Public Petitions Committee, 21 Apr 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Official Report 302KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Oil Depots (Public Health) (PE936)

Item 3 is consideration of current petitions. The first petition in our possession is PE936, in the name of Simon Brogan, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the public health implications of siting oil depots in residential areas, in light of the Buncefield oil depot explosion in December 2005. The petition has been in front of the committee on at least two previous occasions. I invite members' views on how to deal with the petition today, given the information that we have now been provided with.

We should perhaps consider closing the petition. The Government has provided clarification, which I think is satisfactory, of the standards of control that are applied at the relevant sites. It has confirmed that lessons from the incident and the subsequent investigation and reports are being considered under the relevant emergency and civil contingency arrangements. That includes land use planning, public health policies and regulatory programmes from the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Given all that and the fact that the incident took place in 2005, I do not think that there is any more that the committee can usefully do.

Again, I do not disagree with Bill Butler, as I think that we have probably gone as far as we can with the petition.

Mr Brogan makes a very good point, and I have a great deal of sympathy with his position. I put my hand up as a former chemical engineer; as I understand it, the lesson of Buncefield is that the profession must recognise that minor incidents, which are normally expected to be single incidents, can turn into major incidents—I am referring to cases of multiple individual incidents. That expectation or assumption proved to be wrong at Buncefield. We had always assumed that one tank out of many might go on fire, but that any such fire would not spread beyond the bund to other tanks. That proved not to be the case at Buncefield.

What I think has come out of the Buncefield incident, if I have read the information correctly—although I have not gone into it in huge detail—is a recognition that it is possible for fires to spread in that way. The major point is that fire services and other rescue services therefore need to be geared up and to plan in such a way that they can deal with very big incidents, even if such incidents are extremely unlikely. They must know how to get lots of appliances, men and foam to a place—occasionally.

Mr Brogan is worried that he still has some tanks of flammable liquid pretty much in his back yard. I get the impression that he is not confident that the local services would be able to deal with an emergency in the very unlikely event that one should arise.

I go back to my position on nutrition advice, which we just discussed: citizens will have confidence only if they have access to the right information. Reading through our papers, I get the impression that some of the information that Mr Brogan has been trying to get hold of has not been made available to him. That might be for very good reasons, but every time a citizen is denied information, they naturally tend to think, like we do, that there is something behind that, which they are not being told about, for bad reasons rather than good reasons. I have a great deal of sympathy with the petitioner.

The major work on the issue has probably been done, so we should close the petition. However, perhaps we could make a plea, on behalf of the petitioner, to the local fire and rescue service for it to engage with him and ensure that he understands the precautions that have been taken and the plans that are in place for his genuine local issue—it is not a problem, but it is an issue to him. Beyond that, perhaps we could have a quiet word in the ear of every other fire and rescue service and say, "Are you prepared to engage with any citizen who finds a potential hazard close by? If you are not, we respectfully suggest that you should be, and that you should have a mechanism for answering those questions. You should have good answers, and we suspect that you do, but you should be prepared to communicate them." I worry every time that information is not available.

Okay. Nigel Don has made a positive contribution on the petition, which I think we should take on board in considering our response. The formal recommendation is to close the petition but to take on board Nigel Don's comments. Do members accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Plants (Complaints) (PE984)

PE984, by Dr Colin Watson, on behalf of Scothedge, calls on the Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints about vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines or other plants. Again, the petition has been in front of us before. I understand that the Minister for Community Safety met the petitioner in early April. We seek further information on that meeting from the Government. Given our timescale today, I suggest that we consider the petition at a future committee meeting, when we have information about the detail of the petitioner's discussion with the minister. Do members have anything to add?

We can ask what the proposed outcomes were from that meeting. We can get a note of the discussion, but it would be useful to get information on the minister's proposals for progressing the issue.

The petition has been with us for five or six years.

The hedges are twice the size they were when we started.

Indeed. If we still do not have proper responses from the local authority, surely we should think of asking another set of questions.

We should give the issue a push, anyway.

Yes. We will bring the petition back to consider—I hope—further information. We will then determine the next stage. The petition should be kept open for that process. Is that okay? Robin Harper looks sceptical. Has it just been a long day?

We know that a fair amount of common good land has already disappeared under development—there is evidence for that. That process could be continuing without people even knowing that it is happening.

