Public Petitions Committee, 24 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Official Report 261KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We have a large number of responses to current petitions. The first is the response to petition PE208 from Douglas Hardie, which called on the Parliament to review the proposed parking charges in Melrose. Members will recall that we asked for the views of Scottish Borders Council and passed a copy of the petition to Euan Robson, the MSP for that area. In the period since we dealt with the petition, Scottish Borders Council has contacted us with the results of a trial parking scheme that it conducted in Melrose, which appears to have been extremely successful in freeing space for parking for visitors to Melrose Abbey and has been instrumental in checking the rate of reduction of visitors to the abbey. The council's recommendations conclude that the pay-and-display scheme will be operated again next year between April and October. In addition, it appears that similar charges will be introduced in another six towns in the Borders in early 2002.

The council also had discussions with the objectors and consultees prior to introducing the trial parking scheme. As this is a matter for the Scottish Borders Council, it is suggested that we do not become involved. However, it appears that the scheme has been successful in preventing the decline in the number of tourists who visit Melrose Abbey and, consequently, local businesses. It is therefore suggested that the committee agree to copy the response to Euan Robson—because we contacted him initially—and to the petitioners, and to take no further action.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE243, from Jim Gibson, on the water price increases in the North of Scotland Water Authority area, called on the Parliament to remedy the increases by ensuring that there is effective democratic scrutiny of the public service. In September, we passed a copy of the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking for a response to the issues in the petition and to the response that was received from NOSWA. The Executive has replied in full, giving the reasons for the increase in water charges and details of the public consultation on its proposals for assisting two groups of low-income households in particular: those living in the NOSWA area and those living in areas that include higher-band properties. The outcome of the consultation is set out in the paper that is before us. We have also received details of the process for setting water charges and the Scottish Executive's proposals to move to a single water authority, which were announced recently.

With that, there are tables that contain details of the public meetings—and proposed meetings—of the consultative committee, at which members of the public get the opportunity to discuss issues with the water commissioner. The clerks have a copy of the guidance from the Scottish Executive, which details the functions of the commissioner and which is available to members of the committee. The Transport and the Environment Committee is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into the structure, investment and charges of the water industry, and the role of the water commissioner.

The action taken by the Executive to assist those on low incomes—including those in the NOSWA area—as well as the inquiry into all aspects of the water industry that is being carried out by the Transport and the Environment Committee, suggests that we should agree to pass a copy of the petition and response to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information only, in the context of its inquiry, and that we should agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioners and take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE248, from Robert Durward, concerns passing places. We have dealt with the petition at several meetings in the past, most recently on 27 February when, members may remember, we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, urging it to recommend to the police that they use their powers in relation to the issue.

The Executive's response makes it clear that police forces throughout Scotland strive to deliver the highest possible standards of policing and that they are never complacent about the importance of enforcing road traffic laws, traffic management and road safety laws. However, chief constables are responsible for police operations in their areas and neither the Scottish ministers nor the Scottish Executive have any authority to intervene. Although the police are heavily involved in the prevention and detection of crime, the Executive points out that that does not mean that they do not prosecute drivers who hold up traffic or who otherwise contravene road traffic legislation. That said, the Executive does not feel justified in asking the police to devote their time to enforcing that particular aspect of the law. It is suggested that the committee agree simply to note the latest Executive response and to pass a copy of the letter to the petitioners for information. The committee has already agreed to take no further action on the petition. Are members agreed?

I suggest that we write to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland with all the information that is contained in the petitions, to ensure that ACPOS is made more aware of the fact that the problem exists. I am not particularly happy with our decision to do nothing about the petition; the problem is still very real and the Executive's response says essentially that it is not prepared to do anything about it.

We will send to ACPOS copies of all the correspondence that the petition has generated.

It might be interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been in the Scottish Courts over such offences. Without wishing to prejudge the matter, I suspect that the total is very small.

Individual members should lodge parliamentary questions on such an issue. As the committee is pursuing this petition, we should by all means pass the correspondence to ACPOS to inform it of the strength of feeling on the issue. However, we should really take no further action, because otherwise the petition could go on forever. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE259, from Mrs Kirsty Dickson, on the subject of telecommunications masts. She asked the Parliament to take immediate action to stop the erection of telecommunications masts of 15m and under in residential and environmentally sensitive areas. We agreed to pass the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment for comments, particularly in relation to the time scale for the introduction of the changes to current planning arrangements for telecommunications developments.

