Public Petitions Committee, 23 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Official Report 293KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Peatland Conservation (PE301)

The first of the current petitions is PE301, from Steve Sankey of the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The petition has more than 3,900 signatures and calls for 17 additional candidate peatland sites to become special areas of conservation. We agreed to ask the Scottish Executive to let us know when it had received advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on the proposed additional 17 raised peatland sites, together with details of the action that it intends to take in the light of that advice.

Since then, the Executive has kept the clerks informed of its progress. Another response that has been received from the Executive provides details of an announcement that was made by the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development on 27 March 2002 regarding the selection of several new proposed Scottish bog candidate SACs. The sites are listed in the documents. The Executive's response indicates that the Scottish Wildlife Trust's reaction to the announcement has been positive and that it does not anticipate any further action from the organisation in relation to the matter.

The Executive seems to have gone some way toward meeting the petitioners' objectives. Indeed, its response indicates that the Scottish Wildlife Trust is content with the announcement of five additional SAC sites. However, it is suggested that, before concluding the petition, we might write to the Scottish Wildlife Trust seeking an assurance that it is content with the response from the Executive. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Nuclear Disarmament (PE334 and PE364)

The next two petitions are from Mr Tony Southall, on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The first deals with the review of emergency planning measures for nuclear submarine accidents and the second is about the adverse consequences of the location and operation in Scotland of nuclear weapons systems.

Members will remember that we wrote at various stages to the Scottish Executive, to the local authorities concerned and to Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Scotland). Ultimately, we decided to ask the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Justice 2 Committee whether they were interested in taking up the two petitions. The Transport and the Environment Committee decided that the subject of the petitions was not a matter for it but for the Justice 2 Committee. It was therefore left to the Justice 2 Committee to take the petitions further if it wanted to. That committee's members were advised to contact the committee's clerks by 10 September if they wished the committee to carry out an investigation into the issues that are raised in either petition, but no members of the Justice 2 Committee took the opportunity to do so.

The Public Petitions Committee's clerks were advised of the position only in March this year. We have been waiting for some time to establish whether the Justice 2 Committee is minded to consider further the issues raised in the petitions. We have now been informed that it is not. It is therefore suggested that the committee should formally agree that no further action should be taken in relation to either of the petitions and that accordingly we should inform the petitioners of the situation.

I wonder whether the Health and Community Care Committee would not have been a more appropriate committee to consult on reviewing the emergency planning measures for nuclear submarine accidents, rather than the Justice 2 Committee. Health and the devastation of human beings are the number 1 issue in the matter, apart from the environment. Should the petitions be forwarded to the Health and Community Care Committee? There are regular exercises and mock-ups of the evacuation of Helensburgh, and I think that the Health and Community Care Committee has seen papers on that in the past. It is a huge issue. The base at Faslane could take out the whole of Scotland and get Europe on the way back.

There is no doubt that it is a major issue, but no one questions the fact that it is the remit of the justice committees to address such petitions. The Health and Community Care Committee has been involved as an interested party, but the Justice 2 Committee has indicated that it is not prepared to take up the issue. That is unfortunate, but we do not have the powers to take up the matter.

The petitioners are calling for the Scottish Parliament to ask the Executive to initiate a review of emergency planning measures.

Any petition would go initially to the committee whose remit covers that area. When the petition first arrived, that was the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Now, there are two justice committees.

I still do not twig at all why the Justice 2 Committee is involved in the operational facets of the matter.

I am informed that the Scottish Executive justice department co-ordinates such activities and the justice committees shadow the justice department. That is why the matter comes under that committee's remit.

Having had Dounreay in my constituency for a long time, I was intrigued to know what would happen if there was a meltdown. There has not been one, although it is a possibility. I was interested in the detail of what would happen. The information was to some extent guarded, but I think that the locals are entitled to know what would happen if there were a meltdown. Apparently, the local authority would be responsible for dealing with people who were endangered, but could not take them to local hospitals, because that would make the hospitals out of bounds, so they proposed to take them to school buildings. That involves transport and health. With Faslane on the doorstep of the industrial population of Scotland, it seems extraordinary that we are just told, "That's the end of it." We have not tried the Health and Community Care Committee yet, have we?

