Public Petitions Committee, 22 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Official Report 254KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Solvent Abuse (PE580)

Agenda item 2 is current petitions. Petition PE580 calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the serious problems connected with solvent abuse in Scotland and to introduce preventive safety measures to help to combat it. The petitioner, Mr John O'Brien, has provided further material, including an update on the progress of the Lee O'Brien Solvent Trust—LOST. That material has been circulated to members. The committee had hoped to hear from John MacDougall MP today. Regrettably, due to his commitments at Westminster, he is not able to join us, but it is hoped that we will hear from him after the summer recess. Do members therefore agree to defer consideration of the petition until Mr MacDougall is available?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

Petition PE504 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to stop convicted murderers or members of their families profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of those crimes for publication.

At its meeting on 5 October 2004, the committee noted a response from the Minister for Justice, who stated:

"the Home Office has not reached a stage where it has firm proposals to prevent convicted criminals profiting from their crimes on which to consult."

The Home Office response states:

"I can confirm that no consultation on preventing criminals publishing accounts of their crimes has taken place. We will keep the Scottish Executive informed of developments in this area after the forthcoming general election."

We are now the other side of that election. What do members think we should now do with the petition?

I am genuinely concerned about the matter. This will be the 10th time that we have considered it. It feels like we are just being dangled along. I accept that the petition raises a complex area of legislation, but I think that we need a definitive timetable. We have now had the general election. Could we write to the appropriate ministers to get a clear view on the matter? The issue has been dragging on for some time.

I share Jackie Baillie's concern about how time has dragged on and about the Home Office letter that said that we did not get a reply before because the Home Office had not received our letter. Perhaps we could get clarification on that.

Basically, justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am not suggesting that we threaten anyone, in legal terms or in a letter, but if justice is a devolved issue and the Home Office is not going to act, we could perhaps consider what the Scottish Parliament might do on its own without waiting for a reply from the Home Office. Mr and Mrs Watson have suffered terribly, as have others. The note that we received from them today says that they are fed up and depressed that there is no movement on the issue. It is imperative that we get a letter back from the Home Office saying when it will introduce legislation. If the Home Office will not introduce it, perhaps it is time for the Scottish Parliament—though not the Public Petitions Committee—to have a look at the matter and consider legislating on it. The issue has been dragging on for far too long and people are suffering all the time.

My main concern is that, as Jackie Baillie and Sandra White have pointed out, the delay is not helping anyone. We must get some clarification on whether the Home Office is going to move on the issue and when. To me, that is fundamentally important.

I take a different view from that expressed by Sandra White, as I think that it would be problematic for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area. If someone was convicted of an offence in Glasgow and was jailed in Glasgow but then moved to London, how could we prevent them from printing their memoirs if the legislation applied only in Scotland? The issue is complex. Before we get into those complexities, we must receive an answer from the Home Office about what it intends to do. If it tells us that it is not going to do anything, we can then consider whether something practical could be done in Scotland to address the concerns that Mr and Mrs Watson have rightly raised. They are concerned about the potential for people to profit from their crimes, which is something that we should all abhor.

Nevertheless, we must consider the practicalities. The starting point has to be the Home Office. We must chase the matter up. I am prepared to do that—I will write in the strongest terms that we expect a definitive response from the Home Office, as the prevarication is no longer acceptable.

I agree. The minister in whose name that letter was signed on 15 April has now moved on, but that should not affect the issue. I believe that we should follow the matter up as you suggest.

I am also concerned about the additional paperwork that we have received this morning. Mr and Mrs Watson have attempted to use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to get clarification from the Home Office on what has been discussed regarding the issue, but their request has been refused. I understand that, if someone's request for information is refused, they can approach the information commissioner to rule on the matter. I hope that Mr and Mrs Watson will do that. They have taken on enough of a burden in writing the letters that they have already written, but I hope that they will contact the commissioner, as they have been very effective in their campaign. The defence that is given by the Home Office is—as in the previous letter—extremely weak.

We must push a lot harder on the matter and I am prepared to write to the Home Office in strong terms. I agree with Mike Watson that we should encourage Mr and Mrs Watson as much as we can to achieve the ends of their campaign.

Sandra White suggested that we produce Scottish legislation on the issue. Would that be within the competency of the Parliament?

It would be.

Although it might not necessarily be effective.

That is my concern. I think that, from a practical point of view, it would be very difficult to have effective legislation that covered Scotland only. The person might reside in Scotland, but they could choose a London-based publisher. How could we prevent that? There are all sorts of complexities.

As we all know, things have been happening at Westminster that affect Scotland, involving Sewel motions. Perhaps if we went it alone and legislated on the matter, we could do a U-turn Sewel motion and Westminster could accept our legislation. The fact that the legislation came from Scotland would not mean that it could not affect other parts of the United Kingdom or that Westminster could not effectively adopt it. If there is no movement on the issue, people—including Mr and Mrs Watson—may look at that option and approach MSPs about it. There is a possibility that it could happen.

