Current Petitions
Allergy Clinics (PE276)
PE276 is from Ms Elizabeth Girling on behalf of the Lothian Allergy Support Group, and calls on the Parliament to establish specialist clinics for the diagnosis and treatment of allergies in national health service hospitals in Scotland.
We have already considered the response from the Executive and the Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee, which helped the Executive on three separate occasions, and have agreed to send a copy of the Executive response to the petitioners to establish whether they are content with what is proposed.
We have now received the petitioners' response, which broadly welcomes the steps that the Executive is taking to strengthen the most specialised consultant-led services that are provided regionally and to explore the benefits of establishing managed clinical networks that link primary and secondary care. Perhaps most important, the petitioners welcome the Executive's offer to meet them and other interested groups with a view to producing a comprehensive guide to allergy services and finding out how existing information can be made more widely available.
Therefore, it is suggested that the committee agrees to write to the Executive, recommending that a meeting with the petitioners should be arranged as soon as possible and that they should be supplied with copies of the documents requested in their response. It is further suggested that we write to the petitioners to indicate that, on the basis that the Executive is taking a positive approach to addressing the issues raised in the petition, no further action should be taken. It could be pointed out that it would be open to the petitioners to submit another petition at a later date should there be a failure to make progress. A copy of the petitioners' response could also be sent to the clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee for information.
I have taken a keen interest in this matter and think that we have reached a good outcome. I hope that, as you have said, the petitioners will inform us of any other concerns that they might have in future.
Do members agree the suggested course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Social Services Policies (PE432)
PE432, from William McCormack, calls on the Scottish Parliament to recommend to local authorities that any independent appeal or review panels that are not empowered to alter or change faulty social services policies but which are allowed only to make recommendations back to the very committees who originally authorised the faulty or illegal policy will never be seen as independent or fair. As a result, the petitioner seeks a review of such complaints review committees.
We have already considered the petition and the responses from the Scottish Executive and Dumfries and Galloway Council. We agreed to ask the Executive for an update on information about the initiatives that have been introduced. We have now received that update, and the Executive hopes that its initiatives will improve the system of complaints in relation to the social work functions of local authorities.
The process of advising local authorities that complaints review committees should consist of three independent members has now been completed, and such a step should ensure that local authorities comply with the European convention on human rights. However, it is too early to say whether the proposed review of the complaints procedures for community care services is likely to take account of the petitioner's concerns as the Executive still has to consult local authorities on the review's scale and scope.
The Executive supports the work being carried out by COSLA to promote self-regulation in relation to the inconsistencies in charging for non-residential care by local authorities, and it is hoped that change can be achieved by agreement. Although the Executive now has legislative powers to regulate non-residential care charging, it will hold them in reserve until the practical implications of COSLA's work, which is due to begin in October 2003, have been evaluated.
Steps are already being taken and others are proposed to address the inconsistencies in charging policy and to review appeals processes. Moreover, Dumfries and Galloway Council has reviewed its policy in relation to the petitioner's specific concern—which centred on the use of a couple's income for assessment purposes—and has agreed that although the issue was contentious, there should be no change in the policy. On that basis, it is suggested that the committee should agree to take no further action on the petition. However, it is further suggested that the Executive should be asked to ensure that the petitioner is invited to participate in any consultation exercise that may be conducted in due course as part of the review of appeals procedures. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Advocacy (Mental Health) (PE436)
Petition PE436, from Ms Marcia Ramsay on behalf of Advocacy 2000, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that, in the development of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, access to independent advocacy by individuals is implemented and that a duty is placed on health boards and local authorities to make provision for collective advocacy in hospitals and communities.
As Dorothy-Grace Elder and I know, advocacy was a central concern during the Health and Community Care Committee's consideration of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill. In fact, the Executive conceded the whole issue at stage 2 and the bill now contains a duty on local authorities and health boards to provide advocacy services. In any case, people have a statutory right to access such services if they so desire.
The problem is that we cannot trace the petitioner. She has moved house and we have been unable to get back in touch with her. As the objects of the petition have been achieved, all that we can do is agree to take no further action on the petition. I hope that somebody out there knows where the petitioner, Ms Marcia Ramsay, is now. We shall continue to make efforts to find her and tell her of our decision. Is it agreed that we take no further action on the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
State Hospital (PE440)
Petition PE440 is from Dave and Lucille Crichton, calling on the Parliament to investigate the problems faced by patients who are ready to be released or transferred from Carstairs state hospital. Members will remember that we have considered the petition on a number of occasions, but agreed, before reaching a final decision, that we would obtain the views of the petitioners on the contents of the most recent Executive response. We have now received a response from the petitioners, which is set out on page 2 of the papers that members have in front of them.
