Current Petitions
Detoxification Clinics (Legislation) (PE585)
The first of our current petitions is PE585, which is on the siting of heroin and methadone detoxification clinics. The petition is by Alan Corbett, on behalf of the residents of Reddingmuirhead, Wallacestone and surrounding villages, and it calls for the Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent the location of a proposed Green Door heroin and methadone clinic near local primary and secondary schools and to review and revise legislation to clarify and establish the mechanisms and powers of control that regulate the siting of such establishments.
At its meeting on 29 October 2003, the committee noted the Executive's intention to consult planning authorities and other interested parties on proposals for a minor revision of the use classes order to establish whether there were any objections to the proposals. The committee agreed to ask the Executive to provide specific details of its proposals together with an indication as to how the proposals would address the concerns raised by the petition. The Executive states in its response:
"Unfortunately, other pressing priorities mean we have not progressed on this issue as quickly as we would have liked and we have still to circulate a paper of provisional proposals to planning authorities. We are also conscious that it will be complex and difficult to assess the potential impact of any proposed changes. We are considering how best to take this forward with planning authorities and other interests."
Do members have any comments on the Executive's response?
Could we send an interim response to the petitioners and to the local MSP, who, if my memory serves me right, is Cathy Peattie? I think that it was she who came with the petitioners. We could agree to keep the petition open while we await more of a response from the Executive.
That would be the normal course of action and, if that is your suggestion, we will note that it is what we are going to do. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I am content, but I am concerned about the delay in the Executive's response. The clerks sent a letter on 7 July and it took seven weeks to get a response. I am just a bit concerned at the speed at which things are moving. Had the clerks been in touch with the Executive before they wrote on 7 July? I imagine that they must have written before that.
The petition was first considered in June 2003.
Yes, there must have been an initial letter.
I note what the Executive says but I am a bit concerned about the delay. However, rather than awaiting a response, perhaps we should ask the Executive to begin to move on the matter.
I am more than happy to ask for that.
It will be two years in January since the petition was lodged.
We will let the petitioner know that that is what we have done.
Seagulls (Health and Safety Hazards) (PE616)
The next current petition is PE616 by John Boyd on behalf of Wellpark Action Group calling for the Parliament to investigate and assess the health and safety hazards caused by seagulls in urban areas.
At its meeting on 1 October 2003, the committee noted that as an interim measure the Executive planned to issue new guidance on dealing with seagulls in urban settings while it commissioned research in an attempt to identify long-term solutions to the problem. The committee agreed to ask the Executive to keep it informed of progress and to provide a copy of the new guidance to local authorities when available.
It its response, the Executive states that it has
"awarded a research project to British Trust for Ornithology Scotland and the Centre for Conservation Science … to examine the problems posed by urban gulls in Scotland and explore solutions that might allow the problem to be addressed."
That work is due to be completed by March next year and the Executive has confirmed that it will advise the committee once results have been considered by ministers. Do members want to comment?
I am particularly concerned about the length of time that it has taken to address the issue, which David Mundell and others first raised on 25 June 2003. The Executive needs to be encouraged. It says that it will issue guidance in 2004 but will it do so before it has heard from the British Trust for Ornithology Scotland and the centre for conservation science? Will it issue the guidance before the research has been done? We have to find out where the Executive stands; at the moment, it is not moving very quickly on the issue. Certainly, in areas such as my seaside constituency, the problem is growing.
My reading of the situation is contrary to yours, John. I think that you are putting the cart before the horse. If the Executive has commissioned research, surely it has done so in order to allow officials to draft guidance.
Why then does the Executive say that its research will be completed by 2004?
If it is helpful, convener, my interpretation is that it would be strange for guidance to be issued before research was conducted. Before the Executive seeks clarification on the guidance, it would be helpful for everyone if it waited for the outcome of the research.
In one of the documents that we received when we considered PE616 in June last year, we were told that local authority directors of environmental health were holding discussions on the issue. We were also told that new guidance would be issued to the local authorities at the end of the current round of discussions. I understand what members are saying today, but expectations were raised in June last year that we would receive some interim guidance.
That is helpful. As Helen Eadie has clarified, although we should have received interim guidance, it has not appeared. The Executive has decided instead to commission research before issuing guidance. Does the fact that the interim guidance never appeared change anything or shall we simply accept that it has fallen by the wayside and await the outcome of the research?
We should press the Executive for the interim guidance. Obviously, the issue continues to be a problem. From what I can recall of the debate and from coverage in newspaper reports, I know that the situation for some local people is terrifying. Although we realise that interim guidance might have to be reviewed following the outcome of the research, it would still be helpful for us to receive it.
Perhaps we could ask the Executive to explain why it decided not to bring out the interim guidance. Are members happy with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Obviously, we will still have to await the outcome of the research and the publication of the formal guidance. We will write to the minister on that point.
Ambulatory Oxygen and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PE648)
The next current petition, PE648, was submitted by Andrew Powrie-Smith on behalf of the British Lung Foundation Scotland. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the national health service in Scotland provides truly portable oxygen and pulmonary rehabilitation classes throughout the country.
