Public Petitions Committee, 25 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 25, 2003

Official Report 340KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Early-years Education and Child Care (PE523)

We move to consideration of current petitions. As agreed, we will deal with the petition on early-years education and child care—PE523—first. Although it will not make much difference, I invite any Unison members to acknowledge their membership, as the declaration of any interest is always worth while.

As my entry in the register of interests indicates, I am a member of Unison.

I am a former branch secretary of Unison.

Thank you for providing that clarification.

The background to the petition is that the petitioners are calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to initiate a national inquiry into early-years education and child care, with a view to producing a report and recommendations on the way forward. The petition is prompted by the petitioners' belief that early-years education and child care should be recognised as a separate profession within overall education provision, through the standardisation of qualifications for nursery nurses and the identification of career progression.

Our predecessors noted that the Executive is undertaking a significant amount of work to increase the number of qualified workers in early-years education and child care and to promote career opportunities in the sector. The Executive has been involved in discussions at a United Kingdom level to ensure that any sector skills council that covers the interests of the early-years education and child care work force reflects the increasingly integrated nature of children's services. That is the petition's context. What are members' views about it?

I want to say something briefly, as I am conscious that our discussion is taking place against a backdrop of industrial action, which is a matter for local government to resolve in the first place. I will confine my comments to the petition.

I recognise that a great deal of attention has been paid to and a great deal of additional money has been put into early-years education, which has created a momentum for change. In that context, it is legitimate to consider a nursery nurse's role as part of the whole package of early-years education.

I note that responses from Children in Scotland and others suggest that the training and status side is being addressed quite robustly. However, people are asking whether we can be sure that the increased funding is being allocated to early-years services. Perhaps scrutiny is needed. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee, of which I was a member, suggested in its legacy paper for the new committee that it might want to conduct an inquiry into early-years education. On that basis, there would be no harm in the Public Petitions Committee forwarding the petition to the new Education Committee for its views.

I would be happy for the petition to be referred to the Education Committee. It would not be appropriate to suspend any action because of the industrial dispute—the briefing paper alludes to that possibility. That dispute specifically relates to the grading of nursery nurses, which is part of the whole issue of early-years education. I make no bones about the fact that I support the nursery nurses' regrading claim. Pay, careers structure and status are integral and fundamental to the development of the early-years education sector. Such matters cannot and should not be separated out.

Another avenue that I hoped to explore is the fact that, although not all nursery nurses are female, females dominate the work force. I think that they can earn a maximum of only £13,300 per year for the immensely skilled job that they do because they are women and look after children. There is structural discrimination in society against the female work force and in respect of valuing children in society. Therefore, it might also be worth while to ask the Equal Opportunities Committee for its views on the petition.

That suggestion is certainly worth discussing.

There should be an inquiry into early-years education and child care, which are important educational and social aspects of children's growing up.

I have spoken to and worked with nursery nurses. Like them, I have always been concerned about the anomaly in councils' pay structures. That is seen as a local government matter, so perhaps we should also contact the Local Government and Transport Committee. Constituents and friends raise the issue of pay structure differences time and again, but kids are kids, no matter where they live, and nursery nurses provide the same training no matter where they live. Having different pay scales in different councils is an important issue and must be considered.

I am concerned that referring the petition to half a dozen committees might mean that no committee will take responsibility. If we refer it to the Education Committee, we should tell it that the Local Government and Transport Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee or another committee might be interested in certain issues. Responsibility would then rest with the Education Committee, where it should properly rest, and there would be no loss of focus.

I was just about to make that point, which has just been clarified to me. I welcome Jackie Baillie's helpful explanation. Apparently, the Public Petitions Committee's practice has been to identify a committee but suggest that that committee invite other committees to have an input into its overall investigation. We can write to the Education Committee to highlight the petition and ask whether it will have a review, as the petitioner has suggested. We could invite that committee to consider the equalities aspect of the petition and ask it to invite the Local Government and Transport Committee to consider the petition too, if it thinks that that is appropriate.

I would also like to mention the "Bridging the Gap" funding—which I think Jackie Baillie has been involved with—and the relationship with the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I do not know who is currently involved with those matters, but it may be that their attention should be drawn to this petition too.

Is everyone happy that we should write to the Education Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Tolls (Trunk Roads) (PE445)

The next petition is PE445, on the Skye bridge.

