Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Official Report 201KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Egg Stamping Legislation (PE733)

Agenda item 2 is new petitions, the first of which is PE733, by Peter Siddons, which calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to provide guidance to egg producers in Scotland on relevant legislation relating to egg stamping and whether it is compatible with the provisions of the Council of the European Union decision 94/371/EC. Peter Siddons is present to give evidence in support of his petition. Welcome to the committee, Mr Siddons. You have three minutes, after which we will ask questions.

The legislation is, of necessity, precautionary but one order clearly contradicts the other. The precautionary legislation states clearly that nothing should be done to possibly, or even conceivably, damage the surface of an egg, but here we have legislation that makes it mandatory to stamp every egg, which could conceivably damage the surface, thereby making it unsuitable for human consumption. Whether there is any sense in that or not does not matter, because the legislation is precautionary for health reasons.

The issue is not just eggs being stamped now and again. For instance, one thing that you are not allowed to do is allow a spot of water to get on an egg, but how many eggs are there likely to be in a day's laying that get a spot of water on them? The legislation states that every single egg that is produced will have to be stamped and there is no way to prove whether stamping damages the surface. At this month's pig and poultry show, egg-stamping equipment was being sold, but we were warned that some dyes penetrate the shell—the whites of some stamped eggs are coloured after they are cooked.

That is about the size of it. There has been salmonella legislation for a long time; I have, along with many other people, challenged it as being irrelevant, because what it states about eggs is not possible in practice. We seem to have a clear contradiction. Eggs will have to be stamped for traceability purposes, but those purposes are mainly commercial in that supermarkets want to be able to identify where eggs came from when there are cases of health problems—they want to pass the buck, if you like. However, can the importance of tracing eggs be equated with the legislation's aim of preventing eggs from becoming contaminated?

Do members have any questions for the petitioner?

Just to be clear, Mr Siddons, are you against the stamping of eggs in general because you are worried about health issues?

I am against mandatory stamping of eggs. I can understand the purpose of stamping eggs if they are going to multiple-source packing stations. For example, you might want to identify whether somebody is palming off cage eggs as free-range eggs. There is no need to stamp eggs when they are sold direct. In fact, the general public do not want stamped eggs. The point is that the legislation on the health and safety aspects of eggs states clearly that one must not do anything to the surface of an egg. Whether that is sensible or not does not matter; the legislation says that it must not be done, yet here we have legislation that states that eggs—not just one or two, but every egg that is produced—must be stamped.

That is what I am trying to understand. Does your petition relate mainly to the fact that there is an anomaly between the legislation and directives? Do you want it to be sorted out one way or the other, regardless of what the solution is, or do you have a problem with stamping?

The situation must be sorted out one way or the other. As far as I am concerned, we should either stamp eggs or legislate on the perceived—I emphasise "perceived"—health risk. Which is more important? It has always been emphasised—as one MP did right at the beginning—that even one salmonella bacterium in an egg is too many. It does not make any difference. It does not make the egg more dangerous to eat, because the number is tiny. We are talking in general about tiny proportions.

It has been said that eggs can be tested, but the point is that one day a hen can lay an egg that is perfectly all right and will not let anything through the shell, but the next day it can lay an egg that will. It is all or nothing.

Mr Siddons, I notice that you are the proprietor of Muirfield Hatchery.

That is right, yes.

How are the eggs that are produced there sold? Are they sold to supermarkets?

I produce day-old chicks. It is all breeding stock.

I see. You do not sell eggs.

The only eggs that I sell are surplus eggs; however, I am here to represent my customers throughout the country, from Shetland to Land's End.

You may not, therefore, be able to answer my second question. We have been told that the Scottish statutory instrument that will implement the requirement will come into force soon and that the legislation will provide sanctions for non-compliance. Do you know what those sanctions will be?

They will be very heavy. I am not sure what they will be, but I understand that they could even include custodial sentences. That reflects the seriousness of the situation, which is completely anomalous. Eggs are completely protected by nature against bacteria, so if the Government wants stamping, it should be done for the purpose of stamping only, not for tracing possible salmonella contamination. There is nothing wrong with stamping as such, but there is under legislation in respect of health and safety.

