Public Petitions Committee, 25 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Official Report 298KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Crime Victims (PE408)

In view of the fact that we have 20 current petitions to deal with, I ask members to concentrate.

The first current petition is PE408, from Mrs Aileen McDermott, on procedural issues for victims of crime. The petitioner was concerned that victims of crime get a raw deal under the current criminal legal system. We agreed to write to the Executive and to Victim Support Scotland. We have received a response from the Executive, but not from Victim Support Scotland. Members have a copy of the Executive response and also of the Executive's "Scottish Strategy for Victims" document.

The Executive appears to have taken a range of steps to address the majority of the concerns that the petitioner raised. However, in view of the petitioner's direct experience of dealing with the justice system, which prompted her petition in the first place, it is suggested that we agree to seek the petitioner's comments on the Executive response. The next Public Petitions Committee will consider her response in the new session. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Radioactive Contamination (PE444)

The next petition is PE444, from Mr Alan Berry, on the subject of the quantity of radioactive substance in Scottish coastal seawater and marine life.

We agreed to seek the views of the Executive and the North Atlantic Fisheries College. We have received a response from the Executive only recently, but have not yet received one from the college. The Executive suggests that we approach the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Food Standards Agency Scotland for further information on the monitoring research that is being conducted in this field. I suggest that we do so and that we ask SEPA and the FSA to address the petitioner's concerns.

I also suggest that we continue to pursue a response from the North Atlantic Fisheries College and that we extend an apology to the petitioner for the lengthy time that it has taken to progress the petition. I further suggest that we send a copy of the Executive response to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information only.

There is a case before the Court of Session about radioactive substances on the beach beside Dounreay.

Petition PE444 will continue to be an active petition in the next session of Parliament.

Given that the clerk has chased up PE444, it seems that if we give an apology, we will be apologising to an extent on behalf of others. Few petitions have run for as long as this one, or for as long without a reply being received from the Executive.

We are not apologising for anything that the clerks have done. The clerks have always done an excellent job. We are apologising because of the problem that arises when the people to whom we write—in this case the Executive—do not respond. We are making an apology for the time that it has taken to get a response out of the Executive. Is the suggested approach agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Tolls (Trunk Roads) (PE445)

The next petition is PE445, from Ms Stella R Anderson, on the subject of the Skye bridge. Members will remember that we have considered the petition on a number of occasions and that we agreed to write to the Executive requesting additional information. After a very lengthy delay and several reminders from the clerk, a response has at last been received, although it provides little by way of new information. The response simply emphasises the Executive's view that the toll order and the assignation statement are valid and comply fully with the relevant statutory requirements.

The Executive emphasises that the decision to stop tolling at the Erskine bridge in August 2001 bears no relationship to the position at the Skye crossing. The Executive goes on to say that the petitioners' concerns about the validity of the documents in question have been considered by the House of Commons Statutory Instruments Reference Committee and found to be in order. Further to that, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments informed the petitioners that the instruments in question do not fall within its remit, as the instruments are confirmed to be local instruments by the Statutory Instruments Reference Committee.

In addition, the Executive argues that the issues that the petitioners raised about the financial arrangements are linked to contractual matters, which the Comptroller and Auditor General of the UK Parliament examined and found to be in order—I hear the sound of cynical laughter coming from my right.

It was my cynical laughter that you heard.

It is important to remind members that, ultimately, the matter is one for the courts to reach a view on. In the appeal court ruling of 16 December 1999, the judges said that they were quite satisfied of the legality of the documents in question and gave full reasons for why they reached that view. In his previous response to the Public Petitions Committee, the Lord Advocate acknowledged that the petitioners may disagree with that view, but made it clear that

"the Opinion is set out comprehensively and is binding".

The Executive claims that the petitioners' concerns have been fully considered and responded to by the appropriate authorities.

It is suggested that we agree to take no further action on the petition and suggest to the petitioners that a more appropriate way to achieve further parliamentary consideration of the Skye bridge tolls issue might be to lodge a petition calling for a review of the policy matters involved rather than to seek an investigation of issues that have already been dealt with in the courts.

The matter is incredibly complex and I have found it hard to keep up with every claim and counter-claim. I would not be averse to asking the petitioners to respond to the Executive response and letting the next Public Petitions Committee deal with the petition from that point on.

I am puzzled by the Statutory Instruments Reference Committee's view that the instrument is a local instrument. I understand that the word "local" applies to a small stretch of road, but we are talking about a life-link to an island—one that affects all of the island's businesses and communities. Surely the commonsense view of the committee's decision to dismiss the bridge in that way is that its decision was flawed.

I am sorry, but I am trying to listen to two different people at the same time. The clerk tells me that that is how the law operates at present. The issues should have been picked up when the primary legislation was passed. As they were not, they are applied in that way.

That is not the petitioners' fault.

I agree.

My memory goes back to the beginning of this business. I have evidence in writing from the then Secretary of State for Scotland that the contract was awarded to Miller before the public inquiry was held in Portree.

That is correct.

My expert friend agrees with me. As far as the people of Skye are concerned, the whole business has been dealt with dreadfully badly.

The issue is complex. All those matters have been addressed, if not quite dealt with.

They have been brushed under the carpet.

On Winnie Ewing's comment, I am not sure whether Skye is an island under European regulations. I think that there has been a change.

That apart, now is a good time to return the petition to the petitioners. They will achieve their objective only by taking the matter through the political process. We are going into a situation in which political arguments will be very much to the fore. It will be in the petitioners' interests to challenge and chase their candidates to see whether their objectives can be met through any of the available political options. In doing so, perhaps the petitioners will bear in mind the promises that have been made on previous occasions and the fact that, ultimately, they have a judgment to make. There will be nothing to stop them introducing a similar petition after the election.

