Public Petitions Committee, 26 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Seagulls (Health and Safety Hazards) (PE616)

Under the next item, we will discuss a series of petitions. At our first meeting, last week, we were asked to discuss the status of current petitions—petitions that have been in the system for a while. We wanted to address the progress or otherwise through the system of petitions that the previous committee considered.

The first current petition is PE616, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate and assess the health and safety hazards that seagulls in urban areas cause. At its meeting in late November 2006, the committee agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the findings of the research that the Scottish Executive commissioned from the University of Stirling. Members will note that no further comments from the petitioner have been received. Do members agree to note the research evidence that has been produced and to close consideration of the petition?

I am happy with that.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Disabled People (Local Transport) (PE695)

The next petition is PE695, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local authorities make affordable and accessible local transport available to disabled people who cannot use public transport and to provide ring-fenced funding to local authorities and/or community groups to provide dial-a-ride projects for that purpose. At its meeting in late November 2006, the committee agreed to seek the petitioner's views on a response from the Minister for Transport. The petitioner's response has been circulated to committee members. Do members have views on how to proceed?

I understand that new legislation allows people who are disabled in various communities to call a number—to dial a bus, as it were—and be picked up. That relates particularly to people who are seriously disadvantaged—people who need wheelchair access and all the rest of it. I have a couple of those services in my constituency. A new and useful facility has been introduced.

The Equal Opportunities Committee has pursued such issues rigorously and I think that it wants to continue to review and monitor the action that the Executive takes. The key issue is the difficult question of combining parliamentary and ministerial guidance, if not legislation, with local authorities' rights to determine how to allocate the resources that are made available to them. That is always contentious. How do we wish to deal with the petition?

Could we copy the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for its information, then close the petition, rather than keep it live? Copying the petition would mean that that committee was aware of the issues that are out there, which I am sure it will continue to scrutinise.

I am comfortable with that. Are other members comfortable with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)

The next petition is PE767 by Norman Dunning, on behalf of Enable. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review the operation of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. At its meeting in January 2007, the committee agreed, given the proximity of the election, to defer further consideration until after the election. Do members have any suggestions on how best to deal with the petition?

I have strong views on the subject. Enable's submission was compelling and powerful, because of its experience. It might be worth suggesting that the Justice Committee should consider the matter. It is one of those subjects with which, once we scratch the surface, we start to find that many things that should be done are not done. It is a shock to hear that inquiries make only recommendations, which do not have to be followed. I have dealt with constituents who have had issues that involved sudden death and I know that the failure of agencies to address sudden deaths through fatal accident inquiries is a big concern.

I agree. Now is probably an appropriate time to ask the Justice Committee to consider the petition, because all committees are formulating their work programmes.

We will encourage that committee to consider the subject while it is compiling its work programme; whether it will thank us for that is a different matter.

Are we comfortable with the suggestion?

As with the previous petition, can we copy PE767 to the Justice Committee? The subject is hugely emotive and it will probably come to that committee's attention. If we copy the petition, that committee will at least have a note of the petition while it considers its work programme.

Are we suggesting that we refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration then close the petition?

Yes.

---

Housing Stock Transfer (PE829)

The next petition is PE829, by Mrs Ann Ayre, on behalf of Carntyne Winget Residents Association. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the impact of housing stock transfer on Scottish communities. In December 2006, the committee agreed to seek further comments from the Minister for Communities. A response from that minister has been circulated to members, as has a further response from the petitioner, dated early May. The petitioner has also provided a detailed dossier of information, which is available in full from the clerk. The petitioner raises several continuing concerns. Do members have suggestions about how to deal with the petition?

Does the committee want to continue or to close consideration of the petition? It has been suggested that the matter could be discussed between the committee and the various housing associations.

I do not think that we could add much more to help resolve the situation that the petition describes.