The situation must be of some concern to egg producers throughout Europe and, certainly, in Britain. Is there an egg-producers body that has taken the matter up? What response have you received following your discussions with the Government? Surely, your concerns must have been taken up before now.

I am a member of the United Kingdom Egg Producers Association, which is very much against the legislation.

I presume that the matter has already been raised with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

It has been raised, but we got absolutely nowhere. DEFRA has embarked on a course of action and the problem is largely that it will not listen.

Has DEFRA given reasons for why it does not want to listen, or does not appear to be paying attention?

No, it has not. It is a ridiculous situation, but there it is. Similar situations exist in respect of asbestos, foot-and-mouth disease and BSE—all those things are handled totally wrongly in law, but the Government will not listen.

Have you been in touch with the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department at Pentland House?

I have not been in touch with SEERAD directly—not that SEERAD could do much about the situation, although I do not know that. That is why I submitted a petition. I have discussed the matter thoroughly with all the people with whom I have discussed it, including experts and so on.

Do other members have questions, or do we have an idea about what we would like to do with the petition?

There seems to be a clear clash between the EU Council's directive and the European Commission's regulation. As they are not compatible, we need—at the very least—information about how the new regulation can be introduced. We should perhaps ask the Executive for clarification. Jim Wallace, as the responsible minister, would be the one to write to.

We could ask for that information as a starting point.

I would have thought that the responsible minister would, more likely, be Ross Finnie. It is an agricultural matter. We could write to the Scottish Executive and SEERAD, asking for more details about the regulation and how it is to be implemented. We could also ask which legislation will be implemented because the Executive demonstrably cannot implement both if what Mr Siddons tells us is accurate.

I would be content with that.

Will we write to the appropriate minister and ask for a response that we can assess at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention, Mr Siddons.

It is a very serious matter: there is no question about that. We are challenging the law.

We appreciate your bringing it to our attention. Thank you for your time.

---

State Hospital (PE730)

Petition PE730 from Patricia Ann Mallaby calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure the closure of Carstairs state hospital. I welcome to the committee Ms Mallaby, who is present to give evidence in support of her petition. You have three minutes in which to make a statement, after which we will ask questions.

I had requested the presence of Mr McCardle, who is being held unlawfully in Carstairs state hospital, to answer any questions that members may have about the hospital. As Margaret Curran MSP said on "Newsnight" last week, particular attention should be paid to people who have first-hand experience. Today's meeting presented a good opportunity to hear from someone with first-hand experience of Carstairs.

I have observed Mr McCardle in court. He is intelligent, observant and articulate, although he is under the constant threat of forcible injection.

I am sorry to interrupt you, Ms Mallaby, but I think that the clerks advised you that we cannot consider the circumstances of one case. Please focus on the petition and the general issue that it raises. We cannot hear allegations along the lines of those that you are making about an individual case. We must know the purpose of the petition and why the general issue should be addressed.

I was pointing out that Mr McCardle had a valuable contribution to make to any debate on the use or misuse of mental hospitals and of Carstairs in particular. Mr McCardle, the patients advocacy service and I made every effort to obtain his attendance today, but I was informed that parliamentary adviser Dr McDonald did not wish Mr McCardle to attend. That is all that I have to say on the matter.

Members of the public have the serious concern that whistleblowers and victims of organised crime such as Mr McCardle are being silenced in our mental hospitals to protect some individuals. It is significant that the Home Office has not ordered a public inquiry into that.

As for the alternative to Carstairs hospital, mental institutions and psychiatry in general, I refer the committee to the extensive research that the Citizens Commission on Human Rights is undertaking. Its findings are that psychiatry is an abuse of human rights, that the current regime should be abolished and that proven alternatives are available. I suggest that the committee should invite the commission to attend its next meeting to discuss the proposed closure of Carstairs hospital, possible alternatives and the need to repeal mental health laws that allow state psychiatrists to authorise abduction and compulsory treatment of whistleblowers.