The Executive's response indicates that it has conducted a consultation on introducing new planning controls for telecommunications masts. The results of the consultation are now being analysed and it is hoped that the new controls will be introduced by the middle of the year. The Executive specifically rejects the idea of a moratorium, which is what the petition calls for, but points out that neither the Transport and the Environment Committee nor the independent expert group on mobile phones has, in any case, called for such a moratorium. The current proposal is that all ground-based masts—including those of less than 15m in height, which at the moment enjoy permitted development rights—will be subject to full planning control. That will allow the planning authorities to have a greater say and the public to make representations if they are concerned about the siting and design of such masts. The Executive points out that any new planning regime would not preclude the erection of masts in residential areas, because that would result in large areas being without network coverage and it would make things difficult for e-commerce in Scotland.

The suggested action is that, as the Executive has no intention of introducing a moratorium, the committee should agree to pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners and take no further action.

It is important for Mrs Dickson to know that her views are strongly supported within the Parliament. Motions and parliamentary questions about the issue have been lodged and there have been numerous private appeals and representations from the Transport and the Environment Committee to the ministers. Although I am not contradicting the suggested action—it is unlikely that the policy will be changed—I want to put on record that Mrs Dickson certainly has the support of many MSPs, including me, on this crucial issue. If I remember rightly, the Transport and the Environment Committee's report on telecommunications developments qualified its comments on the subject of multiple users of masts in residential areas, and the committee felt strongly that masts should not be placed near hospitals and schools; they were clearly no-go areas. I recall that the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee took a strong view on the matter, and it is important for Mrs Dickson and everybody else in Scotland to be aware of the strength of feeling among MSPs on the issue.

I guess that Helen Eadie's comments describe the committee's unanimous view.

There are several aspects of the matter that I do not like at all. The Executive has dismissed the idea of a moratorium, but it has taken seven months to tell us that. The petition was first passed to the minister at the meeting of 26 September 2000. In the seven months during which you have been waiting for a reply, convener, umpteen more mobile masts have been erected in Scotland. They are popping up on pavements everywhere and are being erected very close to schools—I am called out regularly by people who object to the things appearing literally at the end of their garden wall without any notification whatever. Under such circumstances, the lateness of the response is quite shocking, and some reprimand should be sent to the Executive. It does not have a real excuse for refusing a moratorium, which seems to be a perfectly sensible idea before new planning legislation is introduced.

I also think that the Executive's response should not have talked about

"the absence of any evidence of a causal link between mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects"

blah blah blah. That is merely repetition of a bland piece of absolutely unproven evidence. Fifty years ago, doctors would sit smoking in their surgeries and tell people that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Such a statement about mobile phones should not be repeated by Government at the moment. People have serious concerns—if the matter raises no concerns about health, why does the Executive object to the erection of masts near schools or hospitals? As we have a very serious situation on our hands, we should be quite stern with the Executive on the matter.

The Executive has not attempted to exercise—in the short term, at least—the precautionary principle. The Stewart inquiry reported in May last year, and it is taking the Executive too long to issue proposals. I agree entirely with Dorothy-Grace Elder in that respect. The Executive must hurry up because there are real issues at stake and many concerned people out there, including people in my constituency.

When will the planning legislation that controls the installation of the masts become effective?

The new controls will be introduced in the middle of the year. There is no harm in indicating that members of this committee, the Transport and the Environment Committee and others from across the Parliament strongly support the petitioners. However, as the proposals will be debated by the Parliament, the petitioners are getting what they want.

The Executive has apologised for its failure to reply in anything like good time, despite the fact that we have written to it twice, and it has accepted that that was a failing on its part. I hear what members are saying. The committee may take the view that it is disappointed that it has taken the Executive so long to reply. In the meantime, masts that are potentially damaging to local environments may have been erected. The committee may take the view that a moratorium should be considered by the Executive.

One has to consider house builders. I am currently dealing with a case in Glasgow Baillieston that involves a nice little estate being built by Barratt Homes. A workman looked over the wall and suddenly discovered a mast right up against the garden wall. That wee estate is worth millions of pounds and has been built in the right place. There were no objections. People are now asking whether they want to buy houses on the estate because of the mast problem. The house developer is as against masts as are the potential house occupiers. Masts are sprouting up like something out of those old black-and-white 1950s science fiction movies on television.

It has been pointed out that part of the reason for the delay in replying was that a consultation exercise was being conducted. That is important and takes time.