Do you wish to leave the petition?

I would kill off the petition, and let the petitioners do what they feel to be politically right. It is a great chance for them.

This is a good example of our clerking team having been very analytical in trying to find a way to help the petitioners. The clerks' helpful idea in the final paragraph of the suggested actions is a most constructive and good way to proceed. It states that the petitioners should stop beating their heads against a brick wall as far as the courts are concerned and suggests that they could proceed with the petition through a sound political process.

Recent newspaper reports have hinted that, if Jack McConnell is returned after the election, the coalition partners will consider removing the tolls on the Skye bridge. I do not know whether those reports have any foundation—I know that that is a very big "if".

I support the section in the last paragraph that recommends that we take no further action but suggest to the petitioners that the best way forward is to achieve further parliamentary consideration of the Skye bridge tolls by introducing another petition in the next session.

As I understand it, two members support taking no further action and two wish to ask the petitioners to respond.

As everybody has said, this complex issue has been argued and debated for many years, not only in the Parliament in Edinburgh, but in Westminster, Europe, and the law courts. We still seem to be at a dead-end, because we are not getting anywhere—we are not getting the appropriate answers. Even if we do get answers, they are doing nothing to relieve the burden of the tolls on the bridge. There is no question about that.

The argument will not go away. The situation will not be helped even if the committee suggests that the petition should lapse or be put on hold—the tolls will still be on the bridge. It is not surprising that there is confusion, because from the outset the petitioners and those who oppose the tolls on the bridge have argued in the courts that not paying the fee is not a criminal offence because, they suggest, the tolls are a service. The courts decided that the toll was a tax, which it was an offence not to pay, and those who did not pay were given criminal convictions. Many people in Skye and Wester Ross who went through the courts were convicted for not paying the toll.

Europe has now decided that the toll is, in fact, a service. One pays a service charge for using the bridge, and consequently, there is a responsibility to pay VAT, which is another retrospective expense from day one. The VAT does not impinge on local users because Parliament took a decision at the outset to freeze the tolls on the Skye bridge at their existing levels for the duration of the contract. I mention that to illustrate the confusion that exists even within the law.

This is quite an issue. I sympathise with the petitioners and with those who have campaigned against the charges on the Skye bridge. I think that we should keep the petition live and should suggest to the petitioners that they approach the new members next session and continue the fight.

I agree with that.

I judge that to be 3:2. Do we want to go to a formal vote, or shall we just agree to keep the petition live?

Dorothy-Grace Elder is in the room, too.

Sorry, Dorothy—I had not noticed where you were. You are on the move.

I apologise.

Come and take part in the vote please, Dorothy.

I saw her empty seat and did not know where she had gone.

I am so sorry—I had left my seat to speak to the clerks about Dr Curnow's attendance later in the meeting.

We are on the Skye bridge petition.

We are going to vote.

Oh, right.

Three people have indicated that they want to keep the petition live and to give the petitioners a chance to respond to the latest Executive response; two members have said that they would rather we stopped the petition and allowed the petitioners to introduce a new petition.

No—we must keep the petition live.

That was before we heard from John Farquhar Munro, the local member. We have heard how he feels, and I recognise that he speaks for his constituents. On that basis, I would not wish to oppose him. I suspect that the matter will become an issue during the election campaign in any case. I will go along with the local member's views.

I would be happy with that.

It will indeed become an issue in the elections. Our party leader recently said that we would remove the tolls from the Skye bridge, and I understand that Jack McConnell, on a visit to Winnie Ewing's constituency, has suggested that Labour would remove the tolls from the bridge. My question is on the timing. When will that happen?

It has just been brought to my attention that Westminster has had its say on the matter. It thinks that the tolls are perfectly in order, and the courts have confirmed that they think them to be in order. The only way to change that would be to change the law. We should at least give the petitioner the chance to respond to the latest Executive response. Obviously, the matter will be a political issue during the election campaign. After the election, it will be a matter not only for the Public Petitions Committee, but for the whole Parliament.

Speaking as a lawyer, I say that it is absolutely contrary to any law that I know that an assignation that is not signed or dated, and which is not probative, can be regarded seriously.

We will get a response from the petitioners.

A will would not be allowed to get through.

The problem will not necessarily be ours after the election.

I agree with Dorothy-Grace Elder: the same could not happen even with the most miserable little will.

---

Saltire (PE512)

Let us move on to PE512, from Mr George Reid, on the colour of the saltire flag. Members will recall that we approached the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to establish whether it would be willing to give further consideration to the petition. We have now received a response. Its view is that Pantone 300 is the most appropriate colour for the saltire.

It is suggested that we agree to recommend to the petitioner that that colour be incorporated in a voluntary code or guidance, along the lines of similar material that has been submitted to the committee. We may also recommend that that code should be agreed, promoted and distributed by organisations such as the St Andrew Society, the Saltire Society and the Heraldry Society of Scotland. However, it should be made clear to the petitioner and to those organisations that the decision on the colour has no statutory force and is of an advisory nature only. That should also be made clear in the guidance. Other than that, it is suggested that we take no further action.

According to Gil Paterson, whose business it is to deal with paint colours, the flags of all other European Union states have a fixed colour, which is recognised as statutory.

Pantone 300 has been recommended.

It may have been recommended, but it is still voluntary. We will still see navy blue, bright blue, pale blue and so on. I do not want to upset anyone's finances by making a rule that would come into force right away but, if the flag of every other country has a fixed colour, then our flag should have one too, and it should be statutory.