No.

Health would be a primary concern. I agree with Winnie Ewing. I have heard of previous plans for the Helensburgh area, under which schools were to be commandeered to accept the wounded who remained after a nuclear accident.

Would it be possible for us to write to the Health and Community Care Committee to ask whether it wishes to take up the health implications of the petition? We could mention the fact that the Justice 2 Committee is not interested in doing so. We should write such a letter in order to keep the Health and Community Care Committee fully in the picture.

We always come up against this: as a petitions committee, we cannot go any further once a policy committee decides that it does not want to do anything. That is one of the weaknesses of the system.

It would be the first of the petitions—PE334—that we would pass on to the Health and Community Care Committee. I do not think that the second petition—PE364—has a direct bearing on health. It deals only with the question whether Trident weapons should be on the Clyde.

No—PE364 covers health. It says:

"Recognising … the health and environmental dangers".

I do not think that the Justice 2 Committee is doing the public much good. Would not it add to panic if the public had absolutely no idea in advance about what the score would be, and about what they would have to do? It cannot all be left to the emergency services.

Winifred Ewing was right to cite Dounreay, where a local emergency action committee would involve all the main emergency services, including the health service. I suggest that, to broaden the committee's knowledge, it would be fair to ask what facilities exist at Faslane. We would then be able to make an informed decision.

Why not? That is a good idea.

We could write directly to Faslane, in other words.

Remember that our record in dealing with the petitions in question goes back to February 2001. We have already had extensive replies from the local authorities involved and from the Scottish Executive about the existing emergency arrangements. There is an argument about whether those arrangements are adequate.

Are they updated?

Yes, they are continually reviewed and updated. If members wish to continue with the petition, the only way forward that I can see would be to ask the Health and Community Care Committee whether it would be interested in considering the health implications of the emergency arrangements that exist to look after the nuclear weapons system that is located in Scotland. That committee would not have an interest other than in the health implications.

I agree that health should definitely be a consideration. However, in any other situation, the public is informed about what to do, whether that relates to the simple evacuation of a cinema or school. I am not implicating the committee in saying this but, once again, information is being fudged because the word "nuclear" is involved.

Information is always fudged.

People must know what to do if the worst happens.

Nobody knows what to do.

There is a 144-nuclear-warhead potential in each submarine.

As far as I know, the emergency arrangements are public documents and are available.

Do we hold regular press conferences to bring that to the attention of the public? No, we do not.

In the context of Rosyth, where I used to be an elected member, a document called ROSPUBSAFE—or "Rosyth public safety"—was published. That was a publicly available document, which was regularly updated.

As an elected member for that area I, like others, was invited to be a part of the process. That process embraced all kinds of guidance, including what the emergency services and the local authority's emergency planning team would be expected to do in such a situation. My understanding from serving as an elected member in the Rosyth area was that the same kind of scenario applied to other nuclear establishments in Scotland: they are required to give such information and policy guidance to their local communities.

The Public Petitions Committee has referred the petition to the appropriate committee, which has not shown an interest in taking the matter up. That is the unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves. We could write to the Health and Community Care Committee to ask whether it is prepared to consider whether the health arrangements in the event of a nuclear accident are satisfactory.

I was not on the Public Petitions Committee when the Faslane safety plan was apparently made available. I wonder whether the clerks could provide me with a copy for my own satisfaction.

Sure. Extensive material came in from all the bodies that we wrote to.

I am sorry to be a bother, but I will read it.

Can we write to the Admiralty as well?

We should first establish whether the Health and Community Care Committee is interested in the petition.

As the convener and I are members of the Health and Community Care Committee, we know that the committee would be interested in the petition. However, that committee does not have time to consider everything.

We can write to the Admiralty, but we will get the same reply that we received from the Scottish Executive.

The problem is time—it is not that committees are not interested in petitions.