For the convenience of committee members, I have typed out what I am about to say, so that I can get it into three minutes and you will still have a record of it. Before the clock starts, I would like to ask—with your indulgence, convener—about two procedural points that concern me. Does the committee have the power to recommend that an issue be discussed in the chamber of the Parliament? I was advised by the previous convener that that power was available in emergency or extreme circumstances. Can you confirm that that is the case?

That is the case.

I would also like to make it clear to committee members that this motion, if I may call it that, is an emergency motion. It is a missile strapped to a torpedo, if you like, because of the urgency connected with our tourism season and the proposals that the coalition has announced on negotiating abolition with the concessionnaires. A loading has been put on the original petition, so today's petition is, in a sense, two-tiered. I hope that new members of the committee will respect and understand that. The subcurrent is the original petition, which requested that the matter be referred to the justice committees and the Audit Committee; today's "emergency motion", about which I am about to address the committee, seeks to do something about the 2003 season.

I do not want to pre-empt anything that the committee may decide, but I hear your concerns about the time scale.

I just wanted to clarify matters for committee members who are lucky enough not to have been subjected to this before.

In Scotland, a private finance initiative tolling licence is called an assignation statement. It is imperative that the Secretary of State for Scotland make such a statement. It must be dated, signed and published; that is, printed for sale. The statement tells the public who has official powers to charge tolls and the statement in question states that tolling shall end when a total of some £24 million at 1990 prices has been received. It is a criminal offence to exceed that total and it is a criminal offence to demand tolls without a signed licence.

There is only one similar case: in Birmingham in 1998, Mr Justice Sullivan reported that particular statement as

"published with the schemes and orders".

It is not competent to prosecute the public using unpublished law, but the certificates stating "unpublished" were removed from the Skye toll order and the road scheme and Lord James Douglas Hamilton certified them to the court in Dingwall as true copies, which is felonious perjury.

The seven pages of anonymous type before members are the tolling licence that was foisted on Scotland. It even employs the phrase,

"as at the date hereof",

although there is not even a year identified. It is not a probative document. The minister has failed to meet the requirement to make a statement in law and it is a plain matter of fact that the tolling licence is not a signed and dated tolling licence. No legal interpretation is needed. It can go to the Public Petitions Committee, as the public jury, to decide whether it is signed, or not.

The licence was withheld from courts for four years and its proper examination was then avoided for another four years. In the appeal court, Lord Sutherland evaded the question completely. In a Court of Session appeal, Lord Johnston did the same and unlawfully claimed that the licence was ousted from discussion. Everyone else has hidden behind those two unjust evasions. The then Lord Advocate, Lord Hardie, replied mendaciously to the local MP and claimed that the statement had been found to be in proper order; the Executive has now told that same lie to this Parliament. Please note that the Executive was caught out in its last two lies to the Public Petitions Committee—the Executive now avoids comment on the licence and is a discredited witness.

The scheme is fraudulent: the official construction cost was £13 million but, to date, the public contribution has been more than £50 million. If we negotiate with Skye Bridge Ltd, Scotland will be liable to Bank of America's investors for full compensation of perhaps another £100 million.

Despite Mr Darling, the petitioners urge the committee to act as bouncers for the Scottish people and their Parliament. UK ministers contracted the liability in 1992, so any liability is Anglo-American in nature; it is not this Parliament's doing and there is no legal basis for devolving the debt as property. The factual evidence of the unsigned paperwork decrees that no concessionaire is lawfully in place. As no parties have contracted, a third party cannot commence negotiation of a buy-out price. In addition, no lawful toll period has been commenced. For the above reasons, the whole scheme is discredited.

We urge the committee to use its powers of referral to recommend to the full Parliament that criminal tolling be immediately suspended. That means tomorrow. Save our season.

Do members have any questions?

Mine is not so much a question as a basic statement. I do not doubt anything that the petitioner has said, nor do I doubt his commitment to the cause. There is nobody more committed to removing the tolls than the petitioner, but I and many others in that part of Scotland share that commitment.

I find myself in the position today of understanding and appreciating the petitioner's previous campaigning. However, despite all the petitioners' best endeavours, we still come to a dead end each time. The Scottish Executive, the Scottish Office before that, the law courts and Westminster have all suggested that the documentation is in order. That is a moot point that could be argued over many years through the courts.