At this stage, given that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has arrived at—

We have got somewhere, anyway.

Yes, we have got somewhere. Do we agree to take no further action other than the action I have suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Educational Provision <br />(Children with Special Needs) (PE516)

The next petition for consideration is PE516, from Ms Sara Craig, on educational provision for deaf children. Members will recall that we received a response from the Scottish Executive and then sought a response to that response from the petitioner.

The petitioner was concerned that the statutory requirement for consultation on proposed school closures is confined to those parents whose children attend the school in question. The petitioner believed that parents of children who do not attend schools on a full-time basis but who benefit from peripatetic services should also be given the opportunity to submit their views on any school closure.

We raised the matter with the Scottish Executive and have now received a reply from it. The Executive makes it clear that it commends the practice of consultation and wishes to encourage participation by parents and other interested bodies in the organisation and management of the education service whenever possible. The Executive points out that, in addition to the consultation paper on the closure of Gateside School, Renfrewshire Council produced a separate consultation paper on the proposed relocation of the support service that was located there.

In view of the potential variability of the circumstances in which support services may be provided and of the nature of those services, the Executive takes the view that local authorities are best placed to consider how best to involve those on whom the proposed change might have an impact. It considers that it is not practicable to regulate through legislation the precise nature of consultation.

It is suggested that the Executive's response is reasonable and that we agree to copy it to the petitioner and to take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Institutional Child Abuse (PE535)

The next petition for consideration is PE535, from Mr Christopher Daly, and concerns institutional child abuse. Mr Daly was particularly concerned that the Executive should follow the example of the Irish Government in recognising the need to acknowledge and support victims of past childhood abuse.

The Irish Government set up a commission to inquire into child abuse in Ireland and allocated £4 million per annum to establish a dedicated professional counselling service in all regions for victims of abuse. It also announced proposals concerning the mandatory reporting of abuse.

We sought the views of both the Executive and the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. In its response, the Executive indicates that it is considering whether an inquiry of the sort requested, or some other forum, should be established to consider cases of abuse in institutions in Scotland and what other role the Executive might take in addressing those cases. It states that it will also consider the experiences of institutional child abuse in other countries.

The cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on survivors of childhood sexual abuse is of the view that it is right to expect such an inquiry and that an unreserved apology from the religious orders concerned to survivors would be appropriate.

Although the Executive response is positive to the extent that it indicates a willingness to consider some form of inquiry, it is short on detail and makes no mention of a timetable for a decision on how it intends to advance the matter. It is suggested that we write back to the Executive requesting that it develops its thinking on this extremely important matter and that it provides the committee with an update on progress early in the new session. In view of the complex issues involved and the intervening parliamentary elections, a reasonable amount of time should be provided for that; a reply could be requested by the middle of June 2003. That would allow the committee's successors to consider the petition again in advance of the summer recess. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Mental Welfare (Complaints Procedure) (PE537)

The next petition for consideration is PE537, from Alexander Mitchell, which concerns the handling of complaints regarding mental welfare. We have considered the petition at previous meetings and agreed to write to the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Association of Health Councils, the Advocacy Safeguards Agency and the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance for comments on the way in which complaints regarding mental health care are handled. All those bodies have now responded.

The Executive indicated that a recent policy and financial management review of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland did not highlight any concerns about its internal procedures for handling complaints. It also explained that the new public services ombudsman has taken over the MWC's investigation of complaints relating to mental health and that it will be for her to determine how best to handle complaints that are received by her office under the new framework.

Although that is understood by the bodies that we recently consulted, views have been expressed that changes need to be made to the current system if it is to be seen to be fair and open. Suggestions include the development of national standards and guidance against which the outcomes of complaints could be assessed and improvements in the information that is available to service users, their families and carers about how the complaints system operates.

It is suggested that the committee agrees to refer the petition in the new session to the successor to the Health and Community Care Committee and allows it to consider whether it wishes to examine the matter in more detail. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have already referred about 16 petitions to the Health and Community Care Committee. If the petition numbers are anything to go by, some of them date back to the very early days of the Parliament. I ask us to bear that in mind when we refer petitions to the Health and Community Care Committee. That is not a criticism of the Health and Community Care Committee, but a comment on the content of petitions.

Phil Gallie is right. However, given the quango nature of the national health service in Scotland it was always likely that the Health and Community Care Committee would be inundated with petitions. We must also remember that the Procedures Committee's recommendations for the new Parliament suggest that, if the Health and Community Care Committee is unable to deal with those petitions, it could refer them back to this committee to carry out investigations.

That is worth getting into the minutes and underlining.

That has been agreed by the Conveners Group, so I hope that there will be a bigger role for this committee in the next session of the Parliament.

I would like to point to the letter from Siobhan Samson of Friends of the Earth Scotland and the amazing quote from Ken Collins, head of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Have you moved on to the next petition already?

Am I on to the next one? I am sorry. I am getting ahead of myself.

We have not got there yet.

That was my fault, Winnie.

---

Landfill Sites (PE541 and PE543)

Petition PE541, from Dr Buchanan, and petition PE543, from Karen Whitefield MSP, are on the development of landfill sites. We agreed to link the two petitions and we have now had responses from a group of organisations from which we sought further information—the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and Friends of the Earth Scotland.

In the letter from Friends of the Earth Scotland, Ken Collins is quoted as saying:

"At no time has Sepa given permission for this plant to be built."