Do we agree to ask the Health and Community Care Committee whether it is interested in pursuing the issues that are raised in petition PE334? The Health and Community Care Committee does not have a direct interest in petition PE364, so we must conclude consideration of that petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Prison Service (Age Discrimination) (PE404)

The next petition for consideration is PE404, from Mr Walter Limond, and concerns age discrimination by the Scottish Prison Service. Members will recall that Mr Limond is 58 and is concerned that he is not being allowed to remain until he is 60 in service as a prison officer. He has applied to continue in service until he is 60, but the Scottish Prison Service has turned down that request.

We took up the issue that is raised in the petition with the Scottish Prison Service, which outlined its policy, and with the Prison Officers Association Scotland, which said that it did not agree with the line that the SPS was taking. For that reason, we agreed to write again to the SPS to establish whether the policy had been implemented to manage surplus staff in the short term and whether the policy has been reviewed.

We have received a response from the Scottish Prison Service, a copy of which is attached to members' papers. The response restates the background to the retirement policy and explains that it was introduced to deal with situations in which the Scottish Prison Service found itself with surplus staff. It says that the policy was reaffirmed to staff this year, following a review of the policy with the recognised trade unions. The response makes it clear that the SPS might be faced with further staff surpluses, depending on the outcome of the estates review consultation process. It points out that the service wants to avoid the need to carry out forced compulsory redundancies in such circumstances.

In the light of the information in the response—in particular, the ruling by House of Lords that the Scottish Prison Service's policy in this area does not discriminate against the staff who are affected, and the SPS's recent reaffirmation of the policy—it is suggested that we agree to take no further action in relation to the petition.

I am not sure that I agree with that. We should question the use of agism to support a redundancy policy. As a former trade union official, I know that there must be criteria for redundancy. However, redundancy criteria do not have to foster agism, which is a creeping tendency throughout Scotland. I have genuine concerns about the issue, because for some months a constituent has been coming relentlessly to my advice surgeries to talk about it. Does not the subject have Europe-wide significance? Perhaps we should consider referring the petition to the European Parliament Committee on Petitions. From documents that I have read recently, I know that the committees of the European Parliament intend to examine the age profile of European employees.

We could ask the petitioner to take his petition to the European Parliament, or we could refer it to the European Parliament Committee on Petitions. If we are concerned about agism in the SPS's policy, we could refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for comment.

We cannot refer the petition to the European Parliament Committee on Petitions. Petitions must be submitted to that committee by individuals.

No—we have done that before.

Shall we begin by referring the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee and requesting that it comment on the agism implications of the SPS's policy?

I agree with what Helen Eadie said, but in some jobs—the fire service and, perhaps, the Scottish Prison Service—age can affect one's ability to perform. However, if a person is capable of doing a job, age should not be a barrier to that.

Do we agree formally to refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee and to ask it to consider the issue of agism in the SPS's policy?

Does that mean that we would lose control of the petition and that it would not come back to us?

It would be the Equal Opportunities Committee's responsibility to deal with the petition.

It would be better if we kept control of the petition because that would keep open the option of sending it to the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions.

Will the Equal Opportunities Committee send the petition back to us?

No. Under the standing orders, the petition becomes the property of the Equal Opportunities Committee; it must respond to the petitioner. We must ensure that the Equal Opportunities Committee responds to the petitioner. The alternative is to write to the Equal Opportunities Committee to ask whether it is likely to examine the issue.

I prefer that alternative.

On a point of order, convener. Given the rule that you have just described, why the heck did the petitions from CND come back to us from the Justice 2 Committee?

We wrote to the Justice 2 Committee, but we did not refer the petition formally to that committee.

Okay.

I am glad that Helen Eadie intervened because too many times—in the Parliament and in the outside world—we let things slip by. The Scottish Prison Service's letter uses the words "surplus staff". The SPS assume that we will accept that because the phrase is used in connection with paying off older staff. Even the House of Lords accepted the matter although—goodness knows—many peers are old enough to suffer from age discrimination if any of them could get a job in the outside world. Everyone has blandly accepted the matter, but we should not just accept it. Agism is one of the last "isms" to be tackled. When private industry is trying hard to recruit older people and when there is the demographic time bomb of too few teenagers, it is downright stupid that the SPS should write letters saying that it is okay to brush off older people. I thank Helen Eadie for raising the issue.