I think that that issue concerns another petition.

Oh, this one is on high hedges—I am sorry.

I was getting confused there.

I am a couple of petitions ahead.

Now we know what you think about the other petition, we will not need your contribution when we discuss it.

We will keep the Scothedge petition open until we get further information, then we will determine what to do. I am sorry about the slight uncertainty there.

---

Scheduled and Listed Buildings (Management) (PE1013)

PE1013, by Niall Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review the arrangements for managing scheduled and listed buildings, such as Rowallan old castle, to ensure that, where suitable and sensitive plans have been made for restoring such buildings by an owner in a way that will allow public access, such developments are encouraged to proceed. Again, the matter has been in front of the committee before. To be fair, I think that the committee has had strong views on the process to which the petition refers. I know that many folk have expressed concerns about how Historic Scotland has interpreted regeneration opportunities and so on.

Given the huge number of documents that have been presented to us on the issue—there are at least five—and that Historic Scotland has undertaken a review that seeks to improve the day-to-day policies on the historic environment, I suggest that we close the petition on the ground that established processes exist.

Do members accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)

PE1050, which was lodged by Councillor Ann Watters on behalf of Kirkcaldy Civic Society, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to provide better protection for common good sites—I draw Robin Harper's attention to the subject of this petition—such as Ravenscraig park in Kirkcaldy, and to ensure that such assets are retained for their original purpose for future generations.

Perhaps I should just direct members' attention to my earlier comment on this matter, which will appear in the Official Report.

I think that we should keep the petition live until we have received the reports.

It would also be useful if we asked the Government what has happened with regard to the register of common good land, which was supposed to be completed by 31 March 2009. We should try to find out whether that has been completed and whether every local authority in Scotland has complied with the request for the information that is necessary for the register. It would also be interesting to know what action—if any—the Government has taken against any local authority that has not completed that audit and reported accordingly.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and explore the issues that John Wilson identified?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Employment Opportunities for Disabled People (Home Working) (PE1069)

PE1069, by Clive McGrory, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to encourage employers to provide home working opportunities for people with disabilities that prevent them from accessing the workplace. Do members have any views on how to deal with the petition, given the responses that we have received?

We should close the petition on the ground that the petitioner is satisfied that we have done all that we can do.

Incidentally, I will not read out the last paragraph of Mr McGrory's letter, as members have read it already, but I note that he praises the work of the committee. As self-praise is no praise, I will say no more than that.

We could ask the Government whether it would be possible to arrange for its officials and officials from the Department for Work and Pensions to meet the petitioner to discuss the progress that that department has made towards addressing the issues around facilitating home-based work for disabled people who are not currently employed.

I do not quite understand the petitioner's reluctance to take the matter just one step further. If he would like to meet Scottish Government officials and officials from the DWP, we could write to him to suggest that that might be possible and write to the Scottish Government to request that such a meeting take place, and leave it there. It seems a shame not to push the petition that little bit further.

The petitioner expresses rather strong feelings about the DWP in his letter to us.

Robin Harper's suggestion seems reasonable. What do other members think?

I have huge sympathy for the petitioner. Although this is another petition that has come from only one person, there are many people who are largely housebound and who could do something useful, but they are in a catch-22 situation. It only takes one person to highlight the issue, though.

The fact that the petitioner feels that we have gone as far as we can go does not mean that we have. I think that the Government has simply put this matter in the too-hard file—if I were a Government minister, I might think that a sensible thing to do with it.

Earlier, we heard some radical thinking about how we should run the Public Petitions Committee and engage with the community, and it strikes me that, in light of the requirement on our citizens to be employed and engaged in something productive, we might need to apply some radical thinking about our approach to those who have mobility problems but definitely have something to contribute.

The fact that one person is happy for the petition to be closed and the fact that the petition has been placed in the too-difficult file do not add up to a situation in which we should stop. This is certainly a real question that probably requires some radical answers, and it might well be that at the moment Governments simply do not want to know. However, I do not want to close the petition without registering the point.

I imagine that the rest of the committee feels broadly the same. Do members agree to close the petition but to explore the option of raising the matter with the DWP? Or do members want to keep the petition open?

