Public Petitions Committee, 20 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Official Report 217KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE573)

Item 2 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE573 by Dr J Beatson on adults with incapacity. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend section 47 of part 5 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and its code of practice to remove the assessment and certification workload requirements from general practitioners in favour of the appointment of dedicated personnel to fulfil that requirement.

At its meeting on 22 December 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Executive again requesting further details regarding the timetable for the proposed changes to part 5 of the act. In his response, the minister states:

"The legislative vehicle for making these changes will be the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament."

Do members have any suggestions?

I suggest that we close the petition, given that the petitioner's request has been fulfilled by the inclusion of certain aspects in the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill.

I am aware that it was probably me who kept the petition open when it was last discussed and, to declare my interest, I point out that I was heavily involved with the petition. I welcome Andy Kerr's letter; it is entirely constructive and a huge success for the committee. However, I would like to check something with the petitioner, or perhaps the clerk can help if he has been in discussion with the petitioner. Andy Kerr's letter states:

"The second amendment will extend the maximum duration of a section 47 certificate from 1 year, to 3".

Is the petitioner content with that response? Is it what he was seeking?

I cannot answer that, but the petitioner has the opportunity to input into the Health Committee's consideration of the bill at stage 1. That would be the appropriate way for him to take the matter forward.

Although it is mentioned in the paper that the clerk has prepared for us, I highlight the fact that the committee's stage 1 report will be published tomorrow, so you will know then what the committee is recommending. It then depends on what the minister wants to say about the report.

My understanding is that the provisions that Dr Beatson is after are contained in the bill. It is usual for committees to enhance Executive bills rather than detract from them, so I cannot imagine that the stage 1 report will diminish the position that has been outlined by the minister.

Okay. I am happy with Jackie Baillie's assurances. If we had not kept the petition open, we would not have had the minister's letter of 7 February, which is very welcome.

That is a point worth noting. Are members happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Speech and Language Therapy (Agenda for Change) (PE768)

Our next petition is by Susan Bannatyne and Nicola Orr, on the implications of the proposed agenda for change legislation. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the proposed legislation for speech and language therapy services and service users within the national health service.

At its meeting on 29 September 2004, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Minister for Health and Community Care, Amicus, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Responses have been received and circulated to members. Having seen those responses, do member have any views?

I remember that the petitioners made a compelling case when they came before the committee. I see that discussions between Amicus and the representative bodies are continuing, so I think that we should keep the petition open until there is a conclusion to those discussions.

It might be a bit premature for us to stop keeping an eye on the petition. It would be good to have an update and then, once the dialogue closes, we can consider closing the petition. We could keep it open until such time as we are satisfied that the discussions have been exhausted and that progress has been made.

That is absolutely right. Could you also share with the petitioners the responses that we have had, because I am not sure whether that has been done, and invite their comments?

We will do that. We will keep the petitions open and receive updates before we conclude it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

HMP Peterhead (PE675)

Our next petition is PE675, on conditions at HMP Peterhead, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the suitability of HMP Peterhead for the long-term imprisonment of convicted sex offenders. The petitioner states in his response to the committee's letter:

"I therefore feel that the committee should press the SPS to give some sort of timetable for ending slopping out at Peterhead."

Do members agree with him?

We should write to the Scottish Prison Service asking if it issued the letter to which the petitioner referred previously. However, there is a danger of our losing sight of the argument on slopping out if we become involved in the minutiae of whether letters were issued. If they were not issued, the situation is more problematic. However, the issue of where we are going with night-time sanitation remains, which is the key point that we need to consider.

We have to remember that the petition is about the suitability of Peterhead for housing sex offenders. That is the issue that we have to address. We can get into the specifics of particular concerns, but the general issue is the prison's suitability. We have to ask questions on that, rather than on other specifics. I wonder whether there is something else that we can do with the petition in that respect.

We are rather losing sight of that by becoming involved in the minutiae of the discussion on whether letters exist.

The issue is the suitability of an institution to incarcerate anybody who is convicted of a crime, and the provision of suitable sanitation falls within that. Rather than chase after letters that people have sent, the committee might find that a response in 2005 might be more enlightening, given that the response in 2004 was that a timetable could not be provided. We should write to the SPS again for a timetable.

Are members happy to do that?

This committee has never gone on a visit, but could we visit Peterhead at some stage, perhaps in the longer term?

I am not saying that we should rule that out or that we should never go on a visit, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate for us to do so in this case, as I do not know what benefit there would be. We can write to the SPS seeking a response, which would allow us to keep the issue under consideration. Are members happy that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Egg Stamping Legislation (PE733)

The next petition is PE733, on egg stamping. The petition, which is by Peter Siddons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide guidance to egg producers in Scotland on the relevant legislation relating to egg stamping and whether it is compatible with the provisions in European Union Council decision 94/371/EC.

At its meeting on 24 November 2004, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to seek comments from the British Egg Industry Council, the Scottish Egg Producers Retailers Association, NFU Scotland, the British Free Range Egg Producers Association and Professor Heather Dick. Responses have been received from them all and have been circulated to members. The committee has also received a further submission from the petitioner, requesting the opportunity to comment on the various responses that the committee has received. Do members have any views?

The responses that we have had from all the industry bodies welcome the legislation. They would not be as welcoming as they are if they were the least bit afraid of it, because they exist entirely to protect the interests of their members and the public. Perhaps we should seek the views of the petitioner, since he has asked us to do so. The argument is neat and academic, but the reality is that nobody is doing anything other than welcoming the legislation, according to the responses that we have received. We should let them get on with it, without the harassment that the petition is causing them.

