Current Petitions
School Closures and Mergers (Consultation) (PE701)
The first of our current petitions is from Frank Mullarkey. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the consultation arrangements regarding school closures and mergers in order to ensure that the concerns of communities are taken fully into account, that proper risk assessments are conducted and that detailed costings are made.
At its meeting on 26 May 2004, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive and agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the response, and to consider further PE701 alongside PE725.
The clerks wrote to the petitioner on 27 May 2004 and 9 November 2004, but have received no response. On that basis, do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Code of Conduct for Councillors 2003 (PE702)
Petition PE702, which is by James Milligan on behalf of Helensburgh community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the 2003 code of conduct for councillors, particularly in relation to councillors' role in planning applications.
At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee noted from a response by the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform:
"The Standards Commission has agreed to revise its Guidance to make clearer that it is right and proper for councillors to be able to hear the concerns of their constituents … When this revision is made, it should be even clearer just what councillors can and cannot do to represent the views of constituents without compromising their duty to uphold the law. The Commission have indicated that they expect to be able to issue this revised Guidance by … June."
The committee therefore agreed to ask whether the guidance has been amended and distributed to local authorities. The Standards Commission for Scotland's response is:
"The Standards Commission has revised its guidance relating—amongst other matters—to planning applications and this was issued to all local authorities on 30 July 2004."
What course of action do members wish to take?
Having read the revised guidance, including paragraphs 21 to 33 in the section entitled "Taking Decisions on Individual Applications", I think that the Standards Commission has set rigorous standards for councillors to abide by. The guidance might not meet all the petitioners' requests, but it provides the basis on which councillors should operate. Given what the Standards Commission has said, we should close the petition.
Are members happy that the petition has served its purpose?
Members indicated agreement.
Food for Good (PE704)
Petition PE704, which is by Simon Macfarlane on behalf of Unison Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support Unison Scotland's national health service food for good charter.
At its meeting on 26 May 2004, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland and agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the Executive's response. The committee also agreed to seek further clarification from the Executive on allegations that were made in the "Dispatches" programme, to which motion S2M-1318 refers, and on the Executive's announcement of 25 May 2004 on promoting the use of local produce and the launch of a guidance note for Scottish public purchasers. The committee also agreed to request views on issues in the petition from the NHS Scotland property and environment forum. The committee has received responses from the Minister for Health and Community Care, Unison and the NHS Scotland property and environment forum. How should we deal with the petition?
We should certainly ask the Executive to comment on Unison Scotland's response. The response of 12 August 2004 from the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, talks about "Dispatches". It is instructive to read that
"when the food contract was put to tender, no Scottish companies submitted bids."
Part of the problem may be that Lothian NHS Board has contracted with Consort Healthcare, which has contracted with Haden Building Management Ltd, which has contracted with Tillery Valley Foods. When a company is three times removed from a health board, it is not surprising that problems arise.
The issue is that no Scottish company submitted a bid. Malcolm Chisholm's letter states:
"The guidelines encourage purchasers to … remove obstacles to tendering by local suppliers".
I am not sure whether Malcolm Chisholm or his successor is the person to ask what those obstacles are. It is strange that no one in Scotland tendered for a Lothian NHS Board contract but a company in Wales did. If obstacles exist, it would help to know what they are. Perhaps we should write to the Minister for Health and Community Care, whose officials will no doubt be able to answer the question.
Secondly, we should invite the Executive to comment on the response from NHS Scotland's property and environment forum. The letter from Ian McLuckie, dated 30 July 2004, states:
"While we … probably agree with much of what is written"—
the reference is to Unison's submission—
"there is one common theme which always seems to emerge and that is the availability of resources, in the material sense and in the financial sense."
Basically, the letter is saying that the NHS would quite like to comply with Unison's suggestions but is often restricted financially. We should invite the Executive to comment on that remark. We should also ask the property and environment forum to clarify the remark; I think that there is more to come out of that. No doubt Ian McLuckie has chosen his words carefully and I can understand why he has done so, given that he is chief executive of the property and environment forum. However, the issues are important for the committee because they are Scotland-wide. I would like to know a bit more about what Ian McLuckie said. For instance, is he saying that the NHS would do more if it had more resources? Are food and how it is provided not as healthy as they might be because of financial constraints?
I am sorry to go on for so long, but the issue is important. Although the petition has been open for some time, there is more to come out of it.
A number of important questions have been asked. Have members any other points to raise about the responses? Did Mike Watson suggest that we ask the Executive to respond to Unison's response?