The convener might tell me that this is not a question that I should ask. Am I right in thinking that you have been to the committee with a petition previously?

Yes.

Was that petition about women who were being held unlawfully in prisons and who were suffering abuse?

No.

Was it about land grabbing?

The petition was about land rights.

I thought that you looked familiar.

You have given one example of a case. We are not here to examine individual cases, but your suggestion is that such practices are rife in Carstairs hospital. Do you have any other examples?

From Carstairs or from other hospitals?

From Carstairs, because you ask for that hospital to be closed.

Personally, I have no more examples.

Later, we will consider another petition that relates to Carstairs. That petition complains about the lack of suitable treatment for people who have mental health problems. It seems to be rather strange that you suggest that Carstairs should be closed when there is a clear need not just for Carstairs, but for the other establishments that might accommodate people who are released from Carstairs before they return to the community. Closing the hospital would be a drastic step, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case that you have brought to us. Are you aware of a country in the world that does not have a state mental hospital or an equivalent establishment?

I was pointing out that there are alternatives, which is why I suggest that you ask the Citizens Commission on Human Rights to speak to you.

Are you saying that there are alternatives for people who have been what you term whistleblowers, or for everybody who has mental health problems, has committed offences and who requires to be detained?

I mean everybody with mental health problems.

I cannot quite understand that point. People in hospitals such as Carstairs are there for a variety of different reasons. How can one take the blanket approach of closing the hospital and accommodating all those people in different ways? That does not sound feasible.

I suggest that the committee examine possible alternatives to Carstairs.

If the authorities are acting as you suggest they are—seizing people off the streets and incarcerating them—how would the closure of Carstairs sort that out? If the state was doing that, would it not simply put such people elsewhere?

I am sorry—will you repeat that?

If the state or authorities are seizing people off the street and incarcerating them, as you suggest they are, would not it be the case that the state would continue to do that and to put those people elsewhere if Carstairs were closed?

Possibly, but if there were an inquiry into Carstairs, it might lead to a review of all mental health hospitals.

But your petition calls for the closure of Carstairs.

Yes—as a start.

Do members have suggestions for what we should do with the petition?

We do not have any evidence to allow us to pursue the petition further. I do not support taking any further action because we have not been given examples. I am unclear about what the petition seeks—is it the closure of Carstairs state hospital or something much wider? If there are alternatives to Carstairs, they should be brought to the committee rather than our being invited to get somebody else to make suggestions. We should simply note PE730 and take it no further.

If members have no other views, are we agreed that there is nothing that we can do in relation to the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Affordable Housing (PE732)

Our next petition is PE732, from Norman Laurie, on behalf of the royal burgh of Haddington and district community council. The petition calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to review the current guidelines on new housing developments to ensure that a larger proportion is allocated to affordable housing. Jan Wilson is present this morning to give evidence in support of the petition.

Welcome to the committee, Miss Wilson; you have three minutes to speak, after which we will ask questions.

Thank you for the chance to speak in support of the petition. It seems to be clear that the demands on private house building in Edinburgh and the Lothians will be met unless the housing market collapses.

The number of affordable houses is diminishing, partly because of council house sales and also because house prices are increasing much faster than wages. It is not clear that the needs of people in East Lothian for affordable housing will be met. On the evidence of East Lothian Council's local housing strategy, plans for the area are very complex, which is in effect a requirement of the Scottish Executive, and the funding is entirely inadequate. Furthermore, the housing list in East Lothian—which is a measure of demand for council housing—has not been well managed recently to ensure that those who most need a house get one. Greater urgency in the provision of affordable housing is required. Briery Bank in Haddington is a lost opportunity.

Young and elderly people have been taken out of the housing market. For example, a young man purchased a one-bedroom flat for £50,000 with the help of his parents, because he earned only between £14,000 and £15,000. Eighteen months later, the flat is worth £70,000, which means that if he tried to buy a flat now, he would be completely out of the housing market. An elderly couple sold their three-bedroom house in Port Seton to move to Haddington to be close to their family and with a view to purchasing a two-bedroom house. In the space of three months, house prices soared and the couple were unable to purchase a two-bedroom house. Two weeks ago, a two-bedroom house came on the market for £104,000 and was sold for £158,000.