I was going to suggest what you have just suggested, convener. We should close the petition but urge the DWP and the Government to write to the petitioner on the issues that he has raised. That might not satisfy him, given what he says in his letter, but the fact is that we have taken this debate and discussion as far as we can. Nevertheless, it is perhaps incumbent on us to suggest to the DWP and the Government that they write to Mr McGrory, seeking his views.

Well done, John. You have put the matter more succinctly than I was able to.

---

Free Public Transport (Under-18s) (PE1107)

PE1107, in the name of Robin Falconer on behalf of Highland Youth Voice, relates to public transport fares for all under-18s in full-time education and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to make provision for young people who have no income to travel free or to pay only half of the adult fare. The petition has been before the committee previously, and I believe that ministers will deliberate on the issue that it raises in the very near future—in the next month, in fact. Do members have any comments?

I suggest that we keep the petition open until the Government completes its deliberations, ask it to respond on the outcome and decide then whether we want to take the petition forward. I am loth to close the petition when we do not know the result of the consultations that have taken place.

I agree with John Wilson that we should keep the petition open until we have received a more formal response.

Okay. We will keep the petition open and bring it back to the committee when we have an indication of the Government's direction of travel on this matter. I just thought that I would get that joke in—it is one of the delights of convenership.

---

Transport Strategies (PE1115)

PE1115, by Caroline Moore on behalf of the campaign to open Blackford railway station, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that national and regional transport strategies consider and focus on public transport solutions such as the reopening of Blackford railway station. Again, the petition has been before the committee on previous occasions. Do members have any comments?

We should keep the petition open, as a Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal is forthcoming from Transport Scotland. Once we have received that appraisal, we can schedule further consideration of the petition.

That seems like a sensible course of action. Are we happy to accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)

PE1124, by Louise Robertson on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue Trust, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. Again, the petition has been in front of the committee previously. Do members have any comments on how we should handle it?

We should keep the petition open. I do not know how colleagues are minded but, like the petitioner, I am not satisfied with what we have got so far. We need to write to the Scottish Government, seeking specific responses to a number of specific points. How, for example, did the Government seek to obtain the views of all the relevant animal welfare organisations on the proposed regulations, which will, we are told, be laid before the summer recess? Is it satisfied that its policy represents the views and positions of wildlife organisations and other bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage? Finally, what public support has there been for the Government's policy on the use of snares? I believe that there has been very little; indeed, I think that the public are overwhelmingly opposed to snares.

There is real concern that mere regulation is not enough. I tend to be a bit prejudiced on the issue—I think that the petitioner is correct that mere regulation is not enough and that there should be a ban. Setting that aside, there are specific questions to be asked and the committee should ask them.

I agree with Bill Butler that the proposed regulations are not at all clear. If snares continue to be used, we will be promoting a cruel sport. I have seen snares cause terrible carnage. Animals have been snared and have died an agonising death simply because the snares were unattended for so long. I agree whole-heartedly with Bill Butler that we should keep the petition open and try to get far more information than we have at present.

We need to consider whether the consultation processes that the Government uses are sufficient—there is evidence that they were not in this case. We should also consider alerting the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee to the existence of the petition and let the committee know that the petition may be referred to it, once the expected regulations have been laid.

I have no problem with the petition being kept open or being referred to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, as Robin Harper suggests. However, I have received an e-mail—I do not know whether it has been sent to all other members—from the Scottish estates business group, which comprises organisations such as the National Farmers Union Scotland, the Scottish Countryside Alliance and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association that are involved in the control of targeted species. The group points out that a great deal is currently being done to develop a training course, with accreditation, in the correct use of snares and to develop snares that will not cause the sort of problems that John Farquhar Munro mentioned. It is important that we take note of that on-going work.

I fully understand the public's reaction to snares and do not like to see any cruelty to animals. However, the people who are at the coalface are doing their best to minimise any suffering in a procedure that they see as necessary to the proper running of their estates.

There are several issues that we want to pursue; the responses that we receive will determine our subsequent course of action. I am sure that all members have received the e-mail to which Nanette Milne refers; I received it the other day. The petitioner and organisations supportive of the petition have also submitted further material. There are firm views both for and against snares; we have had a chance to hear some of those. We will seek further information on the issues that members have raised and keep the petition open while we await responses.