Yes—we should ask the Executive to comment just on Unison's response. I know that we have had detailed responses from both sides, but that is not unhelpful. Such detail can open up new issues and it shows that everyone is taking the issue seriously. The question is how the committee can do as much as possible to progress the matter. Further clarification of the Executive's position would be helpful.
Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Green-belt Land (Legal Protection) (PE712)<br />Green-belt Sites<br />(Scottish Executive Policy) (PE724)
Our next two petitions are PE712 and PE724. The first is from Shirley McGrath on behalf of the Viewpark conservation group. Her petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that green-belt land is given appropriate legal protection. The second, from Grace McNeil, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on green-belt sites.
At its meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive on PE724 and to link the petition to PE712. The committee sought confirmation of whether there appears to be an increasing trend in granting planning permission for developments on green-belt sites and, specifically, whether such sites were being sold off by local authorities for financial benefit.
The committee has expressed disappointment that the Executive has failed to meet the deadline for a response on PE712. The clerk wrote to the Scottish Executive on 24 May 2004 and again on 9 November 2004, but no response has been received. The petitions are on today's agenda because we have not had a response. That is an issue.
This is not the first time we have had a lamentable response from the Executive—albeit from a different department—but to have had no response is utterly unacceptable. I hope that committee colleagues will support me in asking the convener to seek a personal meeting with the minister to get to the bottom of the issue. The point needs to be driven home forcibly to the minister and his officials that the situation is just not acceptable. If there is to be another exchange of correspondence, goodness knows how many of us will live long enough to see it. I am sorry to put extra work on the convener, but a meeting with the minister is needed.
I agree. If we get no reaction, we will need to invite the minister to come before the committee, as we did previously. However, that would not be good politics for any of us. To have to do so would be regrettable, but it should happen if we make no progress.
I am more than happy to do that on the committee's behalf. I will let members know how I get on.
Global Campaign for Education (PE734)
The next current petition is PE734 from Angela O'Hagan on behalf of Oxfam in Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to endorse the aims of the global campaign for education to achieve the millennium development goals and to make the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child a reality in Scotland. Furthermore, it asks Parliament to consider practical steps through which it and the Scottish Executive could promote those aims in Scotland.
At its meeting on 28 April 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's comments. We asked the Executive what measures it was taking to promote awareness of, and to advance, the aims of the petition and how the Executive can influence and further world education. We also requested clarification on how the issues that the petition raises fit into the schools curriculum and why modern studies appears to be included in the curriculum of not every secondary school in Scotland. In addition, we asked for details of how the Executive is performing in relation to education in respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The committee asked the Executive for its views on the proposal by a pupil from Monifeith High School in Dundee that people in schools and beyond should be encouraged to set aside one day each year on which to address the aims of the global campaign for education. We also asked the Executive to indicate why the millennium development goal of universal access to basic education cannot be met earlier than 2015. Finally, we also wrote to the commissioner for children and young people to seek her views on the issues that the petition raised. Responses from the Executive and from the commissioner for children and young people have been circulated to members.
It is good that we received such a full response from the Executive and from the commissioner for children and young people. Rather than give our own views, it might be better to write to the petitioners to ask for their views on the responses that we have received.
Are members happy to wait for a response from the petitioners?
Members indicated agreement.
Town and Country Planning<br />(Scotland) Act 1997 (PE740)
Our next petition is PE740 from David Barrie on behalf of Dundee City Council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to the effect that democratically elected planning authorities would be given the final say on the planning merits of all applications that were competently before them for determination, such that the appeal provisions that currently pertain to the decisions of reporters would be applied to appeals against the decisions of planning authorities.
At its meeting on 9 June 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments on the petition from the Scottish Executive, the Royal Town Planning Institute and Planning Aid for Scotland. The responses from those organisations have been circulated to members. We also agreed to seek comments from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but have received no response from it.
Do members have any suggestions on how we should proceed with the petition?
Given that the Executive has stated that it will publish a bill on which there will be further consultation, I suggest that we submit the responses from RTPI and Planning Aid for Scotland to that consultation.
Are members happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Recreational Open Space (Provision and Planning Regulations) (PE771)
The final current petition on our list is PE771, which we dealt with earlier when we linked it to petition PE813, on playing fields.
That concludes our consideration of public petitions. We will now consider agenda item 4, which is on the payment of witness expenses. As we agreed, the item will be considered in private.
Meeting continued in private until 13:08.