Given that we do not usually close petitions while there are still issues to be addressed, it might be worth while to hear from the petitioner. He might agree with the responses which would allow us to close the petition satisfactorily. Do members agree that there is no harm in seeking the petitioner's views?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to him and ask for his comments.

---

National Heritage Committee (Cramond) (PE801)

Our next petition is PE801 by Ronald H Guild. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a permanent national heritage committee and to ensure the protection of the environment of the whole Cramond area, including islands, and the proper investigation and preservation of the natural, man-made and cultural elements of the site, together with the establishment of an appropriate museum.

At its meeting on 19 January 2005, the committee agreed to write to Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the City of Edinburgh Council. Responses have been received from those three organisations and have been circulated to members. Members will note that the petitioner has requested the opportunity to comment on the responses. Are members happy to seek his comments?

Members indicated agreement.

We look forward to receiving Mr Guild's comments on the responses.

---

A96 Improvements (Elgin Bypass) (PE558)

Our next petition is PE558, on the improvement of the A96. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to include as a matter of urgency a bypass for Elgin in the programme for improvement of the A96.

At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee agreed to invite comments from the petitioners and from Margaret Ewing MSP on the Scottish Executive's response to the petition. The Executive has confirmed that it remains its intention to include consideration of a bypass for Elgin as part of the strategic transport projects review and that preparatory work has begun on the review process to enable a start to be made before 2007 on the next 10-year transport plan. The responses have been circulated to members. We have been joined by Fergus Ewing, who wishes to make some comments.

The member for Moray, Margaret Ewing, is unable to be here. I am here as a substitute—perhaps a poor substitute.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I do not think that there has ever been such consensus about anything I have said. [Laughter.]

Pauline Taylor, the editor of the Northern Scot newspaper, which has been involved in promoting the views of the people on the issue, is also unable to be here because she has the flu, so I am substituting for two formidable ladies.

Elgin is not in my constituency, but there is a common view among the towns and communities along the A96 that the road is too congested. For various reasons, the amount of traffic has been increasing and congestion is becoming a serious problem. There are probably more agricultural vehicles, going at speeds of 2 or 3mph, on the A96 than there are even in John Scott's area, although I do not think that there are official figures on that. The delays are severe and the whole community is behind the campaign. The hospital has access directly from the trunk road and the build-up of traffic is a problem there.

I believe that the petition has been signed by more than 8,000 people and by all the local councillors, so it has broad support. The case for a bypass can be made not just on economic grounds but on human grounds, because it would reduce the risk of road traffic accidents.

Margaret particularly wanted to say that she recognises the Executive's successful achievement, which should be acknowledged, in relation to the Fochabers-Mosstodloch bypass. That bypass took nearly 50 years of hard campaigning, which is almost exactly the same length of time that it took to abolish slavery after the Quakers first met to decide that that should be done. In conclusion, I hope that the Executive can be pressed to state what level of commitment it will make and when it envisages the Elgin bypass will go ahead. I welcome the support of members from all other parties.

I think that the only way in which we can obtain more information is to write to the Executive and get an update on the review. A review is under way and we are expecting some information on it, so it might be worth while to ask when we can expect it. We will keep the petition open, and I hope that in due course we will get a response from the Executive, which will keep us updated on progress—hopefully within the next 50 years.

Next time, it will be the Nairn bypass.

Are members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Food Chain (Supermarkets) (PE807)

The next petition is PE807, on the influence of supermarkets on the food chain. The petition is from James A Mackie and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct an inquiry into the influence of supermarkets on the food chain and, in particular, to examine safety issues arising from the use of chemicals to extend the shelf life of products and central purchase and distribution, and the impact of supermarket trading on local economies and small producers.

At its meeting on 2 February, the committee agreed to delay consideration of the petition until publication of the Office of Fair Trading's report on its review of the supermarket code of practice. The OFT's review was published on 20 February 2005 and stated that it

"found a widespread belief among suppliers that the Code is not working effectively. There is no hard evidence to support this, however."

The committee has received a further submission from the petitioner, which states:

"there are a large number of issues that I think the Scottish Executive should be looking at in relation to supermarkets in Scotland. … I would hope that your Committee would investigate a full inquiry into the social, economic and health issues … in relation to the expansion of supermarkets throughout Scotland."

That is a big ask. What do members think of the suggestion? The starting point is to find out what plans the Executive has to consider such a wide-ranging issue. It would be difficult for us to pass the petition to another committee unless we knew where the Executive stood on the subject.

It is a fundamental catch-22 situation. The OFT cannot act without evidence of intimidation and there is no evidence because those who claim to be intimidated are keeping quiet, which presents a conundrum. There is probably intimidation by the supermarkets, which I think should be investigated. I do not think that the voluntary code is working and it is worth seeking the views of others who are affected more directly.

Do you have any suggestions about who to write to?

Perhaps we should write to the Food Standards Agency, the Scottish Consumer Council, NFU Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Institute of Grocery Distribution. Perhaps we should write to the OFT to see whether it has a view on this apparent conundrum and how it intends to address it.

That raises the question of balance.

I should repeat my earlier declaration that I am chairman of the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets.

I agree that we should write to all those organisations. However, we should be fair and approach the organisations that represent the supermarkets, in the interests of balance.

Should we write to the Scottish Retail Consortium? Is that a legitimate body to include? Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. We will wait to get the responses from that wide-ranging circulation.