When we considered the Executive's response in September 2002, we noted that steps had been taken to address the shortage of available beds in order to allow patients from the state hospital to be transferred to a local hospital. We also noted that a consultation is under way that contains options for improving services for mentally disordered patients. However, the petitioners have responded saying that they would like a firm timetable to be applied to the Executive's proposals. They also seek a firm commitment on the wider funding of mental health services. It is suggested that we may wish to consider whether it would be worth seeking the Executive's comments on the points that the petitioners have raised. It is also suggested that we send a copy of the petitioners' response to the clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee for information only. Should we seek the Executive's response to the petitioner's response?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay. We shall refer that back to the Executive and ask for an early response so that we can close the petition.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest<br />and Special Protection Areas<br />(Arran, Barra and Yell)<br />(PE462, PE463 and PE464)
The next group of petitions is about Scottish Natural Heritage. PE462 calls into question the science on which SNH based its decisions in relation to hen harrier sites on Arran. PE463, from Councillor Donald Manford, who was here earlier to talk on the Barra petition, comments on the allegedly erroneous reports of consultation carried out by SNH to sound out local public opinion on the Sound of Barra special area of conservation. Petition PE464, from Mr Robert Cunyngham Brown, calls on the Parliament to ask SNH to provide scientific justification for the list of rain goose special protection areas that it has classified or is in the process of classifying.
The petitions raise complicated issues, which we had a special evidence session with SNH to discuss. The most recent development is that we now have a response from the Scottish Executive to the points that the committee raised previously. Let us go through them one by one.
Petition PE462 calls into question the science on which SNH based its decisions in designating sites of special scientific interest and raises concerns about the availability of scientific data to the public. Petition PE463 questions allegedly erroneous reports of consultation by SNH. Petition PE464 questions the scientific justification for special protection area designations for the rain goose.
Petitions PE462 and PE464 question the scientific evidence relating to specific designations. An appeal process exists via the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest in relation to the scientific validity of SSSIs. Its remit does not extend to special areas of conservation or to special protection areas, so there seems to be a gap in the appeals process. In its evidence, the advisory committee indicated that it might welcome an extension of its remit to cover SACs and SPAs and we must consider whether that might be worthy of further consideration. If we think so, the Transport and the Environment Committee could be asked for a view on whether its successor committee should be invited to consider that issue in the new session. What do members think?
I think that the Transport and the Environment Committee should be asked to take a view on that in the new session.
I am concerned that people can appeal decisions only on scientific evidence. It is difficult for Joe Bloggs in the street to go and get the scientific evidence that is required to appeal a decision. It is almost a paper exercise to include the other designations in the advisory committee's remit. The advisory committee needs to consider how the process can be made more accessible to people who have concerns, so that they do not have to complete a scientific study to have an appeal held. Rather than putting the onus on the person who is concerned about a designation, perhaps the committee could look into the science that SNH uses.
That is an important issue. The Executive response rules out taking socioeconomic considerations into account as part of the appeals process, because of a European Court of Justice ruling that only scientific matters may be considered. That is something that the Transport and the Environment Committee may wish to consider.
That is not really my concern. My concern is that quite a lot of my constituents have come to me and said, "We do not believe the scientific evidence. We work this land and we know what's on it, but we do not have the financial ability to carry out a scientific study that challenges what SNH is coming up with." There is an argument about the socioeconomic perception, but an appeals process based on the scientific evidence is not that accessible to ordinary people.
The Executive has indicated that it will introduce provisions in the nature conservancy bill, which I think was announced this morning, to widen consultation on and notification of the designation of SSSIs to include local authorities, community councils and other local interests that are affected directly. That is to be welcomed and it might address some of the concerns raised in PE462.
PE463 raises concerns about the handling of the consultation process in relation to the Sound of Barra SAC. SNH has refuted the allegations made in the petition about its handling of the Sound of Barra consultation. It indicated that, in meeting the requirements of the European directive, it consulted 15,000 owners and occupiers, local authorities and a wide range of local and national representative bodies. It states that fewer than 1 per cent of those consulted lodged an objection. We now need to consider whether the petitioner's specific concerns justify his view on SNH's consultation procedures.