I suggest that as well as writing to the Equal Opportunities Committee, we should write to the Prison Officers Association Scotland to ask for its comments. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The POA Scotland should not accept the situation either.

Perhaps we could also write to the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I am aware that it has campaigned on the "ism" to which Dorothy-Grace referred. The SPS is sending out the wrong message to people in Scotland. There are some superb workers who are older than 50, 60 or 65. They can make a valuable contribution to society. I want the Parliament to enable them to make that contribution.

I disagree with Phil Gallie about the physical strength factor in the fire service. The army has found that young recruits have extremely poor upper-body strength for tasks such as lifting stretchers over fences. It has been found that older people can be fitter in that way. There should be no discrimination on grounds of strength. People must be judged as individuals.

I want to defend myself. I spoke about capability for the job. I am sure that if a younger person is not physically equipped to deal with a job in the fire service, he will not be appointed.

We are not debating agism. We have agreed to write to the three bodies concerned—the Equal Opportunities Committee, POA Scotland and the STUC—for comments on the petition and the agist implications.

Can we also send a copy of the Official Report of the meeting?

Yes.

---

Green-belt Development (PE435)

Petition PE435 from Mr Peter Stephen is on guidance on green-belt development. Mr Stephen asked the Parliament to investigate Executive policy on green-belt development by considering whether the policy is sufficiently firm and whether local authorities uphold it. Mr Stephen was concerned about the proposal to build a new football stadium for Aberdeen Football Club on land that is designated as being within a green belt. We asked the Executive for its comments and—at our meeting on 12 March—decided that the Executive's response addressed the issues that were raised in the petition and explained how current policies apply. The Executive made it clear that it has no immediate plans to review the policy, but will continue to keep under review the need to amend existing law.

Members agreed to write to the Executive to request comments on the concerns that Phil Gallie raised about the adherence to planning guidance and the practical application of the green-belt policy. Phil Gallie quoted two specific example of planning cases in Ayrshire. We have received a response from the Executive, which gives background details on the two cases. In the first case, the planning authority, which is still processing the application, has confirmed that if there is a recommendation to grant consent, the case will be referred to Scottish ministers. Therefore, the Executive's formal involvement in the matter has yet to commence.

The Executive indicates that the second case was notified to Scottish ministers because it involved a significant departure from the development plan. A public local inquiry was held and a decision letter that gave approval for the stadium, but which refused consent for the retail element of the application, was issued in November 2000.

It is suggested that the Executive has demonstrated that it is dealing with both the cases to which Phil Gallie referred in a manner that is consistent with current planning procedures and policy guidance.

It also appears that the planning proposal that prompted the petition is being dealt with through the established planning process. The structure plan has been modified and objectors' concerns have been responded to. If a particular site is identified as part of the local planning process, objectors will have further opportunity to have their concerns addressed.

On the more general issue of the need to review green-belt policy, the Executive's response, which the committee considered on 12 March, says that the Executive does not consider that such a review is necessary at the present time.

Furthermore, the concerns that were raised in the petition relate strongly to the petitioners' concerns about a particular development proposal in their area. It is suggested that their concerns do not demonstrate sufficiently the need for a review of national planning policy on green-belt development.

It is recommended that the committee should agree to advise the petitioners to continue to voice their concerns as part of the established planning process. The committee should take no further action, other than to copy the Executive responses to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for information only.

On the Alloway application, the Scottish Executive's letter is absolutely accurate and I am happy with the situation. However, the letter is not full in its detailing of the stadium situation. I am not happy with the simple statement that local planning decisions are okay,

"but there are occasions when they require to be taken at a higher plane."

That is a rather a bland, authoritarian and centralist statement.

Although the Executive claims that it proceeded with the matter quickly and advises of the appeal that was made, the Executive does not say that the appeal was doomed to failure from the start because of the initial flawed decision. No reference is made to that. Although the Executive claims that the matter was dealt with expeditiously, its failure to acknowledge its mistake cost 18 months.