He is referring to the incinerator in the east end of Glasgow. The quotation continues:

"We were asked if the plant can operate within safety limits with the information we have but we were not asked if it was a good idea.

We can't say ‘but it is a lunatic location'".

That is a very telling piece of information. What is SEPA for if it just avoids every responsibility? That is an incredible quote, and I would like to be critical of it.

The clerk tells me that SEPA has asked to become involved only after the permission has been given to assess the environmental impact. The environmental impact assessments are not done beforehand. That is obviously a flaw in the system.

It is a flaw in the system and quite an irresponsible example.

Just as important as the point that Winnie Ewing has made is something that I discussed with Ken Collins: the health impact assessment. I keep plugging away at that point. The health impact assessment is not considered by SEPA before it goes to planning. It is only after all the planning decisions have been taken that SEPA is brought into the loop. That is a fundamental flaw in the legislative system, and I hope that that is addressed in the next session by the Transport and the Environment Committee and by the minister responsible. That has to be tightened up, and we must be able to deal with the health issues surrounding such cases.

Because of the strong views expressed by Friends of the Earth Scotland and others, it is suggested that we refer the petition to the successor to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I recommend that, in doing so, we draw that committee's attention specifically to the late involvement of statutory bodies in the planning process before permission is given to those sites.

I have a couple of points to make. I took a petition on the Carntyne cattle incinerator to the Transport and the Environment Committee and to the European Parliament. The Transport and the Environment Committee's report on the petition recommended that things should be brought together at an early stage, so that SEPA had a definite statutory role as early as possible in the process. That committee is already sensibly working towards what you recommend. If our letter can strengthen its resolve, that is fine, but for goodness' sake, do we need legislation to have common sense?

In this country, yes.

Seriously though, that has been SEPA's line all along, through 18 months of the cattle incinerator issue. I sat in the city chambers with the MEPs two months ago and heard Mr Collins declare that SEPA is an agency of central Government and, as such, cannot oppose a decision by central Government. The decision had merely been made by a Scottish Office reporter prior to devolution—hardly a great agent of central Government, for heaven's sake. That is the line-toeing that SEPA does. Ken Collins is quoted in the Friends of the Earth Scotland letter as saying:

"We can't say ‘but it is a lunatic location' because we are not a planning authority."

Clearly he thinks, as we all did, that putting a cattle incinerator amid 67,000 suffering Glaswegians is a lunatic situation—no other country in Europe has ever allowed that, and the cattle are BSE-suspect cattle—so why on earth did his people not even say that? They made no protest whatever at the planning inquiry four years ago.

I have allowed you to put that on the record, but it is nothing to do with this petition, which is about landfill sites. It is a fair point, and you have repeatedly drawn the attention of this committee and the Parliament to the problem, but I hope that the flaw will now be dealt with.

Yes, legislatively.

You have just won your tenner, convener. I guaranteed that Dorothy-Grace would get a cow in somewhere.

From a procedural point of view, in terms of whether the petition will be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee, this is a bit like the previous discussion about the accountability of health boards and the fact that they are not elected. I signed a proposal for a member's bill to ensure that health boards are elected.

I take great exception to the fact that local community councils, council committees, MSPs and Westminster MPs can all declare their opposition to a development, but a reporter can come along and that one person can decide that it will go ahead. That cannot be right in this society. The Parliament needs to take that on board. I hope that the Transport and the Environment Committee takes that on board in relation to planning legislation. It is so wrong. It is crass, stupid, unfair and absurd—it is every adjective that we can think of—that that situation should be allowed to remain.

I wish to make one of my pet points, and it is the reverse of what Helen Eadie said. On Ayr United's stadium, the local authority—

The debate is getting a wee bit wider than the petition.

The local authority, the local MPs and everybody else supported the development.

We should stick to the petition.

The reporter came along and supported it, and the Government minister rejected it. That is exactly the reverse of what has been mentioned.

Colleagues, we will never get through this agenda this morning if we keep indulging all our pet subjects. It has been suggested that we refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, drawing its attention to the need to change the planning process, and leave it to that committee.

---

Erskine Bridge Tolls (PE546)

Petition PE546 is from Mr Alan Douglas, on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council, Renfrewshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council, on tolls on the Erskine bridge. We have received a response from the Executive, which makes it clear that there is no prospect of a change to the tolling regime on the Erskine bridge in the short term. The Executive claims to be aware of the strength of feeling about the tolls, but takes the view that such crossings are expensive to construct and maintain, and that those who use and benefit from them should contribute towards the cost. The Executive cannot give a categorical statement as to whether tolling will continue on the expiry of existing powers in 2006. That will depend on decisions taken by ministers at the time, and will ultimately be a matter for the Parliament.

The Executive says that the tolls that have been collected in the 30 years since the bridge was opened have fallen far short of covering all the relevant costs, and it does not consider that the reconfiguration of health services in and around Glasgow and the opening of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park have caused significant changes to traffic patterns at Erskine.

We need to consider whether there is merit in referring the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee or its successor, or whether we agree to take no further action and just inform the Transport and the Environment Committee.

There can be no further action in view of the review in 2006.

There is more chance of the Executive putting tolls on the M8 than taking them off the Erskine bridge.

It is agreed that we take no further action, and pass a copy of the Executive's response to the clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee for information.

---

Further Education (Management Practices) (PE574)<br />Further Education (Governance and Management) (PE583)

Petition PE574, from Jeff McCracken, calls for an investigation into the management practices at Central College of Commerce, and is twinned with PE583, from Joe Eyre, on behalf of Further Education Fightback, which calls for an inquiry into the governance and management of Scotland's further education colleges.