The petitioner's letter says that a pilot has been undertaken to examine the housing stock. The issue is on-going and affects an area that is not in my constituency but which abuts my constituency. The scale of the pilot and its potential impact are a worry. The stock's long-term future is an issue for the residents association, the local authority, which has had a budget from Communities Scotland to disburse, and Glasgow Housing Association.

The recommendation is that we close consideration of the petition, given that some of the issues that have been raised are now part of the pilot study and discussion with the new Minister for Communities and Sport and his team.

I agree.

I am reluctant to close consideration of the petition—

I saw your face.

I am reluctant to close it given that issues are outstanding. My slight concern is that I am unsure what the petition asks us to do. Is the petition about the impact of stock transfer as a whole or particularly about Winget houses in the east end? Those houses present a particular problem, but a more general problem also exists.

I am reluctant to close the petition. Could we suggest that the Local Government and Communities Committee consider it? The previous Communities Committee's legacy paper suggested consideration of Glasgow housing stock transfer—that committee wanted at least to have a good look at the issue. Could the petition be part of such an inquiry?

We can do two things—that will depend on how curmudgeonly or helpful Tricia Marwick wants to be today. I hope that she is in a good mood.

I am always helpful, Mr McAveety.

We could close consideration of the petition but send the Local Government and Communities Committee a letter that recommends that it consider the outstanding issues that the petition raises. The petition is about a specific issue, but that is framed by the debate about the bigger principle of whether housing stock should be transferred. Those are two distinct points. Given the volume of petitions that we have, I suggest that we close the petition but make a recommendation to the Local Government and Communities Committee.

We can recommend that if that committee is examining—

If that committee were considering stock transfer, it would make sense to consider the anomaly that the petition raises. I am aware of that because, before I was elected to Parliament, I was a councillor for part of the area that is concerned. Whatever agency deals with that stock, the issue is always complex, because that stock's nature means that it requires careful handling. There are not many areas in which we could think about substantial demolition and reprovision. The community that we are talking about is quite cohesive and quite likes the housing, which would be good quality if it did not have structural problems.

Do we agree to close consideration of the petition and to recommend strongly to the Local Government and Communities Committee that making the petition part of any wider study into the impact of housing stock transfer might be useful?

Members indicated agreement.

I told you that I would be helpful.

Thank you very much, but we still have the rest of the agenda to do.

---

Ancient Woodland (PE858)

PE858 is from Andrew Fairbairn, on behalf of the Woodland Trust Scotland. Members have the papers in front of them.

In January 2007, the committee agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the responses received from the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Executive. The petitioner's response has been submitted and circulated to members. Are there any suggestions about how to deal with the petition?

From the summary of responses, it would appear that the petitioner is quite happy with the progress that has been made, so I wonder whether there is any need to carry on with the petition.

We can close this one with satisfaction, if that is agreed.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PE991)

PE991 is on the pingat jasa Malaysia medal campaign. Sandra White MSP is here for this item.

The briefing paper is self-explanatory. The petition is on behalf of the fight for the pingat jasa Malaysia medal campaign and calls on the Parliament to support the right of Scottish veterans to wear and display it. The committee last considered the petition at its meeting in March 2007. As the committee had received responses from the petitioner and the Cabinet Office only shortly before that meeting, it agreed to consider them in more detail before deciding on further action. I have also circulated the comments that Don Touhig MP made in the House of Commons in support of his early-day motion calling on the Government to make representations to the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals to overturn the decision.

Sandra, as you have taken the time to come to the meeting, do you wish to say anything at this juncture?

If committee members want to go first, I am happy to wait.

Given that you have made the effort to come to the committee, it would be helpful if you showed us your medals.

As long as I have permission to wear them.

I am sure that you have a few medals from Paisley and the west end.

Thank you. I congratulate you on your appointment as convener of the Public Petitions Committee. I also congratulate everyone who is a member of the committee, new and old; I am sure that they will enjoy the committee as much as I did when I was a member of it. It is a very interesting committee.

