Official Report 402KB pdf
We move on to current petitions. Two petitioners are in the public gallery, so does the committee agree that we should deal with items 4 and 9 first, because petitioners are present who would like to hear what is going on in relation to those petitions?
Food Premises (Licensing) (PE446)
PE446 is from Julia Clarke, on behalf of the Consumers Association. The petition calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to protect the health and safety of all consumers by extending to all food premises the food licensing that applies to butchers' shops.
I suggest that we refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee. I was alarmed when I saw how many cases there were. I liked the example that was given by Mr Blake, who is a former environmental health officer. A lot of what he said chimed with me and he suggests a reasonable way forward. The Food Standards Agency Scotland is not saying that it will not support that way forward; rather, it is saying that it is only one of the possible ways forward. It would be quite reasonable to press the Health and Community Care Committee to take on board the petition.
Does anyone have a different view?
I compliment Julia Clarke and the Consumers Association for the vast amount of work that they have put into the petition over a long time.
Should we send the petition straight to the Health and Community Care Committee without asking the Consumers Association for its views on the Food Standards Agency Scotland reply?
We could wait.
Shall we pass the Food Standards Agency's reply to the Consumers Association and ask for a response? That would put us in a better position to decide what to do with the petition. Is that agreed?
Educational Provision<br />(Children with Special Needs) (PE516)
PE516 is from Ms Sara Craig and is about educational provision for deaf children. The petition asks the Parliament to examine and identify the optimum methods of management and delivery of educational provision to deaf children and other children who have special needs. It asks the Executive and Parliament to direct local authorities to consult openly and publicly parents and children requiring special needs on the level and quality of peripatetic support that can be delivered in schools. Finally, it also asks the Executive and the Parliament to ensure that there is no diminution in the level of provision to any such children in any local authority area.
Those are acceptable recommendations.
I think that the Executive has a responsibility to ensure that there are adequate networks, particularly for children who are profoundly deaf or blind. I recognise that there is always a tendency for the Parliament to drag away powers from local authorities and take over responsibilities. It concerns me that, to some degree, my feelings about the issue go against everything that I have said in the past about taking such action. At the end of the day, local democracy is such that parents can take their revenge on the councillors who make decisions with which they do not agree. Other than that, it seems that there is not a lot that the Public Petitions Committee or the Executive can do about the situation. It comes down to local democracy.
Does the petitioner have a comment to make?
Before making a final decision, we can ask the petitioners for comments. We cannot ask them at this meeting because to do so is not allowed under standing orders. We can ask them to comment particularly on the response from Renfrewshire Council, which was so full that it is difficult to go against it.
That is a good idea because the petitioners will have more knowledge of the accuracy of the council's comments.
Is it agreed that we pass the Executive's responses and Renfrewshire Council's responses to the petitioners and ask for their comments before deciding what to do with the petition?
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
I am advised that another petitioner is present for PE504. The petition is from Mr and Mrs James Watson on the subject of convicted murderers profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.
We could write and ask for clarification on how prisoners are able to have criminal memoirs published. We could decide what else to do after we have received the Executive's response.
One would assume that prisoners can do that when they are freed on licence but not when they are still in prison. One would imagine that that is the answer.
Will Rhoda Grant say that again? I think that she was saying what I, too, was thinking.
One would assume that the convicted people are writing their memoirs when they have been freed on licence, rather than when they are in prison. That gets over their problem of not being able to have their memoirs published when they are in prison. When they are freed and licensed, they can make their memoirs ready for publication.
I was wanting to pick up on that point—I am sure that what Rhoda Grant says is absolutely right. Perhaps the Executive could do something in that regard. The Executive says that it must be careful with respect to the ECHR. With life sentence prisoners, I would have thought that release on licence or parole could have a condition built into it that would bar prisoners from making such use of their experiences.
We can ask the Executive to clarify the issue and to establish whether what Rhoda Grant has said is the case and, if it is, why a condition cannot be attached to a release on licence that would prevent the prisoner from selling their accounts. I think that we should challenge the Executive's suggestion that we await the outcome of the Home Office report. That report should have been published a long time ago and has obviously been botched to a degree. I do not see any reason why the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive cannot take an initiative in relation to Scotland.
I agree.
Could we not opt for the second suggestion in the paper, which is that we refer the matter to one of the justice committees?
Shall we wait until we have had a response first?
I think that we should write to the Executive first. Depending on the response, we could then refer the matter to one of the justice committees to consider. We will state that it is the committee's view that the Executive should be taking the matter forward, rather than waiting for the Home Office report to be published. We would like to know why the Executive takes the position that it does. Is that okay?
Commissioner for Bullying (PE412)
PE412 proposes to establish a commissioner for bullying in Scotland. We initially agreed to write to the Executive and to the anti-bullying network, asking for their responses. Having considered their responses, we took the view that the Executive had misunderstood the main purpose of the petition and had not addressed the issue of adults being bullied by youngsters in the community.