Sixty new houses were built at Briery Bank, but only nine of them were affordable houses. Seventy-eight houses were built at the Maltings site in Haddington, but only 12 of them were affordable. That is 21 affordable houses out of 138. My examples emphasise the need for affordable housing or for councils to build houses for rent. The waiting list for council housing in East Lothian is in excess of 15 years.

To clarify, when you talk about affordable housing, do you include houses that are for sale but that are in some way subsidised so that local people can afford them as well as houses that are for the social rented sector, or do you mean one or the other?

We would be happy if both of those were included.

You ask for a general change in policy or guidance, but it seems to me that the issue is primarily for East Lothian Council. The statement that your community council provided notes that East Lothian Council has a policy of varying the proportion of affordable housing from 12 per cent to 30 per cent. Obviously, Haddington is at the lower end of the range. Have you asked the council to justify why it chose the figure of 17 per cent for Haddington? If the figure was 25 per cent, would that be acceptable to the community council and the community in Haddington?

Given that there are 6,604 people on the waiting list and that fewer than 20 per cent of them are waiting for re-lets, the need for affordable housing seems to be greater than the 17 per cent that the council suggests.

Is the waiting list of around 6,000 people for council properties throughout East Lothian?

Yes—that is the number on the waiting list.

Is the list for people who want to rent a house?

Yes.

Surely that is different from people who want to buy a house.

The point is that people who cannot buy a house because house prices have soared have to go on to the housing list.

I accept that point. However, you are talking about the provision of affordable housing for people who want to buy.

Yes.

I understand the effect of house prices going up and people not being able to buy. Have you asked East Lothian Council why it has not set a figure for the proportion of affordable housing in the Haddington area that is nearer to the figure that your community council feels would be appropriate?

We have done so many times, but we keep getting the answer that 17 per cent seems fair.

Does the council justify that figure on the basis of the social make-up of the area, or the need for social housing there?

Sorry, I cannot tell you that. The person who is dealing with the matter is on a cruise at the moment and I am just standing in—that was generous of him. He has gone into the documents in more detail than I have.

I hope that it is an affordable cruise.

I do not know how many Haddington councillors there are on East Lothian Council, but do you have their support?

Yes, very much so.

Are they arguing the case in the council?

Yes.

I presume that the council gave planning permission for the development. The council decided its own targets for affordable housing, as Mr Watson said, so surely it is reasonable that it should continue to allow such developments? Given that the council gave planning permission for the development, you cannot say that it is on your side and thinks that the figure of 17 per cent is unreasonable.

The Briery Bank scheme has not yet received planning permission. A further application was made a month ago and the plan was changed to site the proposed nine affordable houses further away from the mega-expensive £200,000 to £300,000 houses and closer to the council houses that are already at Briery Bank.

I remind members that we are considering a separate petition about the Briery Bank development.

I understand the pressure that East Lothian is under. As Edinburgh expands and people move out of the city, there is bound to be pressure on the housing stock, whether that is affordable or otherwise. The petitioners are feeling the effect of that.

The Executive is currently considering land use and planning policies and it is increasing the range and amount of affordable housing that is available throughout Scotland. Can you identify one aspect of the system that has gone wrong and complicated things in East Lothian? Is it land; is it planning; or is it simply the council's attitude?

The fact that Haddington is becoming a dormitory town is the one thing that has got us up in arms. We do not seem to be catering for the people who stay in Haddington; we are catering for Edinburgh overspill. There are people who do not want to live in Edinburgh any more, but in rural towns. I think that 750 houses will be built at the west end of Haddington, the majority of which will be for people moving in from Edinburgh.

Are houses being built in the green belt and, if so, does the community support that?

I am not 100 per cent sure if the west end development is on greenfield or brownfield land.

