our recent correspondence.

It is mentioned in the recent letter. It is expensive to get a transcript of a trial.

We can ask the Executive and the Home Office to respond to that point and tell us why people are not given copies of the transcript of the trial.

It is not such a bother to make an extra copy. We know that dozens of copies are made anyway.

Is that course of action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Unadopted Roads (PE507)<br />Adoption of Roads and Footpaths (PE563)

We will now consider two petitions. The first is PE507, from Mr Dan McRae, on behalf of the Menzieshill action group, asking for a review of the current system for the adoption of roads and pavements by local authorities. The other petition is PE563, from Miss E J Stanley, on the maintenance of unadopted roads and footpaths, especially in Aberdeenshire. We have received a response from the Scottish Executive on the first of those petitions, giving the legal position and the policies that are pursued by COSLA in relation to unadopted roads. We have not yet received a response to PE563, but we agreed to link it with PE507 and to consider them together.

Legally, it is a matter for each council to decide what priority to give to the maintenance and improvement of local roads and to allocate resources accordingly. However, councils deal with the issue that is raised in PE507 in different ways. Some have chosen to harmonise the maintenance of all roads and footpaths that are in the ownership of the council, with the work being carried out by one council department. That results in all those areas being treated as adopted for maintenance purposes, including winter maintenance. In other areas, that has not happened and the responsibility continues to be divided between the housing department and the roads and transportation department, leading to the problems that the authors of PE507 have identified.

It is suggested that the harmonisation of the maintenance of all council-owned roads, whether adopted or not, seems to be a reasonable way of providing a more effective service. At the very least, more effective corporate working appears to be a basic requirement.

Although there is no case for a review of the procedures for the adoption of roads and pavements as requested by the petitioners, there may be a case for the Executive to issue good practice guidelines to councils. Therefore, the committee may wish to consider suggesting to the Executive and to COSLA that such guidance should be produced. The responses submitted to the committee could be used as a starting point for the production of such material.

The issues raised in PE563 are related to those in PE507. The position in relation to local authority responsibility for the maintenance of roads and footpaths is made clear in the responses to PE507. However, the specific difficulties of frequent landslips and ground erosion highlighted in PE563 do seem to go beyond the more general road maintenance issue in the other petition. Therefore it is suggested that the committee writes to the Executive to provide additional comments on that particular petition. Is that course of action agreed for both petitions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Airports (Access to Public Roads) (PE528)

This petition is from McRoberts Solicitors on behalf of Glasgow Airport Parking Association Ltd. Committee members will recall that the petitioners are concerned about the exclusive agreement entered into by Glasgow Airport Ltd and NCP Flightpath, which is working to the disadvantage of the association's members.

The committee has received a response from the Scottish Executive, which is still awaiting responses from BAA on several points relating to the petition and so cannot respond in any meaningful way. It is suggested that the committee agrees to defer consideration of the petition until it receives the further response from the Executive. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Mental Welfare (Complaints Procedure) (PE537)

The last current petition is from Alexander Mitchell, on the handling of complaints regarding mental welfare, especially those concerning the Mental Welfare Commission. Again, we cannot become involved in the individual case to which the petitioner refers.

The new Scottish public services ombudsman, Alice Brown, has just taken up her post. The committee could agree to write to her requesting an indication of whether she intends to review the complaints-handling procedures that she has inherited from the health ombudsman and the Mental Welfare Commission.

Before we do that, it is suggested that we agree to seek the views of voluntary bodies that may be able to advise the committee whether there are wider concerns about the way complaints relating to mental health care are handled. It is suggested that the committee consults the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Association of Health Councils, the Advocacy Alliance and the Advocacy Safeguards Alliance about any approach that we decide to make to the new ombudsman. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)

This petition is one for Dorothy-Grace Elder. It is from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group on the current practice of spreading sewage, sludge and other non-agriculturally derived waste on land in Scotland.

The petition was discussed briefly at the last committee meeting. George Reid has now suggested that Dorothy-Grace Elder should conduct an inquiry into the health aspects of the case, as the Health and Community Care Committee is unable to do so. I understand that Dorothy-Grace Elder is prepared, in principle, to do that.