It will be almost a year before—

The Executive will delay for ever.

You would complain if there was no consultation. The Executive has made a fair point. It had to take time to consult.

The Executive could have written to the committee to tell us that a consultation process was taking place.

It should have done.

It is unforgivable that the Executive did not do so. The critical point is that the public are asking simply for an absolute assurance that there will be no masts on hospital or school sites or concentrations of masts in residential areas.

I use a mobile phone. I love new technology and will continue to use a mobile phone. I am taking an educated risk, but I use my phone minimally. I support new technology—I want that to be in the Official Report—but I want to be assured that masts will not be put in the areas that I mentioned. I am sure that the public petitioners throughout Scotland want that too. We have to be sensible about where and when masts are located.

You and other people admit that there could be a risk. That is why you do not want masts on schools and hospitals. If we crack down heavily on the companies concerned, they may think up newer technology that might not need masts at all.

I have never been in any doubt that there is a safety issue. The International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines are European guidelines. The fundamental point that was made by the Stewart committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee was that the level of permissible emissions in this country is five times higher than the ICNIRP guidelines suggest they should be. The guidelines should be tightened up for that reason; the public should not be exposed. The risk is like that from a packet of cigarettes—it is taken at your peril.

It is significant that, at least since Christmas, the National Radiological Protection Board has changed its position on the dangers of electromagnetic radiation from pylons. Sir Richard Doll has changed his position from this time last year. The risks are real.

There are real risks. I am not trying to underplay those in any way. Big issues are at stake. There is a business perspective. As the Executive letter points out, if Scotland is to become the best place in the world in which to conduct e-commerce, there will need to be comprehensive coverage for the networks. That will mean the erection of masts. There is a business interest in getting masts up, which the Executive supports. That support is not shared by the Transport and the Environment Committee, whose report was far more critical of the process.

Parliament will address the issue in the middle of the year. Other than sending the response to the petitioner and telling her that she has the committee's support—and that of a wider group in Parliament—for many of her concerns, and that the matter will be addressed by the Parliament in the near future, does the committee feel that we should go back to the Executive about its response?

Absolutely. In a sense, the Executive is saying that there cannot be omelettes without breaking eggs. Let us break them carefully and gently and exercise the precautionary principle. That is not being done at the moment.

What do members suggest in response to the Executive?

First, the Executive should get a move on, suggest proposals and get the matter discussed in Parliament. Secondly, those proposals should take account of the precautionary principle.

Should there be early legislation?

There is urgency now; there has been a long delay.

The Executive should take account of the precautionary principle and the petitioner's views.

Others may have things to add.

Can we include a criticism about the length of time that it has taken to reply on the rapidity of the growth of mobile phone masts?

We could certainly say that although we understand that a consultation period had to be allowed for, the committee was not kept informed of the Executive's actions and, in the meantime, many masts have been erected that cause the committee concern.

We should underline that we accept, as does the whole of Scotland, that we want to have the business and to roll out the new technology—there is no doubt about that—but that we want also to underline the precautionary principle. There should be no masts on hospitals or schools or in areas of multi-occupancy accommodation or of high population density. The equipment of multiple communications users should be put on one mast.

I am trying to think of a form of words for our response to the Executive. It has said that it does not want a moratorium, but I am thinking of steps that could be taken in the interim. Even if the Executive urged mobile phone companies to consult councils about where masts are sited, people would have a degree of comfort. There may not be a legal control, but there should be some sort of control, so that people are consulted and do not feel that they could wake up one morning and find a mast in their garden.

I think that Steve Farrell got all that—I hope he did, because I am not sure that I did. With all those qualifications, we agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and to write to the Executive in the terms that we have agreed.

Could you add a request that the Executive try to discover from the mobile phone operators whether there are forthcoming advances in technology that will not use masts? I feel that the mast system is a cheaper alternative—the Exchequer is making billions out of this—and that the companies could do better.

It is open to individual members to lodge a question to that effect. The committee would be getting away from the substance of the petition if it did so.

Is what I outlined agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE325 is from Catriona Windle, on behalf of the Stafford Centre for mental health, and calls on the Parliament to investigate how funding to the centre can be increased to allow the re-establishment and expansion of services providing essential support for those most at risk of suicide and self-harm.