My fear is that, if the petitioner pursues the legal argument through the courts as he suggests, we could be back here in four, five or 10 years' time. We might still be arguing the same case because we have been unable to convince the law lords—or whoever makes those decisions—that the paperwork is flawed—although there is no doubt that there is a strong argument that that is the case.

The present position is that we have a partnership agreement that is committed to negotiating to buy out the toll regime, which will, I hope, happen in the not-too-distant future. I know that negotiations or discussions on that have already started. I am of the opinion that our best option is to encourage the debate to come to a conclusion at an early date.

I know that the petitioner will probably say that there is no need to negotiate if we can prove that the documentation is flawed, but how long will it take us to arrive at that conclusion?

It would take 24 hours. The document is in front of you—it was supplied to every member of the committee. Has every committee member seen the assignation statement or tolling licence? Did anyone see a signature on the back page of it?

As a new member of the committee, who can therefore take a fresh view of things, I want first to get some clarification. You referred to the urgency of the current situation and your desire for the issue to be presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate—

The urgency is for the people of Skye. The tourism season lasts only two or three months. The petition has been before the Parliament for two years. If you ditch the matter again, we will lose another season.

I understand what you say about the urgency of acting. The clerks can clarify that the request to which I referred was in the petitioner's letter of 12 June to the committee. How does that sit with the original petition? I understand that we are considering the original petition, which relates to the legality of the process.

We wanted to consider the petition early because it was on-going and the petitioner said that he had new information that built on it. I am concerned about the petitioner's aspiration to have the matter debated in the Parliament to address the concerns before the season. After today, we will have only one more day for chamber business before the recess. No time has been allocated to the committee to debate any subject, so the petition will not be debated before the end of this week. That is the practical reality.

I suggest that the question is one not of law or interpretation, but one of fact that can be put to a public jury.

Is it not a fact that the court has decided that the documents are legal?

No—that has never been decided, but that is the illusion that is being spun and which we deeply resent. That is why I talk about mendaciousness and lies from the Executive. The Executive has callously and dishonestly deceived the Parliament about the state of those documents. No judge in any court has ruled on the question of the tolling licence's not being signed. That matter can go to a jury as a question of fact and I ask the committee to act as that jury.

We do not have the authority to act as a jury, no matter how much we wish to accept your arguments. The committee does not have that power.

Can the committee recognise whether a paper is signed?

As John Farquhar Munro said, there are no doubts about whether the document was signed. I hope that you can clarify two issues for me. First, do you require Parliament to address the issue before the season starts? Secondly, do you dispute that the High Court has ruled that, even though the document was not signed, it is still legal?

The High Court has never ruled that the document is legal. That falsehood has been perpetrated by the Executive and by Lord Hardie, to his eternal shame. He spun an opinion by Lord Sutherland, who addressed only the question of updating an assignation statement. He did not talk about whether the original assignation statement had been made or signed. The Executive's reply claimed that Lord Sutherland had dealt with the matter. I replied to that in detail and the Executive has not answered. The Executive has been caught out.

The matter is now for the police, who are investigating it. Today's issue of The Herald shows that academic opinion across the board condemns the licence for having no signature, so a crime is being committed and has been committed for seven and a half years. I ask the committee please to put a stop to that crime.

I would like you to say not whether you agree with the decision, but whether the High Court decided that the document was legal.

The High Court has not decided that—such a decision has never been made.

I and other members have a letter from the Lord Advocate that was sent to this committee's previous convener, which says that although you disagree with the court's view,

"it is not for me to proffer comment on what has been decided after due legal process other than to observe that the Opinion is set out comprehensively and is binding."

The Lord Advocate says that, whether or not you agree with it, the decision has been made.

A decision has not been made. Show me the words that say that the document is in lawful order. That issue was not addressed; it was evaded. I asked that question and raised four appeal points, not one of which was answered. Instead, judges talked about the requirement to update an assignation statement on the presumption that such an assignation had been made. Lord Sutherland's only comment is that there is no statutory requirement to update for the public's information any new information concerning the contents of an assignation statement from when it was made. The key words are: "from when it was made". The licence has never been made or signed. There has never been a statement with a date, a name or a signature for the tolling licence.