At its meeting on 21 January 2004, the committee considered a response from the Executive and agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the response. We further agreed that we would write again to the Executive to establish whether the target date for making portable oxygen cylinders available had been met. In its response, the Executive confirmed that
"portable oxygen cylinders became available on GP prescription in Scotland from 1 April 2004",
which was the target date. Despite being sent a reminder, the petitioner has not responded.
I was surprised to find that Mr Powrie-Smith had not responded to our letter. At 7.30 this morning, I telephoned the number that we have for him in our papers and left a message on his answerphone. I wanted to give him one last chance to respond. He phoned me at 9.55 am, just five minutes before the meeting began, to say that he had been in hospital for six weeks over the summer as a result of a car accident. As a result, he had not received the request to comment.
Nonetheless, even at this late stage, he would like to comment if possible. Although oxygen is available on prescription, there is a question over the availability of the device by which the oxygen is administered in the way that the British Lung Foundation recommends. With the committee's indulgence, I suggest that we continue PE648 in order to seek a response from the British Lung Foundation. We also have to consider the size of the petition, which had 3,777 signatories.
I support the suggestion. I met Andrew Powrie-Smith last week and was sad to learn that he had been involved in such a serious accident—he still has to use a walking stick. When I saw that PE648 was included in the agenda for today's meeting, I sent him an e-mail to draw his attention to the fact that we had not received a response from him.
The best thing would be to get a response from the petitioner. Are members happy with that suggested course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
HMP Peterhead (PE675)
Petition PE675, by Robert Moffat, calls for the Parliament to investigate alleged discrimination against convicted sex offenders held at HMP Peterhead.
At its meeting on 23 June 2004, the committee agreed to seek further details from the Scottish Prison Service on the proposals by the Prison Officers Association Scotland relating to prisoner access to night sanitation together with a timetable for a decision on the matter and a timescale for ending slopping out at HMP Peterhead. In its response the SPS states:
"The Executive Group of the SPS Board decided not to proceed with this proposal in June 2004. The main reasons for not proceeding were the safety of staff and prisoners, security issues and the failure of the proposal to achieve the objective of providing prisoners with access to the toilet on demand during the night."
However, the SPS states:
"the Governor and the POA at Peterhead have been invited to consider other options to provide access to night sanitation and at the time of writing local negotiations are underway."
On slopping out, it states:
"given the particular circumstances at Peterhead, no timetable can be given for the ending of slopping out at the prison."
The committee has also received a letter from the petitioner, in which he states:
"It is one contradiction after another from the SPS in that one person says night sanitation is under consideration, whilst I have a letter from headquarters clearly stating that no in cell sanitation will be introduced at Peterhead because of the age of the prison, and no night sanitation will be introduced because of security fears, so who is to be believed."
The petitioner does not provide a copy of the letter to which he refers. Do members have comments?
We must ask the petitioner to provide a copy of the letter, which might give us a better idea of how we might proceed.
We could then bring the issue back for further consideration. Are members happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (PE721)
Petition PE721, by Alan McLauchlan, calls for the Parliament to urge the Executive to produce authoritative guidelines in relation to provisions contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and to ensure that those guidelines and adequate advice on the act is available to all tenants subletting, assigning or exercising the right of the other provisions of the act.
At its meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. In its response, the Executive states:
"it is ultimately for the courts to interpret where there is a dispute, not the Scottish Executive. Mr McLauchlan states that RSLs can interpret the law as they see fit. This is not the case."
The Executive also states:
"Mr McLauchlan asks ‘that Parliament gives tenants the right to sublet with the consent of their social registered landlord which must not be withheld unreasonably, to sublet their house for however long they feel the need.' Our understanding is that this is what the legislation does."
The CIHS in its response claims that disputes could be better resolved outwith the formal court process via a housing tribunal, which would be able to seek to resolve disputes between landlord and tenant initially through mediation, but with the power to enforce a legally binding decision.
The SFHA believes:
"landlords should try to set out some guiding principles about potential reasons for refusal in their estate management or tenancy management policy, which is available to tenants."
Do members have comments on the responses and how they take the issue forward?
Could we write to the Executive asking it whether it will comment on the proposals that we have heard from the CIHS on the housing tribunal and the response that we had from the SFHA on landlords setting out potential reasons for refusal to allow sublets?
I have no in-principle objections to the recommendations, but I have to say that I thought that the Executive's response was clear. I suppose that I should declare an interest as the minister who rejected housing tribunals, despite the comments from the CIHS.
Defend yourself.
The Executive has set out what it has done. It provides a leaflet, which Mr McLauchlan asked for, and it provides guidance. It has answered Mr McLauchlan's points quite comprehensively. That said, I have no problems with the principle of the recommendations.
We will do what has been recommended, then. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
Rural Schools (Proposed Closures) (PE725)<br />School Closures (Revised Guidance) (PE753)
We will take our next two petitions together, because they relate to the same issue. The first is PE725, on restoring the presumption against the closure of rural schools, and the other is PE753, on providing revised guidance on proposed school closures to local authorities. The committee agreed to link the petitions at its meeting on 23 June 2004 and for that reason it will be useful if we consider them together.