The chap who gave evidence about the bingo clubs used the word "mandarins", and that word is apt in this case, too. It is the mandarins who seem to be saying that a medal can be awarded to someone but that if they wear it, they will be being rude to the Queen.

Members will have read the papers and seen that the situation is convoluted. The fact is that 150 Scottish soldiers died during the Malaysia campaign of 50 years ago, the Malaysian Government thought that it would be right to award medals to the servicemen who served there, and they were proud to accept that medal.

The anomaly arises because other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, have allowed their servicemen the honour of wearing the medal but a British veteran serviceman cannot wear it because doing so would cause offence to the Queen. The issue is convoluted because, as it says in the papers, the veterans can wear the medal if they wish but they are not legally entitled to because of the offence that it could cause to the Queen. The veterans have written to the Queen and various mandarins, as we might call the Whitehall civil servants, and have been told that the letters were passed on but have not seen a response.

We are seeking permission for the servicemen to wear the medal. As the convener said, representations have also been made in the House of Commons and to the Queen. Jack Straw changed the rules slightly because, before 1968, they would have been able to wear the medal. There are mandarins at work in the civil service and someone has—to use a certain expression—taken the hump and decided that although the servicemen fought and 130-odd soldiers died, the rules are not going to be changed just to suit them. Other people, such as Queen's counsels, can wear the medal, so it is unfair that people who fought so valiantly that the Malaysian Government sought to present them with a medal—some laid down their lives—are not allowed by the British Government to wear it without causing offence to the Queen. I am here to back the servicemen and say that they should be allowed to wear their medal.

Thanks very much. Do members have any questions or comments?

Given the amount of nonsense that surrounds the issue, the petition makes me glad that I am unlikely ever to get an honour or a medal. The fact that the very brave people who have been awarded the medal are not allowed to wear it brings the system into disrepute, especially when we consider that the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Fiji have obtained the Queen's consent that the medal can be accepted for unrestricted wear. I just do not get why people in this country are not allowed to wear the medal.

The difficulty I have is that I do not know where we can go from here. We have probably done everything that we can do about the situation, which is disgraceful. Our predecessor committee wrote to the relevant bodies about it. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the right of Scottish veterans to wear the pingat jasa Malaysia medal. Individual members have done that, but I suggest that, in addition to closing the petition—as we must do—Sandra White, with the support of one or two other members, could lodge a motion, which as many members as possible should sign. If a majority of members of the Parliament sign the motion, it might be accepted that our view is that the veterans should be able to wear the medal, regardless of what Westminster might say on the issue.

Why are the veterans not allowed to wear the medal?

My understanding of the correspondence is that a series of formal requirements must be met, but the position is not clear.

As Tricia Marwick has mentioned, the difficulty for the committee is that we have taken the issue as far as our remit allows us to. Essentially, the matter is one for the body that makes decisions about the granting of honours, decorations and medals.

Among the papers, there is a page and a half on

"why eligible British recipients may exceptionally receive, but not wear, the medal."

The additional information in the papers might be helpful.

This is a hugely emotive subject, which highlights what I said earlier about our consideration of petitions that are not within our remit. People petition us in the hope that we will sort matters out. The petition that we are discussing relates to a reserved matter and should not have been considered by the Public Petitions Committee in the first place; it should have been referred on to the Westminster Parliament to deal with. If that had been done, the petition would have been given a wee bit more strength. I suggest that we do that now, somewhat belatedly, and close the petition.

We should close the petition regardless of the issue that you have raised, which we can explore at our away day and on which I expect that members might have differing strong views. Given the nature of the situation that we are in, it would be advisable to close the petition and to acknowledge Tricia Marwick's recommendation.

I should have declared an interest—I received deputy lieutenant recognition from Her Majesty.

I am saying nothing.

