Current Petitions
Strategic Planning (Fife) (PE524)
Agenda item 2 is current petitions, the first of which is PE524, on a review of strategic planning. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reconsider the proposal in the review of strategic planning to replace Fife as a single planning area.
At our meeting on Wednesday 28 April 2004, the committee agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the Scottish Executive's response. The petitioner says that as
"things have now moved on since the original petition was submitted … there is nothing further which I believe that the Petitions Committee can do at this stage".
On the basis of the petitioner's comment, the committee might feel that no further action is required on the petition.
Members indicated agreement.
Further Education<br />(Governance and Management) (PE583)
The next petition is PE583. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to inquire into the governance and management of Scotland's further education colleges and to consider reforming the legislative framework for further education.
At our meeting on 31 March, the committee considered PE583, by Joe Eyre, on the governance and management of further education colleges, and PE574, by Jeff McCracken, on the openness and accountability of FE college boards of management. The committee agreed to invite the Executive to comment on the points that are raised in PE583, specifically the claim that business interests are over-represented on college boards to the detriment of other interests. In response to that claim, the Executive states:
"Ministers concluded that it would be the wrong time to dilute the availability of the skills and expertise offered by those with a business or professional background, particularly when many colleges were working strenuously and successfully to improve their financial stability."
It has been our practice to ask for the views of petitioners on responses from the Executive. We might also consider asking for the views of the Association of Scottish Colleges.
I should mention an interest of a sort: Mr Eyre is a constituent of mine and has raised some issues with me, although not the particular issue that is raised in his petition. I agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion and I suggest that we also ask the further education lecturers section of the Educational Institute of Scotland for its views.
I agree with those suggestions, but I suspect that I know what the petitioner's response will be.
I want to draw attention to a couple of points. Most further education colleges run on a deficit, so the Executive's use of the reference to delivering
"best value for the record levels of resources being invested"
as a justification for maintaining the current composition of the boards is a bit of a laugh, as is the reference to
"the highest standards of financial management".
Coatbridge College, for example, has just announced possible redundancies. I do not think that any of the issues have been addressed. I disagree entirely with the assumption that the high level of business interest in college boards means that they have the highest level of expertise, and I disagree with the assumption that students, trade unions and communities would not be able to provide better, but perhaps different, expertise. The Executive's response does not address the issues that the petition raises. As well as a formal response from the petitioner and the opinions of the colleges, it is essential that we seek responses from the EIS and perhaps from student organisations, too.
Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
We will wait for the responses.
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (PE601)
Our third current petition is PE601. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to commence sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, which will allow interested parties to make submissions for rights of audience in Scottish courts.
At our meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to seek clarification on the timescale for the research that the Executive intends to commission on the legal services market in Scotland before it considers whether to implement sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act. The committee also agreed to ask the Office of Fair Trading whether competition matters that affect the legal profession are reserved and under its jurisdiction.
In its response, the Executive states:
"The research is already underway … and we plan to publish the research findings in March 2005."
The OFT said in its reply:
"In Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, Head C3 reserves Competition to the UK Government, subject to an exception which specifically devolves to Scottish Ministers responsibility for ‘the regulation of particular practices in the legal profession for the purpose of regulating that profession or the provision of legal services'."
The committee has received a further response from the petitioner, in which he comments on the Executive's letter of 20 April 2004. The petitioner says:
"the Executive is using regulation of the legal profession as a way of indirectly controlling competition and Ministers are thus taking decisions regarding what type of competition will be introduced, if any."
What are members' views?
Given that research is being conducted and that the OFT has confirmed that the matter is devolved, I do not think that we should take any further action on the petition other than to pass it to the research group. It is more appropriate that that group consider the petitioner's comments.
We are talking about an issue that goes back to an act of 1990—a considerable time. There is practice that is working well elsewhere, so it is regrettable that people in Scotland do not have individual choice in such matters. Perhaps it would be reasonable for the committee to ask the Executive what information it has on the operation of the schemes south of the border. If it does not already have such information, we should ask why that is the case. Why must we wait until March 2005, which is the timescale that the Executive has proposed? I believe that the matter is one of choice for individuals. In the meantime, many people will have to spend a lot of money under the present system, which could be changed.
I take on board your points, but I do not think that we will be able to change the timescale, because the Executive has announced when it intends that the research will be published. We must just accept that that is the situation. Unless members disagree, we will follow Jackie Baillie's recommendation. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
HMP Peterhead (PE675)
Our next petition is PE675, which is about the suitability of conditions at Peterhead prison. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the suitability of HMP Peterhead for long-term imprisonment of convicted sex offenders.
At our meeting on 31 March 2004, the committee considered PE667 and PE675 jointly and agreed to refer PE667 to the Justice 1 Committee for its consideration as part of its inquiry into rehabilitation of prisoners. The committee also agreed to seek clarification from the Scottish Executive about issues concerning in-cell sanitation that were raised in PE675.
In its response, the Scottish Prison Service states:
"A proposal from Peterhead to manage access to night sanitation has been received and is under consideration. No final decision has been taken."