I have a personal interest in the matter, because the petitioners have approached me. They are constituents of Irene Oldfather and they certainly have a problem. One of the difficulties that they have come across is that videoing children's behaviour is discouraged, even if the children are misbehaving. I understand the arguments to do with paedophiles, but the only way in which people can prove to the police what is happening is by demonstrating it. They never get the chance to do so. They can report what is happening, but they can give no real evidence. The people have been told not to video what is happening. The problems that people can face when they are being bullied by children are significant.
My one concern is the advice from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration that the bullying of adults by children is not a formal ground for a referral to the children's panel. Because such behaviour goes on, I wonder whether we should seek clarification on that point. If people in communities are being terrified by young people, a system that exists to deal with young people should be able to deal with that offence. I do not see why it is not a statutory ground for a referral.
Could we ask for clarification on videoing?
From the Executive?
Yes.
So you are suggesting that, rather than just leaving the matter, we should write to the Executive to ask why video evidence of such bullying is inadmissible.
Such evidence is actively discouraged because it involves the filming of children.
All right, we can ask why videoing is actively discouraged and why such behaviour is not a statutory ground for a referral.
The letter from the Scottish Executive talks about cases where an offence has not been committed but where behaviour is unacceptable and anti-social. In such cases, the young people can be dealt with on different grounds. The letter talks about young people falling into bad associations or moral danger, or being beyond parental control. It seems that there are ways of dealing with such issues, but not everyone may be making use of them. There may be different practices in different parts of Scotland.
When things are left in an uncertain state, there is bound to be inconsistency. Either this kind of behaviour should be a ground for a referral to a children's panel or it should not. The Executive should take a view. If that view is that it should not be a ground for a referral, the Executive should say why.
I do not dispute that.
I am astonished by what I have heard. People may ask, "What is an adult?" We could be talking about a 16-year-old being bullied by a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old. This is a serious problem. If we were talking about adults bullying adults, that would come under breach of the peace, at least.
No, that was not the case.
I do not think that we can refer to such details.
I did not know that videoing was discouraged by the police if people see children doing anything bad. In the case that Phil Gallie is referring to, they were not doing anything that bad.
I want to clarify this. I mentioned that the case was in Irene Oldfather's constituency, but I did not refer to Irene Oldfather herself—that is a totally different case.
She and her kids were innocent—
That was a totally different situation. I am talking about two old ladies who have been absolutely terrified. I want that to be clear on the record.
I am sorry for my mistake. I apologise, Phil.
What shall we do with the petition? Shall we write back to the Executive on those two grounds to ask for further clarification?
I think that the petitioners' proposal for an anti-bullying commissioner is very good and fresh. Perhaps it could be extended to include workplace bullying, which is an enormously serious problem throughout the country. Although there is a workplace bullying network, there is nothing official as yet. Many people want a children's commissioner, but the whole subject of bullying should be taken separately.
Are members agreed that we take the suggested action?
Telecommunications Developments (Planning) (PE425)
PE425, from Anne-Marie Glashan, is on the siting of mobile phone masts. We considered responses from the Scottish Executive and the Transport and the Environment Committee. Given the Transport and the Environment Committee's response, we agreed to seek further comments from the Executive on the three major issues that were raised. We have now received the Scottish Executive's response to those questions and it is suggested that we write to the Transport and the Environment Committee asking whether it is content with the Executive's response and whether it wishes to have the petition referred back to it for further formal consideration.
I concur with that suggestion. However, I should tell members and the Transport and the Environment Committee that I met representatives of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. We discussed the Scottish Executive's point that it always intended that local authorities in Scotland should formulate development plans in their area and that those plans should be rolled out with developers. I am concerned by the fact that that does not seem to be happening across Scotland.
When we refer the Scottish Executive's response to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we will draw its attention to your comments. Are members agreed?
Gaelic Language (PE437)
PE437, from Mr John M Macleod, concerns the creation of a Gaelic language act. Do members formally agree to link the petition with PE521, on which we heard evidence this morning, and to take both forward on that basis?
Wind Farms (North Argyll) (PE493)
The next petition is PE493 from Ms Marilyn Henderson on behalf of Avich and Kilchrenan community council, which calls for an end to the installation of wind farms in north Argyll. We agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, VisitScotland and Argyll and Bute Council on the issues raised in the petition. We have received responses from all those organisations and we have also received comments from Scottish Power and from Mr Adrian Shaw, who is a resident of Dalavich in north Argyll. All the responses are set out in the papers.
I suggest that we await the outcome of the VisitScotland research. I am concerned about the situation, especially since reading the letters from Adrian Shaw and Avich and Kilchrenan community council. Although it seems that the Avich and Kilchrenan community council responded to the structure plan consultation, it did not receive a response other than an acknowledgement that its comments had been noted.