If there is no licence, tolls are being charged without authority and a criminal offence is being committed. If you let that happen, you are aiding and abetting a continuing crime, which has cost us £28 million so far. We are the victims of crime, and we would like it to be stopped. You have the ability to make not a judgment, but an observation, and to say, "This tolling licence isn't signed." I ask the committee to lodge an emergency motion. Otherwise, we will lose another £4 million this season.

Politically, I agree fully with Robbie the Pict. I want to clarify whether the committee has asked the Executive specifically whether it believes that it is applying tolls illegally with reference to the unsigned document?

Yes.

Has it responded to that question? If not, can we ask again?

I think that I read out that response. It was a response to the convener from the Lord Advocate.

Was it a response to that specific question?

It was clarification of the decision that the court made.

Was that with specific reference to the unsigned licence?

The courts

"found the documents in question to be legally competent."

That is part of the clerk's note on the petition.

The detailed terms of the contract with Skye Bridge Ltd are subject to the normal requirements of commercial confidentiality. It is a commercial agreement.

That does not answer the question about the unsigned licence.

The previous committee wrote to the Lord Advocate to ask what was the legal standing of the decision. He has written back clarifying that the decision is legal and binding, although he accepts that some people do not agree with that decision.

What the Lord Advocate has said is legally binding is irrelevant to the appeal points that have been raised. What was commented on was the updating of an assignation statement. There has been no reference to the fact that the licence is unsigned and undated. It is anonymous—nobody's name is on it. What is really interesting is that, in the assignation statement, there is a discrepancy of £100 million between the total that is supposed to come in and the total that is hidden in the toll order. It is no wonder that the assignation statement was not published, because it gives the game away.

The PFI is an official scam and an official cover up. The Lord Advocate has prosecuted 500 people and convicted 130 of those falsely and wrongly. It is therefore no wonder that he would try to tell the committee that Lord Sutherland's judgment is in order. He could not point a finger at the line that says that the unsigned, undated, anonymous seven pages of type are in proper legal form. If he is to prosecute the public, the document must be flawless and published.

That is the point that I am trying to clarify. Although no one would dispute that the document is not signed—I do not think that even the court disputes that—the court has decided that the document is legally binding.

It is not.

The court has written back to the Executive. The clerk's note says:

"The response also states that the Orders associated with the scheme, together with the Assignation Statement were advertised and made available for public inspection, as required by statute. The public were therefore able to comment on and object to these proposals. The Executive states—in line with Lord Sutherland's Opinion—that there is nothing in the relevant statute which required either the Statement or the Orders to be laid before Parliament."

That is nothing to do with the assignation statement, which is a political statement. It has its own regulations and orders. The procedures for assignation statements are the subject of statutory instruments and the relevant regulations state that the assignation statement must be published. Most important, the statute says that the Secretary of State for Scotland must make a statement.

There are two halves to tolling. The civil contract is subject to commercial confidentiality. We have no difficulty with that. It is interesting that the contract has the Secretary of State's seal and two signatures—the Secretary of State's representative's and a witness's—and that is repeated by the other parties. The assignation statement, which is the statutory half of tolling, has nothing on it. One bit is private and the other bit is public, but the public bit has not been addressed at all and is therefore not in lawful order. Money cannot without a licence be taken from people on a public road. That licence is the seven pages of anonymous type that were submitted to you.

The situation is appalling and the committee cannot let the Executive off.

I do not want to have a dialogue between only you and me, but I do not see any other member indicating that they want to come in. I am just trying to clarify the point.

You are taking legal advice. I notice that.

I am trying to clarify the situation. You are making points and asking me questions about the information that the committee has. The clerk has just pointed out to me the information that the committee has, which is that the Executive is of the view

"that the Assignation Statement is valid although it is not a probative, or self-evidencing document".

It says it right there in the Executive's letter—the assignation statement does not prove anything and it is not probative. It does not give evidence of any licence.

I have asked you this question several times. Do you accept that a decision was made, even though you might disagree with it?

No—my point is that there is no decision to disagree with.

I do not have Robbie the Pict's expertise and I admire his tenacity for taking the matter further every time. The first petition this morning—PE617—concerned the judiciary, and we were very sympathetic towards that petitioner's situation. The judiciary is not always correct. In that sense, Robbie the Pict has a valid point.