The Briery Bank houses would be built in a conservation area. We object very strongly to the council's giving permission to a company such as Cala Homes Ltd to build houses in a conservation area. You would need to come out and see Briery Bank to appreciate that it is a beautiful location. The entrance to the town will be spoiled if 60 houses are built there.

Do members have suggestions about the petition?

I am looking at the information that the clerks kindly supplied about what Margaret Curran, who is the minister with responsibility for the matter, has said. I see that a review is on-going, but I have concerns about whether the reality will match up with the plans. We should write to the Executive to ask how the review is going and about any plans that it might have.

On another issue, quite often we hear it said that, when planning permission is granted to a developer, councils should insist that a certain proportion of the houses should be affordable, either to rent or to buy, or should be adapted for people with special needs and so on. At least one council—I think that it is Fife Council—has received legal opinion to the effect that, under the European convention on human rights, a council cannot insist that a developer must do that. I asked the Executive about that and was told that it has no information or legal advice in that regard. We all know that counsel's opinion can vary depending on which counsel you ask, so I think that we should examine this further. It is all very well having plans and ideas, but they are worthless if they cannot be implemented. We should ask the minister what is happening with the review and whether it would be possible to clarify that legal point.

Those seem like good questions.

We should also write to East Lothian Council to ask it to justify the 17 per cent figure for Haddington, which seems to be out of line with what local people and local elected representatives are saying.

Are members happy to follow the course of action that has been outlined? Should we contact somebody to find out further information about the housing market in general?

We have had that information from various agencies. However, I think that I read about the case that I was talking about in a report of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, so it might be worth asking it whether it believes that councils can insist that a certain proportion of a new development be used in a certain way.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I should point out that the issue is a problem across the country, not only in Haddington and East Lothian.

We always examine petitions in general terms across Scotland. Your petition highlights general issues about the housing market in Scotland, to which we will ask for responses from the minister.

---

Food Supplements (European Directive) (PE738)

Petition PE738, from Joanna Blythman and others, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the voices of consumers of vitamin and mineral supplements are heard as the European Commission prepares to set maximum permitted levels as part of the food supplements directive and to consider all options, including a derogation, that would allow Scottish consumers access to the vitamin and mineral potencies currently available.

Under the directive, the Commission has the power to amend the list of vitamins and minerals and set the minimum and maximum amounts that must appear on the label as recommended for daily consumption. Scottish ministers have powers to implement the instrument to be made by the Commission within two to three years and, in exercise of those powers, could seek a derogation from the Commission's directive.

When one of the petitioners previously petitioned the Parliament on this matter in December 2002, the petition was referred to the European and External Relations Committee, which published its "Report on Food Supplements and Traditional Herbal Medicine (A Report into Petition 584 by Mr Douglas Robison)" in March 2003.

In the Executive's response to the report, Malcolm Chisholm stated:

"I am firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements that are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed."

He went on to say:

"I will continue to press the case for maximum levels to be set according to the best scientific evidence."

Do members have any comments? Perhaps we could seek an update on the situation.

I was interested in this issue when the previous petition was submitted and I know that there has been a members' business debate on the matter. It would be useful if we could get an update on the European and External Affairs Committee's report on PE584. We should ask the Executive how it intends to go about consulting on and researching the subject of what the maximum permitted levels should be before it publishes its own statutory instruments. As a matter of courtesy, we should send a copy of this petition to the European and External Relations Committee.

Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Solicitors and Jurors (Freemasonry Membership) (PE739)

The next petition is PE739, by Hugh Sinclair, on behalf of the movement for a register of freemasons. The petition calls for the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that Scottish solicitors are required to declare membership of the freemasons in a register of declarations, to which members of the public have access, and that jurors are required to make similar declarations.

The issue of membership of the freemasons by the judiciary has been considered within the context of five previous petitions and was the subject of an inquiry by the Justice 2 Committee, in relation to PE306, by Thomas Minogue, between November 2000 and January 2003.

The petitioner suggests in PE739 that solicitors and jurors should be required to declare masonic membership—that was not considered in any detail by the Justice 2 Committee in its inquiry.