They would be at liberty to do that but, as I say, that is for a later debate. The issue at the moment is what the Home Office is doing. We must identify that first; we can perhaps have the other debate later.

Are members agreed that we should take the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Detoxification Clinics (Legislation) (PE585)

Petition PE585 calls on the Scottish Parliament to review and revise legislation in order to clarify and establish the mechanisms and powers of control that regulate the siting of heroin and methadone detoxification clinics.

At its meeting on 24 November 2004, the committee noted the length of time that had elapsed since its first correspondence with the Executive on the petition, which was in January 2003. We agreed to write to the Minister for Communities seeking an indication as to when the Executive is likely to progress the matter. A response has been received from the minister and circulated to members. If we are satisfied with the response, however belated it is, are we agreed to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ambulatory Oxygen and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PE648)

Petition PE648 is on the provision of portable oxygen. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the national health service in Scotland provides truly portable oxygen and pulmonary rehabilitation classes throughout the country.

At its meeting on 24 November 2004, the committee considered a further response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to the petitioner's request for more time in which to comment on the Executive's original response of December 2003. The response has now been received and circulated to members.

I am concerned that the devices that the minister promised would be made available on the NHS in October 2003 have not yet been made available. We should ask the minister why that is the case.

The petitioner has raised a number of issues in his letter. In addition to John Scott's suggestion, we should pass the letter to the Executive and seek its comments on the outstanding matters.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sewage Sludge (PE749)

Petition PE749 was submitted by Geoffrey Kolbe, on behalf of Newcastleton and district community council. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek a moratorium on the spreading of sewage sludge pending a full inquiry by a parliamentary committee into the safety of the practice. The petition also calls on the Parliament—depending on the outcome of the inquiry—as a minimum to initiate legislation at the earliest opportunity to discontinue the current exemptions for spreading sewage sludge and to ensure that the practice is subject to planning control, including a public local inquiry.

At its meeting on 16 March, the committee agreed to write to Scottish Water and the Scottish Executive and to pass the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for information. The responses have been received and circulated to members.

The petition raises serious issues, which we dealt with very well the last time that we considered them. We should pass the responses to the petitioner and ask him for his views on the contents.

I agree that we should do that in the first instance, but we may need to end up sending the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. Although I have every sympathy with the petitioner and Newcastleton and district community council, the enormous issue remains how to dispose of sewage sludge. I do not always have the greatest sympathy with Scottish Water, but it has nonetheless been left holding the baby. There is a problem and no one is giving Scottish Water any help in solving it.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency's response is something of a cop-out and yet it is the regulatory body. I am not entirely certain that the minister's response is hugely helpful, either. SEPA is left with the problem of disposing of the material, yet the avenues by which it can do so are being closed down. A full-scale inquiry by the Environment and Rural Development Committee may be needed at the very least. The problem is not going to go away. Indeed, it will get worse the more that the avenues that are open to Scottish Water to dispose of the sludge are closed down.

Chris Ballance has joined us to talk about the issue.

I support what John Scott has just said. The problem is extremely big and we will have to deal with it at some point. There is a great deal of cross-party concern about the issue, not only in Newcastleton but in other areas across Scotland. We have a situation in which there are no planning controls over the dumping, SEPA is not doing any testing, there are no controls as to the depths at which the sewage is dumped or the amount of sewage that is dumped and there are no controls about the testing of underground water. The issue is important because we cannot reduce the amount of sewage that we produce. We have no solutions at the moment and it is important that someone in the Parliament should consider the matter and try to come up with a sensible, long-term solution. The problem will not go away by itself.

One of the biggest issues that the Public Petitions Committee dealt with in the first session of Parliament was what was happening at Blairingone, where things were being put on fields that should not have been put there. It took an inquiry to get that problem resolved. Perhaps we need to replicate that.

I would not suggest that we replicate that work. I was on the Public Petitions Committee when that inquiry was undertaken—by Andy Kerr, I believe—and can tell you that it related to a completely different issue. That case involved animal parts and blood—a headline along the lines of "Blood and Guts at Blairingone" seems to stick in my mind—whereas PE749 deals with sewage sludge, which is a treated product. It is apparently being disposed of reasonably, but, not unreasonably, communities do not want it disposed of in their back yard. That is the issue that needs to be addressed.

How can we best do that? Should we take Sandra White's suggestion that we write to the petitioner and get his views?

The petition was sent to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in March 2005. I would be quite happy for us to send it to the Environment and Rural Development Committee and to allow the petitioner to comment on it. This is a big issue and it has to go to the Environment and Rural Development Committee eventually.

I would not take a hard-and-fast line on which committee the petition should be sent to. It might be more appropriate for another committee to address the issue.

That was mentioned before, but the petition did not go anywhere because we were asking the petitioner for his thoughts.

We could still ask the petitioner for his thoughts, which would be added to anything that we send on to the committee. I am asking whether now is the appropriate time to send the petition to the committee, since we have received answers from various bodies.