We passed the petition to the Executive for its comments on whether the Scottish health plan had any funding implications for such centres. We have now received a reply that states that extra money has been made available for projects that are directly linked to the framework for mental health agenda for improved care and access to care. The Executive is developing a national framework to address the high suicide rates. Its general policy is to support national organisations that provide service and advice, but to leave the funding of locally based organisations to local agencies.

The case of the Stafford Centre is currently being reviewed by the City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian Health, which will contact the centre soon. The City of Edinburgh Council recently received a 5.5 per cent increase on its 2000-01 mental health specific grant, which it is currently deciding how to allocate after a compulsory consultation with key organisations.

Again, it is suggested that it is not for us to become involved in individual funding decisions for centres. The funding of the Stafford Centre is a matter for Lothian Health and the City of Edinburgh Council. In common with other local authorities, the council is considering how best to allocate its increased money. Therefore, it is suggested that the committee agree to pass a copy of the Scottish Executive's response to the petitioner, recommending that she pursue the matter with the health board and the council, and that we take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE326 is from Stella Anderson, on behalf of the Scottish Peoples Mission. Members will remember that the petition is about the return and restoration of the stone of Scone to the community of Scone. At our meeting in February, we considered a response from Perth and Kinross Council indicating that it supported the petition and would be prepared to have the stone relocated to Perth Museum and Art Gallery.

We passed a copy of the council's response, together with the petition, to the Scottish Executive, which has now replied. Its view is clear. A consultation exercise in 1996 showed that 42 per cent of respondents believed that the stone should be retained in Edinburgh. The majority of them supported its location in the crown room of the castle. No significant support was shown for the other options.

The Executive has set out the reasons why it thinks that the stone of Scone should remain in Edinburgh Castle, and claims that the crown room is appropriate for several reasons: the stone lies beside the honours of Scotland, thereby uniting the symbols of the Scottish monarchy; the crown room was built in 1617, specifically to house the nation's treasures; and the room has the appropriate ambience for the stone and is protected by modern security systems that are reinforced by the military presence at the castle.

Details of the cost of running Edinburgh Castle are included in the response. It is suggested that the relocation of the stone to Edinburgh Castle, following the consultation, has been successful and has attracted many visitors to the castle. A significant investment has been made in developing the exhibition and associated displays.

It is for the committee to decide whether it wants to take any further action on the petition, taking into account the success of the stone's relocation and the amount of investment that has been put into developing the honours of Scotland exhibition.

In 1996, I supported Scone or Perth as the location for the stone, when the most significant reason that was given for its not going there was the security arrangements. I support those locations even more now. We could make a substantial gesture to the rural communities that are suffering from the present tourism crisis by removing the stone from Edinburgh.

The evidence may show how much Edinburgh is making out of the stone; however, the castle is loaded with tonnes of goodies. The stone has been located at the castle for five or six years. Is not it time to make a gesture to Perthshire, by returning the stone to its home? That would give the area a great boost—especially this summer, when we need good publicity.

Are you in favour of relocating the Elgin marbles as well?

To Greece? Yes.

The Executive's view has been held by successive Administrations since 1996, and there is backing for it. However, although 42 per cent sounds considerable, only 46 people may have said that they wanted the stone to be housed in Edinburgh Castle. On the other hand, only the petitioners have suggested that it should go to Scone. People in other parts of Scotland might argue that it should go elsewhere.

We took a significant step in bringing the stone back to Scotland. It is well housed and is being looked after, and it is a prime attraction. I would not support any plans to remove it from its present location.

I support that view.

I, too, believe that we should leave it where it is.

Why?

Why not?

The castle has got everything. There is a lovely museum in Perth—and I am not friendly with Perth and Kinross Council, so members need not worry about favouritism.

It is a Labour/Tory coalition, is it not?

Yes. History has moved on. In the light of the foot-and-mouth crisis and tourism problems, it would be a lovely gesture to take the stone to Perth. I do not think that Edinburgh Castle needs the stone on top of everything else it has got.

A clear majority of members do not feel that there is support for moving the stone.

Does anybody back me? Och, it does not matter. I am always in the minority. In another 50 years, I will be proved right—when they bury me under the stone.

It is open to you, as an individual member, to suggest moving the stone. It is reasonable to say that, in the light of the problems that the tourism industry in Scotland faces this summer, that would be a good gesture for the Executive to consider. Although the majority of committee members do not support the proposal, you can still make it.

Personally and directly to the Executive?

Yes. Given the problems that the tourism industry is facing, that option could be considered.