The Executive has also not referred to the fact that the report of the inquiry that it set up came out in favour of the stadium and the retail complex. Even though that was why I raised the matter in the Public Petitions Committee, the Executive has provided no explanation for that. The Executive said that there was something wrong, called the matter in and set up a planning hearing on it. When the Executive received the report, it simply rejected it. That seemed to be wrong and the letter does not make it clear that the Executive made several mistakes with the application.

We are in a difficult position, because the petition relates to a planning application for a new stadium in Aberdeen and to green-belt policy in general. You raise an issue that is to do with Ayrshire, which the petitioners are not specifically interested in. Does a general issue arise in relation to green-belt policy, which you want us to pursue? We cannot get involved in individual planning decisions, which in any case are nothing to do with the petition.

I have the same difficulty as the petitioner, who is not able to use the petition in relation to a specific application. That is why I broadened out the discussion. I took the opportunity to pick up on the two instances that I referred to. The second situation—the Ayr stadium situation—has significance in green-belt development because the intention was to use the brown belt and to avoid the wider use of the green belt, which we all applaud. A question remains to be answered. I am grateful that you took the matter up, convener. The way in which the matter was presented was bang on. However, the committee has been fed duff information, which I take great exception to. I hope that the committee will back me up on that.

I suggest that you make available to the clerks the detail of how the Executive has, in your opinion, failed to give us a full reply, as it is difficult to grasp in one presentation. We will then take the matter up with the Executive.

I will do that. However, I will summarise the problem now for committee members, because I know that they will not have time to read the details.

In the first situation, Heritage Scotland lodged an appeal against the decision. The Executive determined that it would go through the courts. Time and again I lodged parliamentary questions asking the ministers to abandon their appeal because it was based on a flawed decision. They refused to do so until March this year, when they finally pulled the plug on the court action. That case involved a massive delay of 18 months.

In the second situation, the Executive was right to set up a public inquiry, but I feel that it broke the guidelines by rejecting its own reporter's decisions. We should all be a little concerned about that.

I support the Executive's sometimes rejecting a reporter's decisions. I am aware of examples from my constituency where the reporter has decided to go a certain way against the wishes of democratically elected local representatives. I applaud warmly a situation in which the Executive takes more cognisance of democratically elected local representatives than of its reporter.

I agree with that 100 per cent. The local authority decided unanimously to determine the application in line with the reporter's findings. The reporter upheld local democracy. I am sure that you agree that that was a good thing.

We are in a difficult position, as the petition has nothing to do with the situations in Ayrshire. I suggest that we agree to conclude the petition, send copies of the replies to the petitioners and write separately to the Executive, commenting on the detail of its reply and pointing out that committee members are not satisfied that they got a full answer.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Film Industry (PE442)

Petition PE442, from Mr Howard Campbell, is about the establishment of a film industry in Scotland. We agreed to write to the Executive requesting an update on the national cultural strategy initiatives relating to the film industry in Scotland and to seek the Executive's views on the potential benefits of introducing tax breaks for the film industry in Scotland.

We have a response from the Executive. A copy is attached to the committee papers. The committee will see from the response that the Executive's aim is to make Scotland "film-friendly" and to support Scottish Screen in developing a film charter for Scotland and initiatives to establish a Scottish film studio. It explains in some detail Scottish Screen's current remit and role in distributing national lottery funds to film in Scotland, in raising the profile of film making in Scotland, in offering support, advice and finance towards the development of feature films and in providing training and development for film, television and new media. The Executive also indicates that there has been a gradual but steady rise in film production in Scotland over the past decade and an increase in the annual spend on films in Scotland.

The response points out that there is a widely shared view that Scotland does not yet have a film industry as such, but rather a film-making community, which does not yet contain enough competent, viable businesses of sufficient size to comprise an industrial context for development. Scotland is estimated to have around 165 businesses and approximately 5,500 jobs in film.