I think that it is. If others are so minded, I would be happy to propose that.

I second John Scott's suggestion.

Do we agree to do that and to seek the views of the petitioner as well?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sub-post Office Closures (PE764)

Petition PE764 is from Margaret Tait, on behalf of the Stoneybank Tenants and Residents Association in Musselburgh. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to request that the Post Office consider sympathetically the needs and requirements of disabled and elderly persons who, in urban areas in Scotland, would be expected to walk substantial distances, sometimes in excess of two miles, as a result of the closure of certain sub-post offices.

At its meeting on 2 March 2005, the committee considered responses from Postwatch Scotland, the Royal Mail, the Scottish Executive, the Disability Rights Commission, Help the Aged and Age Concern and agreed to write again to the Scottish Executive. A response has been received from the Executive and has been circulated to members.

The response is helpful and quite revealing, but I have to say that it does not deal with the main issue. It deals specifically with post offices that are in deprived urban areas, which is helpful as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. I noticed that the fund to develop post offices in deprived areas is now closed but that only three quarters of the resources that were set aside have been allocated, which means that there is some residue. The response also says that the Executive will

"shortly discuss the future of the fund".

It might be that the fund will be reconstituted, which would be welcome. However, the letter does not really address the more general issue. We need an answer from the Executive. I suspect that the answer will be, "It's not our responsibility; it is up to the Post Office to decide these issues." However, the Executive does not even say that. The letter is helpful, but only as far as it goes.

I support Mike Watson's suggestion of writing to the Executive. If there is money left in the fund, we should ask whether the fund is going to be extended. I do not know whether Musselburgh would have fallen into the deprivation index category anyway. Do we know whether Musselburgh has applied to the fund, or would it have been ineligible? In addition, the fund is available to post offices in the 20 per cent most deprived areas, but does the Executive plan to increase that figure by another 5 percentage points or to take it up to 30 per cent? That would have an impact on keeping local post offices in local communities.

We could get clarification on that point and see whether there is scope to extend eligibility for the fund.

The Executive states in its response that it will discuss that.

I want to raise another issue. The petition refers to walking distances sometimes being in excess of two miles. I do not know Musselburgh and I do not know what the Stoneybank area is like, but I would have thought that Musselburgh was big enough to be described as an urban area. In one of its responses, the Post Office states:

"our own aim at the end of the Network Reinvention programme is that 95% of the urban population, nationally, will live within one mile of their nearest Post Office branch."

Are we being told that that part of Musselburgh falls within the other 5 per cent? That is not clear to me. We should ask the Post Office to clarify what the 5 per cent area is and whether Musselburgh falls within it. I suppose that, if the aim is to cover 95 per cent, someone will be in the 5 per cent and they will be told, "Tough luck."

We can ask that legitimate question. We will get the two points clarified and keep the petition open until we have received responses. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

NHS (Provision of Wheelchairs and Specialist Seating Services) (PE798)

Petition PE798, by Margaret Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to resolve the current critical problems in the provision of wheelchairs and specialist seating services within the national health service by both an immediate increase in funding and through a review that, in consultation with users, will address minimum standards, the scope of equipment provided and the delivery of services.

At its meeting on 19 January 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care, the Minister for Communities and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland; we also agreed to pass copies of the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Health Committee for information only. Responses have been received and members have had a chance to look at them. Are there any comments?

I am not happy with some of the comments, particularly the response from the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who basically says that higher education institutes are autonomous bodies. Everybody seems to pass the buck and nobody takes responsibility. We are talking about forthcoming legislation regarding disabilities and wheelchair users. Perhaps we should look to the Disability Rights Commission for its view on the responses that we have received, because some of them pass the buck to other people.

I do not always find myself agreeing with Sandra White, but I agree with her in this case. The responses are anodyne at best. I trained as a civil engineer and did a joint first-year course in architecture all of 30 years ago—even then, the university that I was at provided training on the needs of wheelchair users. I am certain that such training will be given to architecture students today, but perhaps I am wrong. It is important to get the views of the Disability Rights Commission.

And of the petitioners.

There would be no harm in that.

---

Treason Law (PE782)

Our last current petition is PE782, by Mark Colquhoun, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a view on modernising the treason law in the United Kingdom, to consider that the recommendations of the Law Commission for England and Wales in 1977 on the reform of the law in that area have never been implemented and to make representations to the UK Parliament on the issue as appropriate.

At its meeting on 2 February 2005, the committee agreed to invite the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Law Commission and the petitioner to comment on a response from the Law Commission for England and Wales. Responses have been received and members have had a chance to look at them. I would welcome comments.

It is clear that the Scottish Law Commission agrees with its counterparts in England on the reasons for the earlier non-implementation of the proposals and for their non-implementation now. On the basis that there does not seem to be huge demand to implement the recommendations from any quarter other than the petitioner, I suggest that we close the petition.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our business this morning. Thank you for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 12:01.