Maybe the stone should be housed in each place in rotation.

No, it is too fragile.

That would cost too much.

Ian Hamilton is still in Edinburgh, so the stone might be safer in Perth.

It might go missing from Edinburgh. If it goes missing, you will be a prime suspect.

You can have one half and I will have the other.

Is it agreed to take no further action and to pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE328 is from Mr Mohammed Younus Shaikh and concerns the review of water and sewerage charges. It is similar to the petition that we received from Jim Gibson.

We agreed to pass the petition to the Executive and we have got much the same response as we got to Jim Gibson's petition. The petitioner was asking for income support to be used as one of the criteria for assistance, but the Executive has chosen a different set of arrangements to try to help those on low incomes to pay water and sewerage charges. It is suggested that the committee agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and take no further action, given that new proposals have been made and a relevant bill will come before the Parliament anyway. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE329, from William Christie, calls on the Parliament to amend the relevant legislation to make the licensing board procedures fairer and more equitable. The Executive has responded by saying that it has recently announced a review of the current licensing law—the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976—by an independent committee. The Executive response outlines the remit of that committee and indicates that the petitioner will have an opportunity to put forward his views as part of the consultation process. The chair and membership of the committee will be announced in the near future. A copy of the petition has been placed in the Executive's review file.

It is suggested that the committee agree to pass the response to the petitioner, inform him that he will be able to participate directly in the process of reviewing the licensing legislation and that the Executive has been made aware of the points raised in his petition and that we take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE335, from Lou Howson on behalf of the Confederation of Scotland's Elderly, called on the Parliament to implement in full the recommendations contained in the report by the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly and not to commission a further review of the recommendations.

The Executive's response outlines the investment that it will be making in the next three years in improving care services for older people. In January, the minister announced the establishment of a care development group that will be chaired by the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care and will report to the minister by August this year with proposals for the implementation of free personal care for older people. The response outlines what the Executive hopes will arise from those proposals.

The Executive made clear in a statement to Parliament in October that it did not intend to implement the Sutherland report recommendations in full but subsequently announced the establishment of the care development group to introduce proposals for the implementation of free personal care for older people. It is suggested that we pass the response to the petitioner and take no further action.

Could I seek clarification of the Executive's position? Does it intend not to implement the Sutherland report but to establish full personal care for older people? That seems to be a contradictory position.

I do not speak for the Executive, as you know, but I understand that the care development group will produce proposals for free personal care for the elderly and that Parliament will vote on those proposals. That is not to say that the Executive will necessarily support the findings of the care development group, but if the Parliament supports the proposals, they will be adopted.

So, while you are not speaking for the Executive, you are no wiser than me.

The Executive has made contradictory statements. Initially, it said that it would not implement free personal care for the elderly but it then said that it would set up a group to produce proposals for free personal care for the elderly. Until that group delivers those proposals, nobody knows what will happen. I doubt if the committee knows what its proposals will be as it is still taking evidence.

It would reassure Scotland's elderly people if they knew what the Executive was trying to achieve, at least in principle.

The final part of the response, which assures us that the Executive will bring forward proposals for the implementation of free personal care for the elderly, is relevant. Those proposals will be produced in August.

I am clear about that as well. That was undoubtedly the outcome of the statements that were made previously. Until we have the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care's report, we will not know the final outcome.

Until that time, nobody knows for definite what will happen.

Do we agree to follow the recommended action?

Members indicated agreement.

PE340, from George Scott on behalf of the Lochgoilhead Chalet Owners Association, calls for legislation to protect people who own property on rented land. The petitioner wanted similar protection to be offered to chalet owners as is likely to be offered to the Carbeth hutters as a result of a petition that they sent to the Public Petitions Committee. The chalet owners own property on land that is leased from a land owner.

The petitioner also wanted a moratorium until the legislation was introduced. The Executive is suggesting a moratorium, because it is not going to take emergency action. The Executive points out that it is currently analysing the responses to the consultation exercise that was carried out. If ministers decide to progress with legislation, they will be able to decide which classes of property will be affected.

There are problems for the Executive. Its response points out

"that there is a clear … distinction between leases and ownership under Scots property law"

and that while it is possible to provide for compensation at the end of a lease should a site owner wish not to renegotiate the lease, the inclusion of such a clause is the subject of negotiation when signing a new lease.