We have now received responses from the Scottish Executive, from the Central College of Commerce and from the Association of Scottish Colleges. Members are reminded that the committee is unable to become involved in the specific issues surrounding the alleged mismanagement at Central College of Commerce, but it appears that the college has provided reasonable answers to the issues that were raised in PE574 and in the petitioner's evidence to the committee. It is suggested that the petitioner should be advised to pursue his local concerns with the college board.

On the more general issue of the governance and accountability of further education colleges, it had been hoped that the Executive would have announced the outcome of its review on the matter in advance of our meeting. However, Executive officials have advised that that is likely to be discussed by the Cabinet on 25 March, with an announcement later that week. It is suggested that we agree to defer further consideration of these petitions until the new session, when the outcome of the Executive review can be taken into account, and that we pass the responses to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for information only at this stage. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Livestock Premiums (PE575)

Petition PE575 is from Mr and Mrs Heron on the subject of access to premiums for livestock. Members will remember that the petitioners believed that married farm partnerships were discriminated against.

We have now received a response from the Executive and from the National Farmers Union of Scotland. The Executive confirms that businesses are not eligible under category 3b as it is specifically designed to encourage newcomers to farming who are individuals aged under 40 and making a first claim for a premium. Partnerships and companies are not eligible to apply. All partnerships are treated equally, and there is no discrimination against family partnerships. The reason for allowing only individuals to apply is to prevent existing producers from forming partnerships and applying for quota, thus depriving young new farmers of the opportunity to farm. The NFUS indicates that it supports that position.

The Executive states that the farming industry was fully consulted before categories were agreed. It also makes clear that there are no current plans to review the eligibility criteria or the categories of the national reserve, and confirms that there have been no approaches from the industry for it to do so.

The responses received appear to provide a reasoned argument as to why partnerships are not eligible for category 3b quotas, and it appears that there is no discrimination against family partnerships. It is important that that position has the support of the farming industry.

It is therefore suggested that we take no further action on this petition, but pass a copy of the response received to the clerk of the Rural Development Committee.

Perhaps we should ask for the views of the petitioners on that.

It seems fairly clear that there is no discrimination. If the petitioners feel strongly, they can submit their own views, but I suggest that we take no further action at this time.

---

Public Bodies (Complainers' Rights) (PE578)

Petition PE578 is from Mr Donald MacKinnon and calls for the extension of the right of absolute privilege to young and vulnerable people. Again, we sought the views of the Scottish Executive, which are set out in the papers before you.

It is suggested that the Executive's response appears to be reasonable. Extending absolute privilege to statements made about an individual could risk non-compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, as it would deny the individual the opportunity to seek just restitution if his or her reputation were damaged by malicious accusation. On that basis, we may wish to agree to take no further action on the petition. Alternatively, we may agree that there is merit in giving further consideration to the issue, and that it should therefore be formally referred to the justice committees' successor in the new parliamentary session.

Additional material that we have not seen has come in from the petitioner, who is not happy with the Scottish Executive's response. It refers to his circumstances and the particulars of a case that involved his own son. Is this an issue for the justice committee in the new parliamentary session, or is the Executive response adequate?

Shall we pass it to the successor committee? There seems to be an element of doubt about the matter.

Okay, we will pass the responses of the petitioner and the Executive to the successor committee on justice.

---

Hedgehogs (Relocation from Uist) (PE581)

Petition PE581 is from Fiona Stewart on behalf of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society. It deals with the relocation of hedgehogs. Previously, we agreed to write formally to Scottish Natural Heritage, urging it to meet the petitioners and similar groups with a view to assisting in the development and trial of a hedgehog relocation programme. We have now received two separate responses from SNH, as well as additional correspondence from Advocates for Animals, the BHPS and St Tiggywinkle's Wildlife Hospital Trust. Copies are attached for members' information.

Newspaper reports have also suggested that Advocates for Animals intend to carry out an independent rescue of the Uist hedgehogs, having been promised support by private aircraft owners to fly the hedgehogs back to the mainland for relocation.

It seems difficult to see how a compromise might be reached between the parties. Scottish Natural Heritage remains of the view that a cull of the hedgehogs should begin in April, although the consortium including the petitioners seems reluctant to participate in further negotiations if SNH proceeds with the cull. Some of the campaigners might be perceived as unreasonable in their approach, particularly in planning an independent rescue. However, the consortium involved in the original negotiations has indicated that it may wish to develop a comprehensive study in a future year, and SNH has offered to provide further advice and guide the development of such a proposal.

It is suggested that it would be inappropriate for us to intervene in SNH's decision to cull the hedgehogs in April this year, particularly given that the decision appears to be based on scientific advice. However, the committee might wish to agree to urge SNH and the parties involved to continue their negotiations with a view to developing a suitable proposal for translocation to take place next year. The committee has two choices. We could agree to take no further action on the petition or keep the petition open for further consideration and ask SNH to keep the committee informed of any developments in the area.

I recollect that SNH told the committee that culling would be the kindest approach, but I find that hard to accept. I am sure that, if a hedgehog were asked, it would prefer to have a chance of life. The people who have submitted the report on relocation seem to be very responsible, so why on earth can SNH not simply say to them, "Carry on and take away the hedgehogs as we catch them—we do not need a cull"? We could see how matters develop this year; we do not need to wait until next year.

SNH seems to have peremptorily ignored points that have been made. People who know about finding hedgehogs say that it is difficult for one person to radio-track more than about 15 hedgehogs, yet SNH has given a figure of 40 hedgehogs. It is imposing unreasonable restrictions and has behaved in a rather sad way.