Do members have any opinions?

I seek clarification. The briefing note that we have confirms that the Justice 2 Committee did not address the question of solicitors and jurors' declarations. Did it address the question raised by PE731 about the fact that, for judges, the situation in England and Wales differs from that in Scotland?

No. PE731 was the most recent such petition that we discussed and it came after the Justice 2 Committee's report. We are still waiting on a reply to PE731.

Until we get a reply to PE731 there is not much else that we can do on PE739. The general issues are already being addressed; they have been addressed and, as we are waiting for a response on PE731, are still being addressed. I do not think that we can go any further on PE739.

But the Justice 2 Committee has not examined the issue of solicitors and jurors being required to declare their membership of the freemasons.

That is similar to the reason why we sent the previous petition to the Justice 2 Committee. There was an inquiry into freemasonry in the justice system, but not specifically on the issues raised in PE731 and PE739. PE731 specified judges and PE739 specifies solicitors and jurors. As we understand it, those issues were not specifically addressed in the Justice 2 Committee's report.

Have we referred PE731 to the Justice 2 Committee?

Yes.

Could we ask it also to consider the specific point raised in PE739? It could bracket the two together rather than have a fresh inquiry.

We have already done so. We spoke to the Justice 2 Committee clerks to clarify the matter before it came to the Public Petitions Committee, so that the committee did not have to do that.

Good. Thank you.

Where does that leave us?

There have been seven petitions on the issue. Until we have the answers to the previous petitions, we cannot go any further.

I was not on the Justice 2 Committee or the Public Petitions Committee when the inquiry was conducted, but my understanding is that the Justice 2 Committee in the previous Parliament conducted an extensive inquiry and arrived at a conclusion in respect of the justice system in Scotland as a whole, which clearly covers the separate issues of judges, solicitors and jurors raised within the petitions.

My understanding of the briefing note is that the Justice 2 Committee did not consider those issues in great detail. Nevertheless, the issues would have been encompassed by the inquiry. Unless there is fresh information, I would be disinclined to pursue the matter. I know that we have had seven petitions on the same subject, but the Justice 2 Committee held a major inquiry into the issue and came to the conclusion that nothing further should be done.

The only point that I remain unclear about relates to PE731. We have asked the Justice 2 Committee about PE731, which deals with a different issue, and we are awaiting a response on that, so PE731 is clearly out there and running.

Yes.

So what we do with PE739 does not have to bear any relationship to PE731.

That is right.

I cannot speak for the Justice 2 Committee, but given that it undertook an extensive inquiry into the issue in the previous parliamentary session, I cannot envisage either the Justice 1 Committee or the Justice 2 Committee investing a great deal of time in considering the matter further.

That is a fair point. We will await the outcome of the Justice 2 Committee's consideration of PE731. I am sure that we will bear it in mind that PE739 has also been before us when we receive that reply, and we can address that if necessary or appropriate when we get the reply on PE731.

I am sure that, when the Justice 2 Committee addressed PE306, it would have addressed the issues that its research uncovered and that led it to the view that there was no case to answer. I do not see any point in taking the matter further, to be honest.

No, we can leave the petition as it stands. We will do nothing with it, but will wait for the Justice 2 Committee's reply on PE731. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Dance Hall (PE742)

Our last new petition this morning is PE742, by Joyce Kinnear. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scotland has a national dance hall in Edinburgh. The petitioner's campaign for a dance hall in Edinburgh playing big-band music began in 1991 when Rank Leisure closed Scotland's last remaining dance halls. She argues that, despite a renewed interest in ballroom dancing, there are no facilities in Edinburgh for people who enjoy the activity but feel disengaged from tea dances and discos.

In a letter to the petitioner dated 20 November 2003, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Frank McAveety MSP, stated:

"As you may be aware responsibility for night entertainment in our cities and elsewhere is mainly that of the commercial sector … There have been changes in entertainment over the years and this has resulted in different approaches to audiences … I would hope that the commercial sector can still find an audience for such entertainment but it is not something that the public agencies would have as a priority."

What do members think?