"It is important that prospective purchasers of such leases are aware of their limitations, and seek their own legal advice before agreeing to a lease if they are in any doubt as to the extent of their rights or liabilities … Leases of second and holiday homes are subject to much less statutory protection … the reasoning being that such leases are for investment or leisure purposes … the commercial freedom of contract regime regulates such agreements. This assumes that each party will be independently advised and in a fair bargaining position."

The Executive response concludes:

"To give a tenant guaranteed continuing possession of land without a written agreement to that effect would change the nature of a lease and make it almost identical to ownership. The distinction between ownership and the right to possess property for a given period of time by way of a lease is both a well-established and necessary part of property law … The Executive understands that the chalets are held on twenty-five year leases. It appears that in some cases, where the twenty-five year period has been completed, the landlord has renewed the lease for five years."

Under suggested action, it states that the Executive has no plans to take emergency action to protect hutters or chalet owners while the responses to the consultation are being analysed, or before any legislation is introduced. While that will be a disappointment to the petitioners, a process is under way that ultimately will result in the introduction of legislation that should offer greater protection to hutters and possibly chalet owners. It is therefore suggested that we pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and take no further action.

I seek clarification. Do we know the direction in which the legislation is going? Would it be more appropriate to say that the proposed legislation may offer greater protection? The fact is that the concept of a tenant in Scots law is well established and perfectly clear. In a sense, there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. People who lease properties should do so with their eyes open, because the process is well documented.

I am advised that the Executive has not fully analysed the results of the consultation process or how to define which properties will be protected under any new legislation, so it is not known whether chalet owners will have similar protection to that which may be offered to hutters. We will not know until the responses to the consultation have been analysed and proposals for a change in the law are published.

I wonder whether the phrase "should offer greater protection" is an indication of the Executive's thinking, or whether the phrase should be "may offer greater protection." Are we being told that the forthcoming legislation will offer greater protection?

I think that the Executive is hedging its bets until it introduces legislation. It is not making a commitment one way or the other.

I do not like the word "possibly" in the phrase "greater protection to hutters and possibly chalet owners." I know that the Executive must do a thorough job in investigating the legislation and determining what could be done, but there is no promise that chalet owners are being considered.

They are being considered. The Executive response states:

"As regards specific provisions for chalet owners, the consultation paper acknowledged that one definition could include ‘chalets' used as holiday homes which have been purchased by the occupier (frequently from the site owner) although the site itself is only leased for a specific period … The Executive is currently analysing the consultation responses and once this is complete, Ministers will be able to decide whether to proceed with legislation and, if they choose to proceed, any definition of the class of properties which might be affected."

If the Executive decides to go ahead with legislation, it will have to decide whether to include chalets along with huts. The Executive has not come to a conclusion yet.

Could we state our opinion on that when we write to the Executive? This is a particularly difficult area, as you know. Without going into too many details, this caravan/chalet area is known as Campbell's kingdom.

Convener, would it not be more appropriate for us to respond as individual members? We are all given these consultation papers. If we want to express a view on them, it is down to us to write to the ministers concerned, expressing that view. For the committee to take a view like that, we would have to have a full hearing of all the evidence. I do not know the ramifications of going down one route or another; I would want to take an informed decision.

The third paragraph from the bottom on that page, which Steve Farrell referred to, is worthy of note. The Executive states:

"It is important that prospective purchasers of such leases are aware of their limitations, and seek their own legal advice before agreeing to a lease if they are in any doubt as to the extent of their rights or liabilities."

The onus is on the tenant to establish what they will receive in exchange for their rent, before signing up to a lease. That is well established under Scots law.

To be fair, if I remember rightly, the petition from the Carbeth hutters was referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. That committee held the hearings and did the work on the matter, and it was eventually debated in the Parliament. It would be difficult for this committee to take a view, because we have not got any evidence on this. I do not know the ins and outs of the situation. Given that there has been a consultation and the Executive will have to come to a decision on it one way or the other, that will be the appropriate parliamentary process by which the matter can be handled. The issues raised in the petition can be raised as part of that process.

Is it agreed to take the action that we suggested, which is to pass the response to the petitioners and take no further action? It is up to the Parliament now.

Members indicated agreement.

PE343, from Mrs Thea Rae, is on the review of contract law. Members will remember the petition from our meeting on 13 March. Mrs Rae called on the Parliament to review and amend the existing law pertaining to contracts between building companies and their clients.