---

Personal Expenses Allowance (PE1125)

PE1125, from David Manion, on behalf of Age Concern Scotland, is another petition that we have considered previously. The petition urges the Scottish Government to review the current rate of personal expenses allowance to reflect the cost of living and to allow care home residents to have independence, dignity and a good quality of life. I understand that Age Concern Scotland is aware that there is a Government review of personal expenses allowance and that some of the issues that the petition raises will be considered as part of that. The petitioner is happy for the petition to be advanced in that context.

I assume that we should close the petition on the ground that it has achieved what the petitioner wanted. We should reflect for a few seconds on the fact that the issue of personal expenses allowance might not have been addressed had the petition not been submitted and referred on. It is a small thing, but we have probably been part of the process.

Apropos our earlier discussion with the panel on the issue of testimonies and whether people feel that they have followed through a process, we can perhaps take on board Ali Jarvis's very good suggestion with regard to the journey of a petition, and whether individuals find it to be a good experience with reasonable outcomes.

---

Advocacy Services (PE1126)

PE1126, by Lesley Learmonth on behalf of Enable Scotland, urges the Government to consider and debate the need to amend legislation to ensure that individuals with learning disabilities have an enforceable right to the services of an independent advocate, and that such services are adequately funded.

The petition has come before the committee previously, and the petitioners have spoken to us about their experience in accessing appropriate and effective services, in terms of meeting the needs of the individual. Are there any views on what we wish to do with it?

I am reading the letter from the petitioner; they seem to think that we have gone as far as we can with the petition. It is clear that the Government is reviewing the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and has taken the necessary action.

The Government has indicated that it would be happy to meet the petitioners to discuss the issues that arise from the review of the 2003 act. We should follow that through in closing the petition and suggest a meeting.

That is a sensible suggestion. Are members okay with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will take that recommendation on board.

---

Scottish Agricultural Wages Board (PE1139)

PE1139, by John Quigley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board as a separate body and to expand its remit to cover all workers in the agricultural sector, including those in private and ornamental gardens and all types of fish farming. Are there any comments?

We should continue with the petition, and write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it wishes to provide an update once a decision has been taken with regard to the on-going review, and to say or to clarify how it has taken into account the issues that the petition raises.

It has been nearly seven months since the consultation and the review of the wages board ended, but no decision has been announced. It is a bit beyond time for us to hear the Government's view, which is important for the petitioner and for those who support the idea of the board. My view is that it is a very good organisation, but we need to know what the Government's view is.

I support Bill Butler in what is almost a demand for a response from the Scottish Government on the issue. As he indicated, it is seven months since the review was closed, and the opinions and consultation have been gathered. It would be useful to write to the Government to ask when it expects to report on the outcome of the consultation and when it is likely that any decisions will be processed by the Government in relation to that view.

It is vital that workers in the agricultural industry find out what the future of the board will be, and it is equally important for other workers to find out when they will be covered by the wages board. I fear that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board could be disbanded in line with the argument that has been made elsewhere that the Low Pay Commission is carrying out sufficient work to cover workers with regard to terms and conditions and the national minimum wage.

It is clear that the historical role of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board and the work that has been done in relation to it over the past 50 or 60 years has served agricultural workers well. Other groups of workers in related industries could equally be covered under the wages board agreement.

We should keep the petition open, but I agree with John Wilson that perhaps we should put pressure on the minister to reach a conclusion.

I can understand why it is taking a long time to make a decision, because this is a controversial issue. There are strongly held opinions on both sides. Perhaps we should nudge the minister along towards making a decision.

On the ground that we want to keep the petition open, I want to declare an interest in that I am a member of Unite trade union, which it is clear is the author. That covers other members who are also members of the same trade union.

---

Community Prisons (PE1150)

PE1150, from David Wemyss, on behalf of Aberdeen prison visiting committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider whether large prisons that are remote from prisoners' families offer the best way of rehabilitating offenders or whether, as an alternative, localised community prisons should be supported much more strongly to maintain genuinely easy access to family links and other community virtues.

This matter has been raised by members and we had a chance to consider the petition and take information from individuals on affected areas. How do we wish to deal with the petition?

We had a good debate on the subject, which threw some light on the matter and was very interesting. I suspect that we have reached the end of this part of the journey and I suggest that we close the petition in so far as it relates specifically to Aberdeen. We have had the answer from the cabinet secretary about Peterhead and Aberdeen and that will not change. The petition probably needs to be closed on the ground that there is nothing more that we can do with it.