That is an important point. We have seen that, in the national health service, consultation means one thing to some people and another thing to others. It would be useful to review what the guidelines say about SNH's consultation procedures.
What are you suggesting?
I am suggesting that we should go ahead with a review of SNH's consultation procedures. We would need to refer the matter to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
So PE463 should be referred along with PE462 and PE464 to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
Yes.
I wonder whether we should also refer the material to the Minister for Social Justice. In the Arran case, a farmer pleaded that he wanted only an extra 8 hectares on which to graze a few more cows, which would make the difference between the viability and non-viability of his farm. He could not get SNH to agree to that. As the convener said, SNH goes entirely on scientific evidence and ignores socioeconomic evidence, which is vital to the islands. It is obvious that there is huge discontent with SNH. We have had four or even five petitions on the subject, including the hedgehog petition.
Rather than sending the petitions to different committees, we should refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee and leave it for it to decide whether it needs to consult other committees or ministers.
I was wondering whether the Minister for Social Justice should be contacted, rather than the Social Justice Committee.
I think that, on land issues, particularly in relation to SSSIs, SPAs and SACs, she would probably say that she had no remit and that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development was the relevant minister.
I was thinking of the socioeconomic side.
When we refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we can ask it to consider which ministers it should involve, particularly in relation to the socioeconomic considerations that the petitions raise.
I was not involved in the discussions on PE463, but it is stated that 15,000 owners, occupiers and others were consulted and that fewer than 1 per cent lodged an objection. It could well be that the people felt that they were making their views known when they were consulted and that it was not necessary to lodge a formal objection. Perhaps they felt that, if they said, "I disagree with this and I have problems with it," they were stating their concern during the consultation. Perhaps they did not appreciate the fact that they had to lodge a formal complaint.
The other issue is that, as we all know, consultation means different things to different people. It can mean that an organisation simply puts advertisements in newspapers and asks people to respond, writes to individual people or has meetings and explains the detail of its proposals. We do not know what SNH's consultation procedures are. We could do with knowing more about the way in which our public bodies consult the public.
Yes, but it is not our job to do that at the moment. We are deciding whether we should refer the petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee to ask it whether its successor committee would be interested in considering the aspects of the petitions that we have discussed, which I hope will be the case. Do members agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Nuisance Hedges (PE497)
Petition PE497 is from James and Pamala McDougall and has 850 signatures. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive, following its consultation exercise in 2000, to implement legislation at the earliest opportunity to alleviate the nuisance caused by hedges.
The Executive's response makes it clear that no legislative priority has been attached to the matter and that it had intended to use a member's bill introduced by Scott Barrie as a means of changing the legislation. It is unlikely that the bill will be implemented before the end of March when the Parliament is dissolved, but the Executive seems to be willing for Scott Barrie's legislation to be revived on the other side of the election.
It is suggested that we have two options. We could agree that, in confirming its commitment to supporting legislation on the issue, the Executive's response is reasonable and therefore we should take no further action. Alternatively, we could agree to keep the petition open to monitor the situation in the new session with regard to the progress of legislative proposals. If we keep the petition open, we could return to the matter if nothing happens on the issue after the start of the new parliamentary session.
I have one minor point. The Executive had an opportunity to act through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but it rejected an amendment on the subject. However, I go along with the recommendation to keep the petition open.
I believe that, in its response, the Executive said that it did not think that it would be appropriate to use the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill for that purpose. In any case, if we keep the petition open and nothing happens in the next session, we can ensure that something is done. Are we all agreed to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
PE504, from James and Margaret Watson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers and members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.
We have considered this matter at many meetings. At the most recent meeting, we decided to seek a response from the petitioners to the latest information that we had received from various official bodies.
In their response, the petitioners make clear their concerns about certain statements that were made by the Executive in relation to the circumstances under which information was obtained by a journalist, which led to the publication of a magazine article purporting to be an interview with the convicted murderer of their daughter.
The petitioners are concerned that, in noting the Executive's comments, the committee has endorsed its view. They are concerned that, as a consequence, the impression has been given that they had tried to mislead the committee with their version of events. The petitioners have provided copies of letters from both the journalist concerned and the National Union of Journalists that indicate that no restrictions were placed on access to inmates at Kerelaw secure unit during the visit when this material was gathered. It is also claimed that access to inmates during the visit by the journalist was actively encouraged by the then director of social work of Strathclyde Regional Council.