I have read through the documents and I have to say that I am not a lawyer, so I cannot quite interpret some of the language. However, all the documents say is that the Executive accepts the court's findings. As we do not know what those findings are, it is Robbie the Pict's word against the court's. We did not accept the court's findings about the earlier petitioner's treatment at the hands of the judiciary and decided that we should look into the matter. As I have pointed out, the documents simply say that the Executive accepts the court's findings; they do not say whether the licences are stamped and therefore whether they are legal or not. Surely we can dig somewhere else to find some answers. Just because the court deems that something is correct, that does not mean that we should accept its findings.

I do not think that this petition is comparable with PE617. We are not examining a remotely similar matter.

I am not saying that we are. However, the earlier petitioner had to bring his case to us because he had no recourse in law, which is why he is asking for an appeal. I know that this matter is not the same, but my point is that we cannot always take at face value what the courts say. Sometimes we have to question their findings.

This petition is different from PE617, because in this case we are talking about the political responsibility to grant a licence. That is separate from issues such as commercial confidentiality. However, I am not clear about whether there has been a specific ruling on the legality of the licence. Has the Executive commented specifically on that issue? If not, can we ask it to do so?

I think that this is the Executive's response to that question. It states that Lord Sutherland referred to

"the validity of the assignation statement"

when rejecting Robbie the Pict's arguments as to why

"the prosecution at appeal should not have proceeded".

The question was asked, and the Executive has concluded that

"the Assignation Statement is valid although it is not a probative, or self-evidencing document".

The Executive accepts that the court has made a ruling on the matter.

That is false; that is not what the court said at all. Executive civil servants are lying to the Parliament, which is atrocious. They would rather lie to cover up the mistake that they made early doors and save themselves embarrassment, and they would prefer to prosecute the people of Skye unlawfully. That is criminal. Those people are supplying documents feloniously.

I was invited to comment on the information that the Executive supplied, which is in the documents before the committee; that information is mendacious. Indeed, I find it appalling that senior civil servants at the Scottish Executive are continuing to cover things up, simply because £100 million and more is at stake. The assignation statement says that the public debt total should be £23.64 million at 1990 prices. Even allowing for all kinds of inflation, that means the total today should be £33 million. We have paid £50 million and bought the bridge with £14.6 million-worth of sweeteners. The bridge is and always has been owned by the public. This scam is an easy model for encouraging PFI. There was no risk at all, because public money bought the bridge. Now a criminal offence is involved.

I will bring in Jackie Baillie and then try to get the committee to agree on what action we should take.

I am very clear that we need to maintain a focus on the substance of the petition instead of introducing all sorts of extraneous matters. I have noted some questions of fact from our papers. I should point out that I am not receiving any legal advice from anyone.

First, this is not just a matter for the Scottish Executive; the toll order has also been to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in the House of Commons. The matter has also been before the Auditor General for Scotland and the Comptroller and Auditor General. It was also before the court of appeal on 16 December 1999, when Lord Sutherland made his judgment. The matter went back to the Lord Justice General, when you lodged a petition against Lord Sutherland's court of appeal judgment. As I understand it, that petition was deemed to be incompetent simply because—

That petition is still live.

Excuse me, I did not interrupt you; please do not interrupt me.

I was making a point of fact.

May I continue, convener?

Yes.

The judgment from the Lord Justice General states that Lord Sutherland took into account, among other points, the full argument that was put before him, including the complaint that the assignation statement was undated and unsigned. I understand that other members might want to question individual members of the judiciary, but facts have been put before us—

They are not facts.

I understand them to be facts.

There are two separate issues. The first is whether we should concede any urgency to the matter—the convener's points have already covered that. The second is whether the petition has been fully explored. On that issue, I am happy to rest with John Farquhar Munro's suggestions. He has been close to the issue and has been an advocate of the removal of tolls from the Skye bridge.

As no other members want to speak, I assume that we accept John Farquhar Munro's suggestion that we should wait for the outcome of the Scottish Executive's review. On the pressing need for a debate, we cannot have a debate because the Parliament's agenda for the next two days is set.

When we write to the Executive to ask about the review, we should stress the urgency of the matter. Many people believe that no tolls should be charged on the Skye bridge; that is a general feeling in the country. We should ask the Executive to proceed with the review without delay so that the tolls can be stopped as soon as possible after the review ends.

Are members happy to urge the Executive to deal with the matter as swiftly as possible?

Members indicated agreement.