Has there been follow-up to the evidence that we took in Fraserburgh?

No.

We had a very good airing of all the arguments. I think that the petitioners are right and that Peterhead is not the right place to have a so-called "community-facing prison", but it is not the role of this committee to make that decision. The minister made it very clear in evidence to us that he is aware of all the arguments and I suspect that he will not change his mind. I am not sure that we can do anything further, although I wish that we could.

I draw the committee's attention to my past membership of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

The problem is that the responses from the Government do not answer the question that was posed in the petition, which is whether localised community prisons should be supported much more strongly to maintain genuinely easy access to family links and other community virtues. The Government's answers give information on what is happening but no indication as to whether there will be any change in the future. Certainly, as has been pointed out, there will be no change in the north-east.

There is a sense in which it would be justified to continue the petition because the petition has not been answered by the Government or by what is happening. However, we know that the answer will be that the Government has no long-term intention of considering whether there is any future for a policy of introducing community prisons. If we close the petition, I would like us to write to the Government and ask it to state yea or nay on whether it will consider the introduction of community prisons at some time in the future as a more enlightened policy.

I sympathise with the petitioner and with what Nanette Milne and Robin Harper have said. I feel that it would be useful to keep the petition open, even though it is almost certain that the Government will not change its mind. However, we could write again and ask the Government—as Robin Harper suggests—to state clearly its position on community-facing prisons. The Government has not yet done that. The petitioner and those who have supported the petition are at least entitled to a clear statement of Government policy on the issue. The Government has already stated what it is going ahead with, but we should keep the petition open on the basis that we need—for the record and for the sake of the petitioner—the Government to state that it will not, in the foreseeable future, go ahead with community-facing prisons. We are entitled, on behalf of the petitioner, to ask for a statement of Government policy. I do not think that I have to move a motion to that effect—I hope not—but we should keep the petition open.

I have already said what I feel about the petition, so I will simply withdraw my suggestion of closing it and go along with what has been said.

I understand that some members feel that we have reached the end of the road and have gone as far as we can with the petition, and that other members feel that we could still chap a door. We are probably at the chapping-a-door stage.

From memory—although I am terrible at remembering things nowadays—I think that when the minister was here he spoke about the envelope of resources within which he had to work. However, potential future resources will affect future decisions in spending rounds, and different priorities will always emerge. It might therefore be worth keeping the petition open so that we can explore one or two of the points that members have raised. We should ask whether community-facing prisons are a future option that the minister might consider. We could do that without asking him to limit his room for manoeuvre, because during spending rounds there is always a game of poker among ministers, involving careful calculations.

On balance, I would suggest that we keep the petition open at the moment. However, there will come a time when we have to make a final decision on the extent to which the committee can influence the decisions and the direction of travel of the Government.

I thank Bill Butler for taking my modest proposal that little bit further.

Jonathan Swift would have been proud.

I agree with Bill Butler about asking for the Government's position on community-facing prisons to be put on the record. I hope that it would be fairly straightforward for the Government to respond to such a request because, as you say, the minister has already given evidence to the committee. Once we have received a response, we can consider closing the petition.

I thank members for their patience. We will keep the petition open and explore the issues.

---

Forensic Services (PE1226)

The final petition today is from Chris Morran. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that the Scottish Police Services Authority board consultation process on the provision of forensic services is open, fair and transparent, and to ensure that all relevant parties are fully engaged in the process.

Brian Adam is here and I will invite him to comment. However, we have heard from the petitioner that he feels that the process has concluded.

The committee's clerks would have advised Mr Morran that the wording of the petition should refer to national issues, but the issue that undoubtedly precipitated the petition was the position of the forensic laboratory and the fingerprint bureau up in Aberdeen. I am delighted—and, having seen e-mails that staff in Aberdeen and their representatives have written, I know that they are delighted—that the SPSA appears to have had a significant change of heart and is now adopting a national strategy. I hope that it can meet high international standards of quality assurance and have a comprehensive national strategy for the delivery of its services, but that it can also ensure that those services continue to be delivered locally.

I appreciate the role that the committee has played in the reaching of such a reasonable and successful conclusion to this petition.

On that positive testimonial, we will close the petition.

Taking on board the suggestions made by Brian Adam.

Yes.