The Parliament will be on the hedgehogs' side rather than SNH's side. Three islands have protested about SNH's activities in other matters. Members might remember the case of the Arran farmer who could not even get an extra hectare or so for a couple of cows to make his farm viable because SNH wanted to preserve hen harriers. It seems to take a dislike to certain species. When it gave evidence to us on hedgehogs, it admitted that it was out to eliminate hedgehogs completely from the islands in question. What right does it have to eliminate a whole species? It claims that the species should not be there, but many people think that SNH should not be where it is because of how it has behaved to islanders from Yell down to Arran. We back the hedgehogs and say, "Stop the cull this year and hand the little creatures over to people who will care for them." Phil Gallie is absolutely right. Why should we wait until next year? Hedgehogs are the gardener's friend and are very useful creatures.

For the sake of balance, I should say that we have been passed a letter by Alasdair Morgan, who is the MSP for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. The letter is from one of his constituents and supports the cull, because of the impact of hedgehogs on the bird population.

The issue is not black and white—it is not a matter of being for or against hedgehogs. People who are in favour of the cull may be for birds but not necessarily against hedgehogs.

The hedgehogs are foreigners to Uist and, as far as I am aware, the intention is to remove them from the island. The argument is whether they should be removed or killed. The person from Galloway who has written probably has a lot of love for the birds that he wants to protect. Provided the group in question can pass the hedgehogs to another location, his objective will be met. It seems that the last thing that the people who are involved want to do is create misery for the animals. I cannot understand SNH's argument.

Again for the sake of balance, it must be pointed out in SNH's defence that it is also concerned about the health of the hedgehogs—it believes that attempting relocation would be damaging.

The situation is difficult, but I detect that members are saying that they do not want simply to drop the petition, but that perhaps we should write back to SNH. We do not have any power to make SNH do anything, but we could say that the committee's view is that SNH should continue its negotiations with the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and others with a view to trying to reach a compromise certainly for future years if not for this year, and that it should do everything in its power to try to—

If possible, they should reach a compromise from this spring onwards. Once SNH starts this—and it has already started to advertise in the newspapers for people to go and trap the hedgehogs—there will be a killing system worked out for next spring. We should try to defend the protesters this spring.

That is what I am suggesting. We can urge SNH to enter into negotiations with the petitioners and others who are involved to try to arrive at a compromise that would suit everyone.

I do not like the use of the word, "compromise". I believe that the view of the committee is that it is a case not of compromising but of doing. We should urge SNH to come to an agreement with the people who are concerned with the animals' welfare in order to have the hedgehogs removed rather than culled.

I am not scientifically qualified to come down on the side of either the birds or the hedgehogs. I do not know enough about the situation to be able to make a decision at this stage.

It is easy: would you rather be a live hedgehog or a dead hedgehog?

A live hedgehog might mean dead birds, though.

Not if the hedgehogs are being moved away after they are caught. We all agree that the hedgehogs will be caught anyway.

There is a shortage of hedgehogs on the mainland.

There is a precedent for this matter. Some of you might remember a situation that involved SNH, mining communities and pigeons. In that instance, reporters were appointed by the Transport and the Environment Committee—Maureen Macmillan and me—and Alex Neil took up the cudgels as well. All of us intervened between all the parties and tried to be as helpful as we could be, recognising that the issue is made up of many shades of grey and that it is possible to have sympathy with all the arguments.

If our successor committee were to consider this matter, it might be possible for one of its members to act as an intermediary between SNH and the people who are concerned about the matter. That would help to ensure that negotiations were on-going. We need to remember that, although scientific advice is invaluable, we have to have regard to the political views that are expressed by communities. If volunteers are willing to take part in the work that would be needed to move the hedgehogs, we should use that volunteering spirit. It is clear from the documents before us that some of the people involved have a degree of expertise in that regard.

I am advised by the clerk that, as the committee has not yet carried out a proper investigation, it would be wrong of us to come to a decision on this matter. However, we can decide to keep the petition open and ask SNH to sit down with the petitioners and others and agree a policy of relocation as a better alternative to culling and to keep our successor committee informed of the decision that is arrived at. Other than that, however, there is nothing that we can do. We cannot appoint reporters and so on just now as we have neither the power nor the authority.

That is not what I was suggesting. I suggested that the successor committee could examine the possibility of delegating that responsibility to one of its members.

That is entirely a matter for that committee.

However, we could recommend that that happen.

That committee would not be bound by any recommendation that we made.

We could make a suggestion, though.

We can pass that suggestion on, but it would not be binding.

I like what you said about coming to an agreement. That statement was fine.

Are we agreed to follow the action that we outlined in our discussion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Detoxification Clinics (Legislation) (PE585)

Petition PE585 is from Alan Corbett, on behalf of residents of Reddingmuirhead, Wallacestone and surrounding villages. It deals with the siting of heroin and methadone detoxification clinics.

We agreed to write to the Minister for Social Justice, requesting her comments on the Executive's position with regard to the siting of Green Door clinics in close proximity to schools without a requirement for any consideration or approval by the local council. We have now received a detailed response from the minister, who informs us that the provision of rehabilitation services and their location is normally a matter for the local drug action team and statutory agencies, which would be the local authority and NHS boards. She also states that the Executive has no direct role in the siting of health facilities.

The case that the petitioners refer to involves a private detoxification clinic. The minister says that, because the venture is private, the normal considerations on location do not apply and the local authority and NHS board have no powers to determine where the clinic should be situated.