The response also provides details of the proposal to establish a film studio and addresses the issue of tax breaks for the film industry in Scotland. It points out that the Chancellor's decision in his previous budget to extend tax relief for film production until 2005 will continue to encourage investment in film production and that that tax relief has provided more than £100 million of direct benefit to the film production industry in the United Kingdom over the last three years. The Executive also informs the committee that the development of a film charter for Scotland has been put on hold temporarily due to the review of Scottish Screen.

It is suggested that we should agree that no further action be taken on the petition, as initiatives are being pursued to develop the film industry in Scotland. Alternatively, we could take the view that the matter merits further consideration and refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

I notice that, although the reply is encouraging in that it mentions many initiatives, there is no time scale. Because of that, I suggest that we refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. There are members on that committee who are very keen for the film industry to move on. The petition would get a sympathetic hearing there.

Is it agreed that we refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Local Authorities (Efficiency) (PE450)

Petition PE450, from Mr Stan Gregory, concerns the review of the objectives and structure of Scottish local authorities. The committee has already considered this petition and a similar, earlier petition. We agreed to refer PE450 to the Scottish Executive and COSLA to ask for their comments. The petition concerns the effect of monitoring and improving the efficiency of local authorities.

COSLA's brief response expresses the view that existing systems of scrutiny are sufficient to monitor the efficiency of local government. Therefore, COSLA does not support the petitioner's view that resources should be deployed to employ independent professional consultants for that purpose.

The Executive's response provides details of additional resources that it provides through local councils to deliver service improvements. Over the three years of the current spending review, grant to local authorities will increase by £1.4 billion to more than £7 billion by 2003-04. The Executive makes it clear that it is for local authorities to organise and deliver services that are appropriate to local needs, although it is keen to promote good practice and innovation.

The response points out that the local government bill will create a new statutory duty to pursue continuous improvement and will extend councils' obligations to report on their performance. The bill will also strengthen the Accounts Commission's responsibilities for monitoring council performance. The Executive's response also provides details of the piloting of local outcome agreements in several authorities.

The Executive states that ministers are considering what further support can be provided to assist councils in adopting best practice and to promote continuous improvement. Where appropriate, that might include the involvement of relevant external expertise.

It appears that the Executive is active in pursuing initiatives to help improve the efficiency of local government in Scotland. It will soon create a statutory duty for councils to pursue improvement in their performance and monitoring procedures. It is interesting to note that the involvement of external expertise, which the petitioner suggested, may be considered.

In the light of the steps that the Executive is taking, it is suggested that we should agree to copy the responses from the Executive and COSLA to the petitioner and take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Greater Glasgow NHS Board (Consultation) (PE453)

Petition PE453 is from Father Stephen Dunn, on the secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area. The committee has dealt with the petition for a considerable time. It revolves around the petitioner's continuing concern about the scoring groups that were used to secure the preferred site at Stobhill in Glasgow.

Members have a record of committee's previous consideration, which began on 5 February, and the latest response from Greater Glasgow NHS Board, which addresses the additional points that Paul Martin raised at a previous meeting. There are details of the positions taken by MSPs in response to the scoring process.

Greater Glasgow NHS Board has apologised for not providing the committee with the information in its previous letter, but it provides further information on the rationale for proceeding with scoring in the way that it did. The response also covers the specific point that Mr Martin raised about the transport study and confirms that Paul Martin's formal complaint, which relates to a member of its staff, has been investigated and that a reply has been issued to him.

Paul Martin has submitted an additional letter to me, in which he refers to a letter that he wrote to the chief executive of Greater Glasgow NHS Board in November 2001, which stated that Glasgow Labour MSPs did not support the structure of the scoring groups. He also encloses copies of letters to the chief executive from Brian Fitzpatrick MSP and Janis Hughes MSP, which indicate that they would boycott the event.

Mr Martin calls for the committee to take into account what he considers to be a deliberate attempt by the board to misinform it. He asks the committee to consider what action the Minister for Health and Community Care could take in respect of what he considers to be a flawed consultation process whereby members have been prevented from taking part in an event that affects the future of mental health in Glasgow.