The minister is right. It is not up to the Government or Government agencies to provide national entertainment in the way that the petitioner requests.

If it is not the Government's responsibility to do that, why do we have a national opera company, a national ballet company and other national cultural organisations? I understand the argument about the commercial viability of premises, which is the issue, but our cultural strategy includes the development of folk music, for example, so the petitioner's suggestion is not quite as bizarre as members might think.

The Government does not run the venues for those other organisations.

That is right. The Executive may not be able to support a national dance hall because of the commercial viability aspect, but where does ballroom dancing fit into other aspects of culture in Scotland?

I accept the analogy between dancing and opera, but we should not forget that, although we do not have an opera house in Scotland, opera continues. Dancing can continue without a dance hall—it can, I presume, continue in various other kinds of halls—and I do not see why there is a need for a dance hall as such. The activities clearly continue—there are ballroom dancing championships, for example—so there is nothing further that we can do with the petition, and I do not consider there to be any role for state intervention.

I take a slightly softer view, although I must confess that I have no interest in ballroom dancing. I suspect that the petition is less about a hall and more about encouraging access to ballroom dancing and about the fact that there are no facilities for it, whether a dance hall or some other kind of venue. We have a letter from the minister, but it seems to be in his guise as the MSP for Glasgow Shettleston, and I wonder whether we should write to the Executive and ask what it is doing to encourage a variety of forms of dance, rather than a dance hall. Although we accept that the provision of a dance hall is a commercial matter, a more general approach might be quite helpful.

That was the point that I was trying to make, although I was not as subtle as Jackie Baillie. Do members think that there is nothing that we can do because the matter will come down to whether any organisation wants to organise a dance hall? The petition calls specifically for a national venue in Edinburgh, which I do not think that the committee can ask for. However, generally there might be value in getting a response from the minister if only to get it on record whether the Executive has a view on the matter.

I will be guided by older members who remember ballroom dancing.

I was waiting for that.

That is why I am saying nothing.

I am not a great fan of ballroom dancing either, but it has managed to exist for many years without a national dance arena. It should be up to the commercial sector to provide such an arena. If the committee is desperate to write to the minister to burden him with such problems at a time when he has Scottish Opera and other matters to consider, that is fine.

Put that way, if the member is proposing an alternative, I am happy to go with his wisdom and experience, which comes with age.

Perhaps we should suggest to the minister that we should have compulsory dance as part of the Executive's on-going fitness programme.

All right. Stop.

I do not think that the petitioner addresses that issue. We have to be serious about what we do with the petition. The petition is asking for a national facility based in Edinburgh, which I do not think that we can ask for. However, when petitions have raised issues, we have sought information from the relevant minister for no reason other than to ensure that we have addressed the wider concerns. It might be worth while knowing what the cultural strategy envisages in relation to the issue that the petition raises, if indeed it envisages anything at all.

As I have some knowledge of the national cultural strategy, I can say with certainty that ballroom dancing does not feature in it, although dance clearly does. I have no objection to writing to Frank McAveety, but it seems that the reply that he gave in November last year on his constituency notepaper would be the same as a response written on ministerial notepaper. It might be interesting to hear where ballroom dancing fits into the Executive's strategy for dance.

The wording of the petition is specific. I wonder whether Mrs Kinnear feels that there is nowhere in Edinburgh to go ballroom dancing.

I have spoken to the petitioner and I know that, although she wants the dance centre to be in Edinburgh, the petition is about the lack of facilities in Scotland.

I see.

I just want to put it on record that I am more of a "Saturday Night Fever" man.

I am filled with horror.

It was a long time ago, Linda.

The petitioner is asking for a national dance hall to be established in Edinburgh, which is not going to happen, certainly in the terms that she suggests. However, as Mike Watson said, we could write to the minister to ask where other forms of dancing fit into the overall Executive dance strategy.

It might be useful for the petitioner to know that as she might not have that information. Getting that information might be the only thing that we can do. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We generally take a break after dealing with new petitions. Do members want to make progress or take a five-minute break?

We should make progress.