PE725, by Richard Lock, on behalf of Midlothian Rural Schools Action Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to restore the presumption against the closure of rural schools and to ensure that any departure from that presumption in individual cases is based on a clear and independent demonstration of the balance of educational advantage to the children of the schools affected.
PE753, by Christine Grahame MSP, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to reopen without delay the discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding revised guidance for local authorities on proposed school closures. It also calls for the introduction of a presumption against the closure of rural schools and, pending the issuing of new guidance, for any decision to close a rural school to be called in, regardless of whether that is required under current legislation and guidance.
On 23 June, the committee agreed to seek an urgent response from the Minister for Education and Young People on the issues raised in PE753 and PE725, together with comments on Highland Council's policy and practice on the proposed closure of rural schools, and to ask whether the Executive would welcome the use of that approach in other areas of Scotland. The minister states in his response:
"I attended a meeting of the Education Committee on 26 May at which school closures was one of the items for discussion. I indicated to the Committee my intention to issue guidance on school closures to local authorities in September."
The clerk to the Education Committee has confirmed that the guidance has been issued and that the Education Committee was given sight of a draft, which it considered at its meeting on 29 September 2004. The Education Committee agreed some amendments to the guidance, which were submitted to the Scottish Executive, and it further agreed to review the implementation of the guidance in a year's time. What do members think?
My initial question was that we need to see what the guidance says, but I notice that the minister's letter of 23 August states:
"the guidance will neither presume in favour of nor against rural school closures."
My concern is that, if the comment in Richard Lock's letter of 2 March that the presumption against closure applies in all other parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is true, the guidance might leave Scottish parents in a weaker position than their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom. I would like the minister to justify why Scotland should be treated differently in this sensitive area and to explain why he decided to take the middle road, or sit on the fence, if you prefer.
Helen, do you have a comment?
I have nothing to add to what Mike Watson said.
Mike Watson makes a valid point.
Are members happy that we seek clarification?
Members indicated agreement.
Egg Stamping Legislation (PE733)
Petition PE733, on guidance on egg stamping legislation, is from Peter Siddons and calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to provide guidance to egg producers in Scotland on relevant legislation relating to egg stamping and whether it is compatible with the provisions of European Union Council decision 94/371/EC.
At its meeting on 15 September 2004, the committee agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the Scottish Executive's response. The petitioner previously suggested that the committee should receive a copy of a report by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food, under the chairmanship of Professor Heather Dick from the University of Dundee. In his response, the petitioner states:
"The only way … to resolve this matter properly is to obtain a copy of that original report by Heather Dick."
The petitioner also provides supporting evidence from UKEP Association Ltd, which states:
"I believe your argument regarding the interaction of egg stamping with egg marketing regulations has a logical and coherent basis".
He also provides evidence from a veterinary surgeon, who states:
"The cuticle of the egg is an extremely fragile but vital protection to the invasion of pathogenic organisms and as I see it ‘stamping' is a potential damage and is obviously wet as applied."
I note for the record that Mr Siddons provided a message to the committee this morning, which we received.
The Executive's response is less than clear. We might need to broaden the issue and invite the views of other interested bodies, such as the Scottish Egg Producer Retailers Association, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the British Egg Industry Council and the British Free Range Egg Producers Association. We also need to hear Professor Dick's views on the petition, as well as more about the Executive's views, because its response has not shed a lot of light on the matter.
Is everyone happy to await those responses?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Football<br />(Management and Structure) (PE757)
Our last current petition is PE757 on Scottish football. It is from Graeme Pirie, Gavin Roach and Tormod Macleod on behalf of Fans for Football. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to launch an inquiry into the management and structure of Scottish football as a matter of urgency with the aim of restoring Scotland's standing as a leading footballing nation.
At its meeting on 29 June 2004, the committee agreed to invite the views of the Executive and the Scottish Football Association and to pass a copy of the petition to the two reporters from the Enterprise and Culture Committee who are currently examining Scottish football. The Executive states in its response:
"Neither the Executive nor the Scottish Parliament have any statutory authority over how Scottish football is governed and structured."
In its response, the SFA refers the committee to its letter to the Enterprise and Culture Committee's reporters, in which it highlights the recent announcement of an action plan for the development of youth football in Scotland, through a 10-year partnership between the SFA, sportscotland and the Scottish Executive involving a total expenditure estimated at just over £31 million. Responding to the issues raised by the petition, Richard Baker MSP states in a letter to the clerk:
"Brian Adam and I will consider the issues it raises as part of our report."
Do members have comments?
Shall we leave it to the Enterprise and Culture Committee's reporters Richard Baker and Brian Adam to develop the issue and allow that committee to respond directly to the petitioner so that we can close PE757?
Yes. We could also comment that, although some football clubs pay £30 million for one player, we intend to resolve all the problems of Scottish football with £31 million. I will leave it at that.