---

Abusive Parents (PE997)

PE997 was submitted by Peter Cox on behalf of the Mothers for Justice Campaign. Our papers explain the background to the petition, which makes a series of recommendations. At its meeting on 15 November 2006, the committee agreed to seek views from a variety of support agencies, including Scottish Women's Aid, Families Need Fathers Scotland, the Scottish Child Law Centre, the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland and Victim Support Scotland. The responses that were received are all contained in today's committee papers.

Do members have any suggestions on how best to deal with the petition, which has been in the system for a while? According to the background material, an individual who was directly affected by the issue made a powerful submission to our predecessor committee, which I know from speaking to its members had a profound impact on them—they said that it was one of the few petitions that shook them to their foundations. Any views from members would be much appreciated.

I read about the petitioner, but clearly the issue affects many families. One of the options is to support the call for the judiciary to have appropriate training, because abuse is a sensitive area. We should pursue that with the Scottish Executive and perhaps the Justice Committee to enforce the point that there is a need for proper training of the people who are involved in the justice side of the matter.

I will declare an interest, although I am not sure whether I should. I did some work for a women's aid organisation recently, so it is probably proper that I highlight that.

The petition raises a hugely difficult issue and needs more in-depth thought than we are able to give it. There are civil liberties issues but, way above and beyond those, there are also safety issues. I suggest that we pass it on to the Justice Committee and let it consider and research the matter.

Do you want the Justice Committee to consider all the points that the petitioner raised? I disagree with the emphasis of some of the responses that we have received. In some submissions, points a) to c) were swept to the side and point d) was elevated, whereas I think that elements of points a) to c) should be explored in far more detail. That is not the committee's strength, but it may be appropriate for the Justice Committee to explore the issues that the petition raises much further. Some of the assumptions that are made strike me as problematic, especially given the stuff that we have read.

I agree. It is obviously a hugely complex area. I sympathise hugely and want to support the petitioners but, when we unravel some of the specific issues, it becomes clear that there are difficulties. Like you, I felt that there was more to be unpicked on points a) to c). Awareness raising in the judiciary would not go amiss, but the complexities of the other issues are more important.

Do committee members agree that, because of what it proposes on the legal framework, we should refer the petition in its entirety to the Justice Committee with a very strong recommendation that it consider the matter?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Cheap Alcohol (Health) (PE1000)

The next petition is PE1000, which got great publicity. I declare an interest: it is from my former secondary school, which obviously has much more responsible teenagers now than when I was a pupil.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate the public health implications of cheaply available alcohol. The papers explain some of the background and there are strong recommendations about what we should do with the petition. There are two recommendations: that we refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee and that we bring it to the attention of Scotland's Futures Forum for its year-long study on the impact of alcohol and drugs in our wider communities.

The petition is hugely important, particularly because we saw horrifying statistics last week on alcohol-related deaths in Scotland. The Health and Sport Committee and the Futures Forum will want to consider the matter, so we should send them the evidence that we have gathered to date with a strong recommendation—which, I am sure, will be accepted—that they hold an investigation into it.

I can certainly take up the matter with the conveners of the Health and Sport Committee and the Justice Committee. I would be happy to try to find out which of those committees is the appropriate one to consider the petition, as a crossover issue is probably involved. Obviously, the Futures Forum can consider all the implications of cheaply available alcohol.

In the previous session, the Health Committee was interested in looking into alcohol abuse. I think that the Health and Sport Committee has a completely different membership, but it might want to progress this topical issue.

I shall ply the members of that committee with a couple of drinks—they might then be more amenable. That is fine. We should do what has been suggested.

The petition is a credit to the students who have been involved with it. It is not easy for teenagers to argue in their peer group about the easy accessibility and diminished costs of alcohol. The petition is commendable; it shows the youngsters' strength.

The clerk has advised me that I should clarify whether members want to leave it to me to determine the best committee to send the petition to. Whether the petition goes to the Justice Committee or the Health and Sport Committee, we will make a strong recommendation about its importance. Is the clerk happier now?

I am very happy.