I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that, by considering and noting the Executive's response to the petition, as we are obliged to do, we in no way implied that we supported or endorsed that response. I also make it clear that there is no suggestion that the petitioners had attempted to mislead the committee. The Public Petitions Committee takes great care to take all evidence into account openly and fairly. I emphasise that the committee takes a consistent approach in focusing on the more general issues that are raised in petitions as opposed to more specific concerns. While we sympathise entirely with Mr and Mrs Watson, it is not the role of this committee to examine the case in detail. We must pursue the more general question of whether the publication of such material can be prevented.
That said, the petitioners' concerns appear to highlight a potential loophole in the current regulations governing access to material from inmates that relate to their crimes, which could subsequently be published in the press. Although the Executive has stated that no formal request for an interview was made or granted, it is claimed that a journalist was able to gather material for an article by being given free access to inmates during a general visit to a secure unit that had been sanctioned by the responsible authorities.
The committee could agree to copy the petitioners' letter to Executive officials, asking them to respond to the committee on that point. Officials could be asked to indicate whether any measures are in place or will be introduced to ensure that journalists or others who are given access to convicted criminals are made fully aware of the restrictions on the publication of certain material and are properly supervised during visits. It should be made clear that this information is sought only in connection with the committee's consideration of the more general issues that are raised by the petition. We can also ask for the flaw that the petitioners have highlighted to be fed into the consultation that is being undertaken by the Home Office with a view to legislating on the issue.
I have followed the case with interest, and I thought that we had picked up on the point about the gathering of information. Did we not pick up on that point at a previous stage?
When we considered a previous Executive response, we thought that it was reasonable; we were not fully aware of the circumstances in which the visit by the journalists had taken place. We were led to believe that it was almost coincidental that they were able to gather during their visit information that had nothing to do with particular conversations. It has now become clear, however, that journalists not only exploited their general visit to the Kerelaw secure unit, but deliberately gathered material for publication afterwards. They were allowed to do so without any real restrictions or monitoring by the authorities concerned.
There was a total lack of supervision, judging from what happened.
Perhaps the clerk will remember what happened when we dealt with the matter before. Did we simply pass the matter back to Mr and Mrs Watson for their reaction to what had been stated?
We agreed to defer consideration of the petition until the publication of the Home Office's consultation. That will probably be after the Scottish parliamentary elections. The petition is still live. I am concerned about the way in which the interview was conducted and by the lack of supervision on the part of the authorities, as well as by the complete lack of consideration for the Watsons and their circumstances. The issue has to be pursued and, although we are moving away from the individual case, the matter has to be brought to the Executive's attention. It is fair to ask for the Executive's response.
We seem to be catching up with the matter.
We have to make it explicit that the Public Petitions Committee did not endorse—
Absolutely. There was no question of our endorsing the Executive's position; we simply noted what the Executive was telling us, and we are now pursuing the legitimate points that the petitioners raised with us.
Are members happy with our proposed course of action on PE504?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning Legislation (PE509)
PE509, from Mr Russell Craig, concerns planning procedures. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to change planning procedures and to review the legislation affecting certain types of development, such as crematoria.
A response has been received from the Executive. Its view is that the current planning system is suitably robust and allows for planning authorities to prepare their own development plan policies and, with the support of planning guidance from the Executive, to determine individual applications. In certain circumstances—where there is a significant departure from agreed development plans or where a council has a significant interest in the proposed development—the planning system provides for applications to be notified to ministers for decision. The application that prompted PE509 has been notified to ministers, and the petitioner has had an opportunity to give evidence at a public local inquiry. The decision of that inquiry has still to be announced.
The Executive has made it clear that it is not aware of there being concerns throughout Scotland about the location of new crematoria. It says that it has not received calls for specific planning guidance on the issue and that, therefore, no guidance on the subject has been prepared. The Executive's view appears to be borne out by that facts that the individual contentious planning application that prompted the petition has been notified to ministers under the existing statutory planning process, and that a full public local inquiry has been held. That inquiry has allowed all the relevant planning considerations, including local objections, to be taken fully into account.
As it would be difficult to justify a review of planning policy based solely on the concerns that are raised in the petition, it is recommended that we agree to take no further action on the petition.