Do we know when the research is to be published? The question of time scales arises.
I suspect that VisitScotland can take its time.
No, the paper states that the research is to be completed by mid-September.
In that case, that is fine.
I suggest that we defer our consideration of PE493 until the VisitScotland research is published. Is that acceptable?
Fife NHS Board (Right for Fife Business Plan) (PE498 and PE499)
PE498 was lodged by Ms Letitia Murphy and deals with Fife NHS Board's plans to centralise services, with health board membership and with fire safety issues in hospitals. Although we did not formally refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, that committee held an evidence session with the petitioners, Fife NHS Board and the Minister for Health and Community Care. That evidence session covered the first part of petition PE498 and possibly the second part that deals with unelected health boards, but did not cover the issue of fire safety. The Health and Community Care Committee is to return to the subject of the petition in the near future. The recommended action therefore is that we refer petition PE498 to that committee and ask it to take account of the petition in its consideration of the issue. We should draw its attention to the issue of fire safety, as that has not formed part of its consideration to date.
I agree with the recommended course of action. I attended the Health and Community Care evidence-taking session last Wednesday. A full and frank debate was held on the issue and I was grateful to have been allowed to attend. However, I am concerned about the issue of fire safety. I have a copy of a Scottish Office press release from 2 December 1997. It said:
That is obviously important. We will now refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, which is already dealing with it anyway. We will draw your comments to the attention of that committee and ask it to address them. The petition is in three parts. The fire safety issue is added on at the end, after the concerns about the move to a single site in Fife and unelected boards.
I go along with everything that Helen Eadie said. She has explained the situation brilliantly. The NHS property and environment forum's response sends shivers up my spine. Its view is based on the low number of fire incidents. What is it doing? Does it want to see a few more fires before it can establish a view? It says that the statistics show that compliance is "reasonably high". What does "reasonably high" mean? We could also say that non-compliance is reasonably okay. The forum has sent a chilling response.
It is unfortunate that fire safety is linked to the other issues in the petition, as it probably deserves a petition in its own right. Such a petition could have been dealt with separately, but because it is one of three parts of the same petition, we have to deal with them together.
Is it reasonable to ask for a view from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services in Scotland before we send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee? I would like to be informed on the inspectorate's perspective on the fire safety aspect of the petition.
The only problem is that if we ask for more information at this stage, we cannot refer the petition on to the Health and Community Care Committee. We could ask that committee to consult the inspectorate.
It would be best to get the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee. If it has already started to inquire, it should have the information.
As well as drawing the Health and Community Care Committee's attention to what we have said this morning, we will draw its attention to the suggestion that it consult the inspectorate to check the advice from the NHS property and environment forum.
Will the Health and Community Care Committee also check out the report "Tolerable Fire Risk Criteria for Hospitals" from Lund University in Sweden and the Home Office and DTLR report "Research and case studies on fires in high occupancy buildings"? I presume that "high occupancy buildings" does not mean only flats. Any reasonable interpretation of that phrase must include buildings such as hospitals.
If you give details of those reports to the clerks, they will pass on that information.
Particular types of hospitals may be at particular risk—for instance, mental health hospitals. The risk is not only in the height of the building. Some hospitals are on the flat. There is a considerable risk—this is a quite horrid tragedy waiting to happen.
Do members agree to pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, along with our comments and our suggestions for further inquiries?
Digital Hearing Aids (PE502)
PE502 is from Ms Fiona Stewart on behalf of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and calls on the Executive to show a firm commitment to the provision of digital hearing aids and the modernisation of audiology services in Scotland. We sought the views of the Executive, which has responded in the terms indicated in members' papers. The Executive acknowledges that the approach that it is taking in Scotland is different from that taken in England and Wales. It is clear that the Executive is against the ring fencing of funding, which is a feature of the approach taken in England and Wales. The Executive also indicates that it is awaiting the recommendations of the review group on audiology services, which, although delayed due to the amount of work involved, will be reporting this autumn.
We should pass the petition on.
I am particularly concerned that the Executive seems to be saying, "This is a matter for local health boards—it has nothing to do with us. We are not going to ring fence the money." In England and Wales, the Government has taken the opposite view by saying, "This is a matter for us", ring fencing the money and instructing the establishment of a national service.
It should be national policy.
We will pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee and let that committee get on with it.
Scottish Judiciary (Public Register of Interests) (PE519)
The final current petition is from Mr Duncan Shields on behalf of Fathers Fighting Injustice. Mr Shields calls for consideration to be given to the creation of a register of interests for the Scottish judiciary. We sought the comments of the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate. The Minister for Justice wrote back to say that this is a matter of policy for him rather than for the Lord Advocate, who will therefore not respond to the committee's letter.
Previous
New Petitions