On the wider issue of slopping out, the SPS refers the committee to the response by the Minister for Justice to parliamentary question S2W-8152, a copy of which has been circulated to members.
Stewart Stevenson has joined us. Do you want to make some comments, Stewart?
I will comment briefly—I am obliged to you for allowing me the opportunity to do so. It might be useful for my colleagues on the committee to be aware that the night sanitation proposal that is referred to by the SPS at the end of paragraph 2 of its letter was submitted in 2000. Members might share my concern about the modest—I use that word with great care—rate of progress. The letter, which is dated 21 May, also states:
"No final decision has been taken."
Given that what is proposed for Peterhead prison has passed health and safety tests there and is already in operation in Cornton Vale for a similarly compliant prison population, it is surprising that the executive of the Scottish Prison Service has rejected it, although I understand that it continues to pursue other proposals.
From my private conversations with the Minister for Justice, I believe that she and I see eye to eye on the need to make progress on the issue. We share some discomfort about the Prison Service's failure to engage on the matter. I suspect that if the committee were to find a way to increase and continue the pressure on the Scottish Prison Service, I—as the constituency member—and the Minister for Justice would be grateful.
Your private and confidential conversations are not private and confidential any longer.
I marked the letter from the SPS where it talks about the proposal
"to manage access to night sanitation".
I sometimes wish that folk would say what they mean. Does that mean the ending of slopping out or does it mean something else? I am shocked that the proposal dates from 2000. It is completely disingenuous of the Scottish Prison Service to suggest, as it does, that the proposal has come recently from Peterhead. For the record, I would like to state that the SPS is especially guilty of giving disingenuous answers, whether to letters or to parliamentary questions; believe me, I have had a few of them. We need some plain talking and we have to follow the letter up and ask for more information about the proposal.
I am not unhappy with that suggestion, but I am concerned that we might be straying from the subject of the petition, which is the suitability of conditions at Peterhead prison for long-term imprisoned sex offenders. I do not know whether that brings a different dimension to the matter and whether there would be any difference if they were not convicted sex offenders. However, that is specifically what the petition is about.
Okay. I am sure that Jim Johnston will be very well able to work something out around that.
Helen Eadie and John Scott will, no doubt, remember that the committee heard evidence on prison closures a few years ago. We considered the situation at Peterhead at some length and gave Peterhead the green light for continuation. At that time, the committee was aware of the prison's limitations. I am disappointed that more progress has not been made, but I suspect that the executive of the Scottish Prison Service might well be playing a game with us. It was sympathetic to closure of the prison at one time and is now demonstrating one of the reasons why it was right and everybody else was wrong. In formulating a response, we must be careful that we do not open up an argument for closure of Peterhead prison.
I want to make a minor point. To echo what has been said, we should pursue the Scottish Prison Service on the detail behind its response and the timescale for its consideration of slopping out. As the petitioner specifically mentioned slopping out in the letter, I suggest that that gives us sufficient leeway to pursue the matter in the context of the overall accommodation at Peterhead. Perhaps that would be a helpful way around matters.
Are members happy to deal with the matter by asking the questions that have been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Field Impairment Tests (PE714)
The next petition is PE714, on guidelines on field impairment tests. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the validity of field impairment tests—FITs—in its road safety campaign on the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs, to issue guidelines on disposal of vehicles that belong to individuals who fail FITs, and to issue guidelines to courts about the evidential value of FIT results.
At its meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's comments on the issues that are raised in the petition. In particular, the committee requested details on whether the Executive has requested any guidelines in relation to FITs, together with an indication of how those are working in practice, given the apparent concerns over the accuracy of the tests. The committee also agreed to seek comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland—in particular, its views on how guidelines that may have been produced in relation to FITs are working in practice, given the apparent concerns over the accuracy of the tests. The committee also agreed to seek comments from the Scottish Dyslexia Association, particularly its views on the potential accuracy of FITs when they are used on individuals with dyslexia.
Before we consider the substantive issues, I remind members that they should not refer to the specific case that is mentioned in the response from ACPOS and the Scottish Executive. As with all petitions, our remit is to consider the generic issues that are raised by the petition rather than individual cases.
The committee may wish to express concern to ACPOS and the Scottish Executive about their having identified a specific case in responding to the committee's requests for views on the issues that are raised in the petition when there was no mention of that case in the petition.
Responses that have been received from ACPOS, the Executive and the Scottish Dyslexia Association have been circulated to members.
Do members have any views?
When the petition first came before us in March, I mentioned that the issue relating to Mr Humphries's son was raised with me by Mr Humphries, who is a constituent of mine. I will not comment on that matter, but I have an interest in it.
I agree absolutely with what the convener said about ACPOS and the Executive identifying a specific case; it should not have been done. We should write to them about that to express the committee's dissatisfaction. Secondly, neither ACPOS nor the Executive has dealt in its response with the issue of guidelines on the disposal of vehicles. We should also ask them about that and ask them to complete their answer.
We should also seek the petitioner's views on the responses.
That is always worth doing.
Members indicated agreement.
We will look for those responses when the matter comes back to us.
Aberdeenshire Harbours (PE716)
The next petition is PE716, on the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1987. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to annul the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1987 and to replace it with equitable legislation.