I wonder what view was taken by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is our so-called environmental watchdog. Perhaps this is yet another incinerator case—that is what we must call these things, I am afraid—in which SEPA has raised no objection. As we know, the big fault in such matters is that SEPA considers not the site but only whether the proposal can work. SEPA has admitted that that is the case and the minister wants to change that. However, the local people may be disadvantaged because it is too early for those changes to come into effect.
However, there has been a public local inquiry into the planning application, at which people were able to give their input.
The question is whether SEPA gave evidence and what evidence it gave. In other cases, SEPA's evidence to local public inquiries has been merely to say that it did not object or that something would work. SEPA confines itself—this is extraordinary for an environmental regulator—to the operation of any proposed development; it does not concern itself with where the development is to be sited. If a development were to be sited on the esplanade of Edinburgh castle, SEPA would make no objection and would look only at the technical plans. The proposed crematorium would be a totally unsuitable use of a public park, especially as it is near a children's playground.
Dorothy-Grace Elder makes a fair point about the fact that SEPA does not comment on the site location of such developments. However, to be fair, that is not what PE509 is about. The petition is about the planning process. Given the fact that a full local public inquiry has taken place and that, as the issue has not yet been resolved, we do not know the final decision, there would be no point in calling for a general review of planning law on the basis of the petition. That is the recommendation. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Post Office Services (PE513 and PE542)
The two final current petitions, which have been linked together, are on the future of rural sub-post offices. The first petition comes from Phil Gallie MSP and the second is from Mervyn Jones, on behalf of the National Federation of SubPostmasters. As members will see, we have been dealing with the petitions for a considerable time.
I ask members to look at the suggested action. The PE542 petitioners feel that the Executive could do much more to encourage the use of the post office network. They are concerned that sub-postmasters will not benefit financially to any great extent from the support package for the rural network that was announced by the UK Government. However, the announcement is clearly a positive development, which it is hoped will provide some assistance in making rural post offices more viable and in preventing closures.
As well as providing details of the UK Government support for the post office network, the minister has indicated that the UK Government considers the maintenance of the universal postal service to be of the highest importance. An obligation to that effect was enshrined in the Postal Services Act 2000. That was the main issue raised in PE513.
In the light of all the responses that have been received to date and of the proposed action, it is suggested that we may wish to consider concluding both petitions. If the petitioners remain concerned after the UK Government initiatives have been developed and implemented by the Scottish Executive, they could submit a further petition.
The committee may wish to pass a copy of the latest responses received to the clerk to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for information.
Does Phil Gallie, as one of the petitioners, want to comment?
Once again, I think that we have pursued the issue fairly well along the line. My only comment on the conclusions is that I am concerned about the commitment to a universal postal service. Postcomm's current activities seem to cut across the objectives that the minister underlined. I have grave reservations about some of Postcomm's moves, which could jeopardise the universal postal service. How do others feel about that?
I, too, have reservations. I wrote recently to the regulator along similar lines to those that Phil Gallie has outlined. However, Postcomm's role as regulator and the universal postal service are matters that are reserved to Westminster.
Like Phil Gallie, I suggest that we have gone as far as we can with the petitions. If the new procedures do not develop in the way that the minister has promised, it will be open to the committee to come back to the issue in the new session of Parliament.
I have one query about the level of funding. The figure of £450 million is mentioned in the paper. Is that a UK figure?
Yes.
The paper states:
"They estimate that around £7m has been allocated to the Executive from Westminster".
Is that an annual figure or a one-off?
I am told that the figure of £7 million was not part of the £450 million—it is funding for different things—but we do not yet know how much of the £450 million will be coming to Scotland.
I do not think that £7 million is too much.
As I hope the committee is aware, with the abandonment of the current system for benefit payments, part of the agreement is to introduce a postal charge card. I know of an individual who perhaps jumped the gun and wrote to the Post Office, saying that they wanted to take up the charge card, but the Post Office wrote back to say that the system had been abandoned. I queried that, and found out that a charge card system was abandoned in the past, but central Post Office staff were not aware that that system is not the one that is being talked about for the future payment of benefits. There is an element of confusion, which is of concern, because the charge card is important if rural post offices are to survive.
As I understand it, there is a commitment that a charge card system will be available through post offices.
Members may wish to keep an eye on the fact that the Post Office might send out such letters.