It is clear that the board thinks that it has conducted a consultation process in as full and inclusive a manner as possible. The board's view is that Stobhill has been demonstrated to be the best site and that it has been supported by the health board, local authority representatives, the health council, staff, those who represent user and carer interests and the community councils.

Individual MSPs have strong views about the handling of the matter, but the location of the secure unit at Stobhill is a matter for the health board and the committee cannot seek to intervene or interfere. It has been claimed that MSPs were prevented from taking part in the scoring event, but they chose to boycott it. If the petitioners think that the health board has not dealt with the matter correctly, it would be open to them to take that up with the health service ombudsman.

However, it is suggested that the concerns that have been raised by the petitioners and MSPs could legitimately be considered to be a test of the recommendations for improved consultation by health boards that were made by the Health and Community Care Committee, following its consideration of PE48. It is suggested that we refer the petition and its associated correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee, with the recommendation that it consider further the more general issues highlighted by the petition in the context of its previous recommendations.

I am not happy with that suggestion. I have been supportive of the view that the Public Petitions Committee should not seek to change decisions by bodies on the tier below it. However, I am now coming to the view that, in the case of quangos, we should be exploring the general principle more carefully. It seems that health boards across Scotland are acting against the general will of local people and individual MSPs.

We should write to the Health and Community Care Committee asking for its views, rather than referring the petition formally. We should also seek the views of Paul Martin, Janis Hughes and Brian Fitzpatrick and send them the report and a full copy of the Official Report of today's discussion.

The committee has consistently taken the view that we should not get involved in the executive decisions of other bodies. PE48, on Stobhill, was submitted a long time ago. The Health and Community Care Committee dealt with that petition and laid out recommendations on the consultation methods of health boards in such circumstances. The best way to handle the petition would be to refer it to the Health and Community Care Committee to ascertain whether the latest decision was taken in line with the recommendations that that committee made a couple of years ago. We can keep Paul Martin, Janis Hughes and Brian Fitzpatrick informed of what we are doing, but it is for the Health and Community Care Committee to carry out that investigation, rather than the Public Petitions Committee. Dorothy-Grace Elder and I are both members of the Health and Community Care Committee.

Realistically, will the Health and Community Care Committee have time to consider the petition? I am happy to accept the recommendation if you can assure me that the petition will be given a fair hearing.

I think that it will. There has been some delay in the mental health legislation that was to come before the committee, so it is not as pressed for time as it has been.

In that case, I bow to your greater wisdom. However, I am still concerned that, as an elected body, we should not slavishly follow quangos.

Absolutely not. The Health and Community Care Committee is the relevant committee and I am sure that it will hold the health boards to account.

Does the Scottish Executive have the final say on the issue?

The health board is an agent of the Scottish Executive.

In that case, Helen Eadie's point is guarded by that. The Scottish Executive is there to look after the representations made by MSPs and others. It is not the quango that will rubber stamp the decision.

No. The health board's authority comes from the ministers who appoint the board members. The health board is accountable to the Parliament, through ministers.

I support the principle that the committee should not interfere with the executive decisions of local authorities—the principle is sound. However, we must question a little more in relation to the quangos that have proliferated across Scotland. They should be more under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

Is it agreed that we refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Ambulance Service (PE381)

I have a couple of other points about current petitions. Members may recall PE381, which the committee dealt with last summer, on the Scottish Ambulance Service's proposal to modernise its service delivery arrangements. The petition referred specifically to the service in the Aberdeen area. We passed the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee and although the progress of the petition was recently concluded, the Minister for Health and Community Care has sent a letter to me and to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee providing details of the approved ambulance service proposals. Copies of that letter are available from the clerks.

---

Scottish Agricultural College (Auchincruive) (PE480)

Recently, we dealt with PE480, about the proposed closure of the Scottish Agricultural College at Auchincruive, which we agreed to refer to the Rural Development Committee. Given the urgency of the case, we also sought responses from the college and from Ross Finnie, with a view to passing the responses to the Rural Development Committee. I am pleased to see that prompt responses have been received. The clerks have passed them to the Rural Development Committee. Any member who is interested in seeing those letters can obtain a copy from the clerks.