At its meeting on 31 March 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and to Aberdeenshire Council to seek their views on the issues that are raised in the petition. In particular, the committee noted that Aberdeenshire Council provides direct financial support to the seven harbours that were brought under council ownership by the order, while the Aberdeenshire village harbour trusts rely on voluntary contributions to fund their operations, repairs and maintenance.
The committee therefore sought confirmation of the criteria for bringing certain harbours under council control, and clarification of who owns and is responsible for maintaining the other harbours. The committee also asked whether the Executive has any plans to amend the relevant legislation in order to bring all harbours under council control.
In its response, the Executive states:
"The five trusts referred to collectively in the petition as the Aberdeenshire Village Harbour Trusts are each independent statutory bodies",
and that
"Since the trusts are independent bodies, their agreement would be required before Aberdeenshire Council could take over as the relevant harbour authority."
The representative of Aberdeenshire Council went on to state:
"I am unaware of the history that resulted in some harbours being owned by the Council and others, like Cairnbulg, run by Harbour Trusts, however the significant factor is that the Council has a duty of care for harbours where they are the designated harbour authority."
Once again, Stewart Stevenson is here to enlighten us on the matter.
It would be fair to say that this is a slightly more difficult matter. At the heart of my constituent's concerns, as expressed in his petition and in the considerable amount of supplementary material from the clerk, is the fact that there appears to have been no clear policy underlying the differentiation between the harbours that were taken over by Grampian Regional Council under the Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Act 1987 and those that were left to their own devices. It is that lack of equity in the treatment of the various harbours that has left some communities in Aberdeenshire with the financial and practical responsibility of maintaining their harbours, while other communities have been eligible for support through the transfer of that duty to Aberdeenshire Council.
If we could establish the policy intention and practice in making the decisions at the time—I and my constituents have so far been unable to do so—that might clear the way for providing Cairnbulg and other harbours that are in a similar situation with the appropriate public support and for treating them equitably. It may yet be that further pressure should be put on Aberdeenshire Council. I am not sure that the Executive itself has a particularly strong locus in this regard; its letter supports that comment.
The committee will be particularly interested in the wider general issue of the ownership of harbours. I do not think that the Executive's response answers the point. It would perhaps be useful to respond to the Executive to ask it to clarify further its views. It is my understanding that a similar situation applies to a number of harbours around Scotland—I think that St Andrews harbour in Fife is in the same position and there may well be many others. I suggest that we write back to the Scottish Executive seeking further clarification not just in relation to the Aberdeenshire harbours, but on the Scotland-wide position. It is the wider policy issue with which we are really concerned.
Should we seek more clarification on the matter? The answers that we have received basically reaffirm the situation as we know it. We know that there is differentiation between one type of harbour and another, but no one seems to be saying what they intend to do about it. It might be useful to hear why we are where we are and what the future holds. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Stewart Stevenson.
Government Finance (PE719)
The seventh current petition is PE719, on the review of local government finance. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to establish, under proposals to review local government finance, an independent expert body whose specific remit would be to consider the fairness of the current council tax and water charging systems and the administration and viability of other more equitable revenue-raising measures.
At our meeting on 31 March 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Finance and Public Services and to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The Minister for Finance and Public Services announced details of a review in a statement to the Parliament on 16 June. He said:
"The review will be independent of the Executive. It will be free to consider the proposals that are put to it by the various parties that are represented in the Parliament and by other interested groups."—[Official Report, 16 June 2004; c 9085.]
The Minister for Environment and Rural Development has stated:
"On 3 February I announced the Executive's intention to consult widely on the views of customers on the principles for setting charges for different groups of customers."
Given that the Minister for Finance and Public Services made an announcement last week in Parliament, it might be an idea to send the petitioners a copy of that announcement, and to pass on to the minister a copy of the petition to ensure that information and views are shared by the petitioners and ministers. The invitation to the public to participate in and be consulted on the issue is also appropriate to the petitioners. That might be helpful.
Perhaps we should also send a copy to the review group. That would be a belt-and-braces approach on the basis that the review group will take evidence and might want to contact the petitioners directly.
As far as I am aware, the membership of the review group has not been announced. One of the things that the petitioners were concerned about was that groups such as theirs should be adequately represented. I agreed with the suggestions in so far as they will highlight the issues, but I stress that the petitioners want membership of the review group to include representatives of the elderly, pensioners and the low paid.
It would be worth our while to point out to the Executive that that specific request was made and to ask it to take it into consideration.
Members indicated agreement.
Local Autism Treatments (PE729)
Our final petition is PE729, on funding a conference on autism. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to fund a two-day conference on autism treatment so that parents, professionals and medical doctors can receive information and practical advice on screening and testing of autistic children and adults, which would lead to individually tailored treatment protocols, such as are emergent in the USA.
At our meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to establish whether the petitioner had made a direct approach to the Scottish Executive about funding for such a conference on autism treatments. However, the petitioner says that
"It is now … our intention to work towards funding a conference … via private initiatives",
so the committee might want to agree to take no further action on the petition. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 11:52.