To clarify, we will ask the Executive to provide the details and time scale of the proposed review of bridge tolls in Scotland, and to carry out that review urgently. We will also ask how the Executive proposes to approach the negotiations to end the tolls on the Skye bridge.

I object strongly to that action, which endorses the tolls as legal. You are betraying the people of Scotland and you will land them with paying full compensation for a UK contract that was made with an American bank. That is a betrayal of the Scottish taxpayer and the people who have been convicted unlawfully.

Thank you. Your words are on the record.

---

Police Assaults (PE482)

Petition PE482 is on the compulsory blood testing of suspected criminals. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to make it compulsory for assailants and others who have exposed, or potentially exposed, police officers to a risk of infection, to submit to a blood test or tests, information on which would be made available to the police officer should he so wish. The petitioners also call for an amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998 to allow the results of such tests to be retained on the police national computer.

The Executive response was that, given the circumstances, ministers had decided that more time was required to allow discussions to take place with key stakeholders, including the petitioners. When the response was submitted, it was anticipated that the consultation paper would be published by early summer. The clerks have established that Executive officials hope to give advice to ministers on the matter by the end of June.

The issue is potentially serious and perhaps requires legislation. The Executive responded positively to Bill Aitken's amendment on the issue to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

We have been led to believe that advice will be given to ministers before the end of June, which is where we are now. Of course, that is not the same as the advice's being in the public domain. We should ask to be kept informed so that we can monitor progress. However, it should be made clear that we are behind what the Scottish Police Federation suggests and that, in that context, we hope to see action as soon as is reasonably practicable, considering the legislative programme.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 (PE601)

Petition PE601 is about the rights of audience in Scottish courts.

The petitioners call for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to commence sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. That will allow interested parties to make submissions for rights of audience in Scottish courts.

The Executive acknowledges the issues that are raised in the petition and indicates that it is now minded to revisit commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 Act. It also flags up a legislative flaw that would obstruct the commencement, in that section 32 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 makes it an offence for any unqualified person to draw up or to prepare any writ relating to any action or proceedings in any court. The Executive indicates that that would have to be corrected by primary legislation. We have also had responses from the Lord Chancellor and the Scottish Consumer Council.

It appears that the system of granting rights of audience is working well in England and Wales, and the Office of Fair Trading states that it would encourage its adoption elsewhere. The OFT and Scottish Consumer Council expressed concerns that extension of the system is being prevented by failure to commence the relevant legislative provisions. The Executive is willing to re-examine commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act and it intends to raise the subject with ministers. That is a positive response that members might wish to encourage. Should we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the Executive to encourage it to deal with the issue as promptly as possible. It would be a good idea if the Executive told us how it intends to act and what the time scale will be.

The time scale is important.

---

Military Action in Iraq (Legality) (PE619)

Do we need to go into the background to this one? Do members have a view?

I have plenty.

I meant do members have views on how the committee can deal with the petition.

Given that we have already debated the issue and that it is reserved matter, we cannot progress the petition.

There is also an on-going inquiry into the matter at Whitehall. What would be the point in our doing so?

Exactly. Thank you.

I take the same view as Jackie Baillie, except the part about its being a reserved matter. The Parliament debated the issue in February, but it would be nice if someone would lodge another petition that asks where are the weapons of mass destruction. Maybe we could have a debate about that.

Are we agreed that we should take no further action on the petition?

I agree, but I have to challenge Sandra White. The matter is reserved. Whether this country—meaning the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part—goes to war is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament. It is not an issue for debate, although I can understand Sandra White's personal view. We have to have the record clear on that.

We could get well into that debate.

We are going over the debate again.

If it were not for the Scottish Parliament, the issue would never have been debated because Westminster was not going to allow a debate.

We are not about to revisit the Iraq debate. Does the committee agree to take no further action on the petition on the basis that the Scottish Parliament has already debated military action against Iraq and that further debate on that reserved matter is unlikely?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Referral of Current Petitions to Subject Committees

We do not have to go through all the outstanding petitions that were sent back because they went to subject committees and there was no guarantee that those subject committees would exist in the new parliamentary session. Some of the committee remits have changed, so we have to find the petitions that were outstanding through the election period and send them to the appropriate new committees. Is the committee happy with the recommendations on which committee should receive which petition, as detailed in the paper?

Members indicated agreement.