The clerk has established that there is no opposition from either the Health and Community Care Committee or the Transport and the Environment Committee to that proposal. However, before we decide whether we should proceed as suggested by George Reid, there are several points to consider.

First, the Scottish Executive has acknowledged that the practice of spreading sludge should be better regulated and has proposed that strict biological standards should be introduced. The Executive has just issued a consultation paper on that.

Secondly, it is hoped that the type of operation that prompted the petition will be a thing of the past. Therefore, the principal objective of the petition appears to be fully met.

Thirdly, we need to consider whether conducting an inquiry into the specific health issues related to the petition will provide any added value. It appears that, regardless of whether the specific activities that prompted the petition affected the health of local people, any potential health risk will, in the future, be reduced by the new standards.

Those points were for debate and discussion; they are not suggestions for action. Do members think that it is worth while to appoint Dorothy to undertake the inquiry suggested by George Reid, or will no value be added from it?

What does George Reid, who has done an enormous amount of work, think? What do the people of Saline and Blairingone think?

George Reid is pressing for a Health and Community Care Committee inquiry.

So he is aware of the consultation and everything and has said to press on.

George Reid obviously wants an inquiry. We do not know whether the petitioners want an inquiry, but I assume that they do. We could write to the petitioners to confirm that.

I am not sure that the Executive's proposals will adequately cover all the problems. We are not certain, and while I think that many things are not provable, it would be interesting to get evidence of what happened.

If Dorothy-Grace Elder is willing to go ahead with an inquiry on behalf of the committee, we would be quite happy for her to do that.

An inquiry would be quite a lot of work, as I am sure the convener will appreciate. I am still working away in the three constituencies. Doing such an inquiry is not something to be entered into lightly—rather like marriage. If George Reid wishes it done, I will do it.

Are members happy with that?

Dorothy-Grace Elder said she had three constituencies. I thought she had eight, but there we go. Realistically, will she be able to achieve something at the end of the inquiry? It would be a mistake to raise people's expectations.

That is a danger.

The question is one of balance. The proposed standards may help to improve the situation, and everybody's time is tight between now and May. The matter is entirely up to Dorothy-Grace Elder and I would not oppose her going ahead, but she has eight constituencies to represent.

Tell me about it. I have three constituencies in particular in the east end of Glasgow but, of course, the Scotland Act 1998 means that I get folk from all over Glasgow.

Would it be helpful if we wrote to the Executive to ask whether it would be prepared to conduct a study into the health implications as part of its consultation study? If it is not prepared to do that, Dorothy-Grace Elder could do so in any case.

Asking the Executive about that would be helpful. Has it given any indication of when it might produce its study?

The consultation paper has been issued. The matter is out for consultation.

If we followed the convener's suggestion, that would give Dorothy-Grace Elder time to check out what George Reid and other colleagues feel might be gained by pressing on with the study. None of us wants to stand in the way or block any action. We want to be helpful, but the question is what effect an inquiry would have.

A door-to-door job is what is required. At the least, a questionnaire would need to be issued to the around 400 houses in the village.

Will you contact the petitioners?

Yes. Mr Hope is the main petitioner.

George Reid is also one of the main petitioners. Will you report back to the committee on their views?

I will ask them what they honestly think and whether we should include the committee's request that a health investigation be done alongside the rest of the Executive's work.

It is suggested that you could contact the petitioners to ask whether they would prefer that you were appointed as a reporter to carry out an inquiry on the committee's behalf, or whether they would rather submit the health evidence to the Scottish Executive so that the evidence could be included in the Executive's consultation. You could then report back on the petitioners' views at the committee's next meeting.

Another option that occurs to me is that I could work with the people who are doing the Executive work. Given the option, of course the petitioners will say that they want yet another survey and that they want me to do it independently. However, there is a danger of lines being crossed.

You could liaise with the petitioners. There are all kinds of possibilities, but we do not know the petitioners' views. Will you discuss the matter with George Reid and the other petitioners, keep the clerks informed and report back to us at our next meeting?

I will do. That is fair.