At the meeting in March, we agreed to pass the petition to the Executive to respond to the issues raised in it. We also agreed to write to Fife Council to ask for a copy of its housebuyers charter and to pass that, and the petition, to the Law Society of Scotland for its comments on the advice given by solicitors to potential buyers of new homes.

We have three responses. We have the response from the Law Society of Scotland, which is in consultation with the Scottish House Builders Association, and which has indicated that it is willing to contact us in April, after it has had further discussions with building companies.

We also have a response from the Scottish Executive, which points out that the unfair contract terms fall within the area of consumer protection and are reserved to Westminster. It indicates the legislation that could be used to make a claim on unfair contracts and highlights the role of the director general of fair trading.

We have also established that Fife Council launched its "Essential Guide for Housebuyers" at the beginning of February and also its housebuyers charter, a copy of which has been attached to the papers. It has been sent out to national builders involved in complaints that have been received about developments in the council area. The council has had a response from only one of those builders. Although the company found it helpful, it could not adopt the conditions in the charter. The council's next step is to report on the initiative to COSLA, in the hope of getting more authorities on board and also to contribute to a campaign to get house builders to adopt the principles in the charter. It believes that this will be a long-drawn-out process.

It is suggested that we await the formal response from the Law Society of Scotland, copy both the responses to the petitioners in the meantime and agree to recommend to the petitioner that she may wish to contact her local authority trading standards department or the director general of fair trading about her case.

I agree. I have to declare an interest, because Mrs Thea Rae is one of my constituents. I know that there is a huge strength of feeling about this matter in Ayr. Residents are in the process of forming an action group, because the situation is such that, 18 months down the line, some of them are effectively homeless because they have sold existing homes as they expected to get into the new flats and are still unable to move in. It may be some time before they do.

The residents have been hugely disadvantaged. From my reading of the Executive response, although we can suggest that they apply to the director general of fair trading, through the trading standards people, the third paragraph of the Scottish Executive's letter to Steve Farrell would suggest that that may or may not work. It does not seem to be a hugely effective response. That highlights the need, if it is necessary for it to be highlighted, for new legislation to be created to stop this happening again.

I concur with the views that John Scott has just expressed. The law in this area needs to be looked at. The committee could write back to the minister to say that one way forward would be for the minister to name and shame companies, in the way that Helen Liddell did for the pensions scandal. I know that we do not have Westminster's parliamentary privilege—we were not able to mention the name of the company when we first dealt with the petition from John Scott's constituent—but where, as in this case, there is clear evidence of companies flouting every sort of rule and going against fair practice, there ought to be some procedure by which we could name and shame such companies.

I would certainly back proposals to change the law, because there are people in my constituency who, having bought a house that was shown in a brochure, found that the house that they moved into was entirely different from the house that they signed up to buy. There was then nothing that they could do. There are current court cases about that.

It has been pointed out to me that consumer protection remains with the UK Parliament. To change the law, action from Westminster would be required.

If Helen Eadie wanted to write as an individual member, she could do that. I see no reason why we cannot ask the Executive for its position on Fife Council's housebuyers charter. We could ask whether the Executive would lend its support in encouraging all local authorities to develop such charters. The Executive could even indicate which developers refused to sign up to such a charter. In that way, naming and shaming could come into play. However, a charter that offered protection to people would first of all need to be agreed across the local authorities. It could be very effective.

Will we pursue that through COSLA?

We could pursue it through the Executive in the first instance. We will ask if the Executive would be prepared to support such a concept. Fife Council is already pursuing the issue through COSLA.

We could also consider naming and shaming through Westminster vis-à-vis the Liddell instances. Also, although Helen Liddell is no longer in that role, a copy of the correspondence could go to her as Secretary of State for Scotland.

Yes, a copy will be sent to her for her information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final response that we have had so far is to petition PE350 from Mr Mike Sutherland, on fishing in the Moray firth.

We agreed to draw the attention of Scottish Natural Heritage to the petition. We also agreed to pass a copy of the most recent Scottish Executive response on petition PE246 to the petitioners and recommend that the petitioners approach the Scottish Executive and the local management group that was set up following the previous designation of a special area of conservation.

The response from SNH indicates that it will include petition PE350 in its consultation and discussion process. The letter also indicates that it has been trying to contact Mr Sutherland about his concerns. We have already agreed to take no further action, but the SNH response is for members' information only. A copy of the response will be passed to the petitioners.

Section M of the document that members have before them sets out the latest position on petitions PE145, PE265, PE295 and PE323. Members can raise any concerns that they have.