The minister confirms that, at present, there are no plans for an overhaul of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, but that, in recognition of the particular issues raised by this case, the Executive will invite planning authorities to consider whether there are wider concerns about the provisions in the order and will consider the need to undertake a revision of the order in the light of the responses received from authorities.

The minister makes it clear that, if the Executive chooses to follow that path, the mechanism for changing the use classes order to reflect the concerns expressed would involve a process of research and consultation that could not be completed in time to address the petitioners' specific concerns. However, members will recall that the petitioners acknowledged that it was unlikely that any change in the procedures would impact on the proposals in their area. They are seeking to change the procedures for future cases.

The Executive's response is encouraging in relation to a petition on a planning matter. It is suggested that we ask the Executive to report back to the committee when it has completed its consultation of planning authorities and taken a view on how it intends to deal with the matter and that we defer further action on the petition until that response has been received from the Executive. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It is encouraging that the Executive has responded to the petition and decided to do something about the situation.

---

Scottish Enterprise (PE587)

Petition PE587, from Bob Brown, calls for the abolition of Scottish Enterprise on the basis of the petitioner's experiences. We considered the petition and sought the views of the Scottish Executive, which has given us a detailed response. The Executive is satisfied that the work that is currently being done by Scottish Enterprise supports small business start-ups effectively and that the procedures that are followed are appropriate. It claims that customer satisfaction levels regarding the small business gateway are high, with 86 per cent of customers being either satisfied or very satisfied. It also makes the point that access to loans is not automatic and will depend on whether proposals meet certain criteria, including commercial viability.

Members will recall that the petitioner submitted his petition because he was dissatisfied with his experience of dealing with Scottish Enterprise. He was primarily concerned that his business initiative was not supported. We must, therefore, consider whether the specific individual concerns that he has raised justify further investigation of what appears to be a reasonably successful small business gateway scheme. We must also consider his proposal that Scottish Enterprise should be abolished and replaced. I suggest that we simply note the response from the Scottish Executive and inform the petitioner of that response. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

M80 Extension (PE588)

Petition PE588 is from Sam Mitchell, on behalf of the Cumbernauld community councils M80 joint action group. We passed the petition to the Scottish Executive for its response. Members may recall that the clerks have received approximately 20 letters in opposition to the petition from members of the public and community-based organisations in the Kelvin valley area, registering their strong objections to what the petitioners are calling for.

The Executive's response confirms that the decision by ministers to upgrade the A80 along the on-line route has been taken following recommendations from the strategic roads review, which rejected the Kelvin valley route, consideration of the central Scotland transport corridor studies reports and comments from members of the steering group and members of the wider public. The Executive makes it clear that ministers' decisions to proceed with preparation work are not subject to review. It explains that draft orders must now be produced, in line with statutory requirements, on which the public will be able to comment and to which they will be able to object. Should objections arise that require to be submitted to a public local inquiry, it would be for the Executive to justify its proposals and for objectors to challenge those. It is expected that the Executive would be able to demonstrate the merits of the proposed road against alternatives such as the Kelvin valley route at any public inquiry.

The statutory process that must be followed in relation to such major road projects provides objectors with the opportunity to make objections to the proposals and to have their objections taken into account, possibly at a public local inquiry. It is suggested that that is the most appropriate route for the petitioners to pursue in voicing their concerns, especially given the opposing views that have been expressed by the residents of the Kelvin valley area. On that basis, the committee may wish to agree to inform the petitioners of the Executive's response and to take no further action on the petition. Is that agreed?

This is an important issue for the whole of Scotland. I recognise what has been said. Is it a matter that the Transport and the Environment Committee could consider? The A80 is a major arterial road. Trying to make major improvements to an existing road means massive traffic disruption. In this case, the disruption will affect the north as much as it will affect the cross-flow between Fife and the west. I wonder whether the Transport and the Environment Committee should consider the matter. However, since it has been made clear that ministers' decisions to move forward preparation work are not subject to review, it might be too late for that.

I have been informed that the petition asks the Parliament to reconsider the decision to opt for the on-line route as the proposed extension to the M80. However, the Transport and the Environment Committee would not be allowed to deal with such a matter, which can be dealt with only through the local planning process. If that were not the case, anyone who wanted to stop a road proposal would be able to submit a petition to the Parliament and the Transport and the Environment Committee could hold matters up.

I presume that input to a public local inquiry is not restricted to local people, but can be made nationally.

Anyone can object to proposals and those objections will be dealt with.

Do members agree that we should take the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PE589)

Petition PE589 is from George McAuley on behalf of the UK Men's Movement and is on the issue of parental alienation syndrome. Members will recall that, when we considered the petition, we agreed to determine whether the European Court of Human Rights had indeed ruled that failure to recognise parental alienation syndrome and to provide appropriate training to the relevant bodies in relation to the condition constituted a contravention of article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

The Scottish Parliament information centre was asked to provide a briefing on the issue, which has now been received. It appears from the briefing that case law in the European Court of Human Rights does not suggest that a member state would be in violation of rights under the convention if it failed to ensure that child care authorities and courts under its direction and control were made aware of PAS and provided with suitable training. Furthermore, the committee has considered and agreed to take no further action on four other petitions that relate to various issues surrounding PAS. It has accepted the Executive's view that PAS is not a sufficiently well-defined medical term to make its diagnosis certain or appropriate in legislation.