Good. He is nearly breaking into a smile. That is a remarkable achievement.

---

Council Tax (Appeals) (PE1001)

PE1001, from Damian Pavillard, on council tax payments, will wipe the smile off your face. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to remove the requirement that appeals to a local valuation appeals committee against decisions that a local authority has made in relation to council tax payment be initiated within a two-month period. Members have copies of the relevant paper. Today, we have received an e-mail from Alex Fergusson MSP's office, on behalf of his constituent who lodged the petition.

Do members have any suggestions to make about how to deal with the petition? Are members comfortable with the recommendation that we ask the Scottish Executive to write to all local authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to include with bills information about the right to appeal, and that we seek clarification from the Executive and Dumfries and Galloway Council on whether such information is routinely included with demand notices and other relevant correspondence?

I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioner. There is an on-going saga. We may hear about the result of the meeting in September to which the e-mail refers, but it is difficult to know what we can do to help the petitioner.

Do members want to keep the petition open until we receive a response, or are they happy to request that the appropriate letters be sent and to close it?

We should close the petition.

I was going to say that we should keep it open.

Two different views have been expressed. Who thinks that we should close the petition?

Can we seek clarification with the petition closed, or do we have to keep it open in order to deal with the responses?

The petition could be closed and information could be sent to the petitioner, or it could be kept open, which would allow the petitioner's response to come back to the committee.

Do members have any views in the light of that critical piece of information?

The Executive has offered to write to all Scottish local authorities to remind them of their statutory duty to include information about the right to appeal along with council tax bills, if the committee would consider that to be useful. I think that the committee would consider that to be useful, so we should ask the Executive to do that and close the petition.

Do members agree that we should take the course of action that has been suggested and that the petition should be closed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999 (Revocation) (PE1003)

PE1003, from Sydney Johnson, is on Shetland shellfish—that is hard to say with a full set of teeth in. The petition, which is the penultimate petition on our agenda, calls on the Parliament to revoke the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999. Responses to it have been circulated to members.

Do members have any suggestions about how to deal with the petition? A recommendation for action has been made. The committee may wish to consider seeking an update from the Executive on its review of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation's approach to licensing and its review of the effectiveness of the order. Are members willing to take that approach and to close the petition? Such an approach would be similar to our approach to the previous petition. Are members comfortable with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

There is some late news coming into my left ear from the clerk, who says that we should maybe keep the petition open in case there is an update. The recommendation is that we should wait until we get the update and then make a decision on whether to close the petition. That might be one of our priorities for our first meeting after the recess. If we get an update, we can deal with the petition in one way or the other. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Animal Carcases (PE1004)

The next petition is PE1004, on the environmental impact of animal gasification plants, which was submitted by David Adam. The petition calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the environmental impact of animal gasification plants and to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has sufficient powers and resources to deal adequately with the environmental problems that are associated with burning and rendering animal carcases. The views of a series of organisations were sought, and the responses that we received have been circulated to members. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

It would be useful to seek an update from SEPA and the Executive on the review of SEPA's enforcement policy and guidance. Once we receive that, if we think that that does not go far enough, we might be able to refer the petition to another committee of the Parliament for consideration. The petition throws up some issues and I am not satisfied that all that can be done has been done. I think that we should keep the petition open and seek an update from SEPA and the Executive.

Are members happy with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our consideration of petitions.

I remind members that we are considering possible dates for our away day; I ask members to get back to us as soon as possible on that. The venue will probably be in Edinburgh. The festival will still be going on, and we will have an excuse to do something later if we have had a thorough away day. I am trying to make the away day Edinburgh based, which is a big concession for a Glaswegian such as me, but I am happy to do that.

We received a list of some of the petitions that we need to consider. Can we consider them at the away day, or do we have to do that in a public meeting? If we do it in a public meeting, can we look at the ones that we could refer quite quickly—

I will close the meeting formally and we can have that discussion off the record.

Meeting closed at 15:53.