The committee has also noted that the Executive is confident that the judiciary is well aware and takes account of behavioural issues that may be attributed to PAS in reaching decisions involving children and that all staff in the appropriate agencies receive adequate training in such issues. It is suggested that we should agree to take no further action on the basis of the responses that we have received. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Care Homes (Personal Expenses Allowances) (PE591)

Petition PE591, from Stuart Hay on behalf of the Senior Action Group Edinburgh, Age Concern Scotland and Help the Aged, calls for a review of weekly personal expense allowances for people who live in care homes. We agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ask for their respective views on the issues raised in the petition. Those responses have now been received.

As members will see, there will be a 4.2 per cent increase to the personal expense allowance in April, which is in line with the increase in average earnings and above the rate of general inflation. Given the Executive's position that there is currently no justification for augmenting the allowance beyond the proposed increase, we may wish to agree to take no further action on the petition. Alternatively, we may take the view that there is merit in giving further consideration to the issues raised and therefore agree to refer the petition formally to the successor committee to the Health and Community Care Committee.

I would like to refer the petition to the new Health and Community Care Committee.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Amateur Boxing (PE594)

Petition PE594, from Mr Thomas C S Ross, is on amateur boxing in Scotland. Members will recall that we agreed to raise his concerns with both Scottish Amateur Boxing Ltd and the international amateur boxing association. We have now received responses from both groups.

Although the AIBA has confirmed that its medical standards are not mandatory, SABL appears to suggest that all recommended medical examinations would be conducted if the necessary funding were available. As a result, it is suggested that the committee may now wish to write to the Scottish Executive to seek its views on the issues that the petition raises and on the responses that have been received. We could ask in particular whether the Executive would consider providing funding to ensure that all recommended medical examinations could be carried out.

As for the indication in SABL's response that it will seek legal advice on a specific comment made by the petitioner, it is suggested that the committee agree to write to SABL to confirm that, under section 41 of the Scotland Act 1998, petitioners are covered by absolute privilege in proceedings in Parliament. That will make the petitioner feel a bit better.

Do members agree that we should take that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Barra Air Service (PE598)

Petition PE598 is on the Barra air service, on which we tried to get the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to reach a decision. The minister's response to us states that he announced earlier this month that the Glasgow to Barra air service is to be brought into line with the Executive's other supported air services, which are to Campbeltown and Tiree. That means that the services will be secured until 31 March 2006. The minister provides details of the nature and purpose of the proposed review of the air service.

As the response meets the petitioners' short-term objectives and will be welcomed, it is suggested that the petitioners should be encouraged to participate fully in the forthcoming review of the air service and that we should take no further action on the petition. Are those suggestions agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)

We received a letter from Lewis Macdonald in relation to the petition on the Scottish Transport Group pension scheme funds surplus, but it was too late to distribute it to members. I will read it out for the record, but it will be given to our successor committee. The letter states:

"Thank you for your letter about a perceived contradiction in the respective positions of HM Treasury and the Executive with regard to the handling of Scottish Transport Group Pension Scheme surplus funds.

Recognising that the final paragraph of Paul Boateng's letter of 15 January 2003 gave potential for confusion, I wrote to The Rt. Hon. Tom Clarke CBE MP on 18 March 2003 to clarify the position. I explained that Section 14(5) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 states that ‘On dissolution of the Group, any sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the dissolution shall be paid into Consolidated Fund.' While it is true that ‘the pensions fund surplus should pass to the Scottish Executive in its entirety', it is also the case that these sums had then to be remitted to the UK consolidated fund. That, of course, was the reason for Scottish Ministers having to seek the agreement of HM Treasury Ministers to retain a portion of the surplus funds to make the ex-gratia payments to the former STG pension scheme members.

The Chief Secretary's letter (referring to the Scottish Executive as successor to the Secretary of State) might appear to contradict the position as laid out in the 1989 Act, and I have asked my officials to draw this to the attention of HM Treasury.

I trust this explains the position. I do not think I would be able to add further to this explanation by meeting pensioners or interested MSPs and responsibility for tax issues does of course lie with Treasury Ministers.

You may wish to note that the issue was also raised by Dennis Canavan MSP in a letter to me dated 24 February. Mr Canavan is, as you are aware, one of the MSPs with an interest in this matter. I replied on 18 March in similar terms to my letter to Tom Clarke.

I can confirm that the second tranche payments are to be made early in the new financial year, possibly May 2003. I recognise that this will lessen the tax liabilities on individuals in respect of income for the tax year 2002-03."

At this stage, all we can do is pass the correspondence to the petitioners and various MSPs who have taken an interest in the matter and leave the issue to be dealt with by our successor committee.

I think that my son Fergus argued that widows of claimants should be given the right to claim. If I recollect correctly, the committee shared that view, but now there is no mention of the widows.

That issue was mentioned in an earlier reply.

What will be done about the widows?

Nothing. There is a definite cut-off point.

So the authorities have discretion to do something, but they will not do it.

Correct.

That is a disgrace.

I suggest that we follow the convener's advice, which is to leave the matter open for the next committee. Given that many MSPs have followed the issue, could they, too, be sent copies of the letter?

A copy of the letter will be passed to members of the committee, the petitioners and to other MSPs who have taken an interest in the issue.

A copy should be sent to Dennis Canavan and Fergus Ewing, because they sought a meeting with the minister.

Sylvia Jackson and Cathy Peattie were also involved.

A number of members were involved.

Many of my constituents are involved and I would like to keep them informed.

I draw members' attention to annexes A and B in the papers for the meeting, which give the status of current petitions and progress on petitions that the committee has considered since November 1999. Those annexes are for information in case members are asked about a petition, but they reflect the massive work that the clerks have carried out. The clerks are to be congratulated on their excellent work.

We will move into private session for the next agenda item.

Meeting continued in private.

Meeting continued in public.