Public Petitions Committee, 26 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

New Petitions

I welcome everyone to the 14th meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee. As we have no apologies from members of the committee, I will move straight on to the agenda.

I remind members that we have 18 petitions to consider this afternoon and that eight people have indicated that they wish to address the committee on those petitions.

Three additional MSPs will also speak at our meeting. I welcome Fiona Hyslop and we are expecting Brian Monteith and Jill Paterson—I mean Gil Paterson; I always get that wrong and he will fill me in one of these days. It is important that members of the committee keep their questions for petitioners brief and to the point.

I should explain to the petitioners that, because of the number of people who want to address the committee this afternoon, we will be strict in limiting speakers to a three-minute statement. After two and a half minutes, I will indicate that they have 30 seconds to wind up. We will then open up the discussion to questions from members.

The first petitioner is Louise Robertson. She will speak on petition PE262, which was submitted by the Save the Vale campaign.

Thank you. I was told in the letter that I was sent that I would have two minutes, so I should be well within my time.

In that case, you will have extra time.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak to our petition. We are here to represent the Save the Vale campaign—the vale being shorthand for the Vale of Leven district general hospital. We are proud that we can come to our own devolved Parliament in Edinburgh to make heard our voices on behalf of the huge majority of people in our area who expressed their concern at the prospect of reduced services at the hospital.

Our area is one of great natural beauty, but it has huge social problems in relation to unemployment and poverty. Our local authority has statistics that prove how massive the problems are in our area. We have the highest infant mortality rate and yet we are told that our maternity service must be cut. No longer can women expect to have their first-born at the Vale of Leven hospital. If there are complications with a birth, it will have to be carried out elsewhere. We are proud of our maternity unit and of the people who work in it. We expect our health service workers to be given proper training to ensure that they can provide local people with first-class health care in a local setting.

We also expect our elderly people to be able to look forward to receiving the care that they need in their own area from well-trained staff. We abhor the fact that so many people from our area have sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones in the geriatric unit and about what will happen to that unit.

We were told that the health service would take us from the cradle to the grave—because I was told that I had only two minutes, those are the only two areas on which I can touch.

We all know that good health is not just a matter of good medical care. We are part of the Argyll and Clyde Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. Often, when the Vale of Leven hospital is unable to provide the care that we need, we must go to Paisley for treatment. That might seem like a good idea to bureaucrats, but to people who live on a fixed, low income and who do not have their own transport, that can be a time of social isolation. Paisley is not far away as the crow flies, but it is on the other side of the River Clyde. Travelling on public transport from some of our housing schemes to the hospital in Paisley involves a round trip of two buses and six trains.

While we were out getting signatures for the petition, people who used the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley told us that the nurses and the rest of the staff were brilliant and that the food was okay. However, they did not know the other people in the wards and they felt a burden to their families, who took all day to come to visit them.

Our petition urges the Scottish Executive to provide proper funding for the health service, in order to ensure that jobs and services are not cut. We have never said that the Vale of Leven hospital was going to close, but we have been campaigning for a decentralised health service that is provided locally to meet local needs.

We are sure that all MSPs are well aware of the benefits of a devolved, decentralised Parliament. All we are asking for is the same for the people who need to use the services of the Vale of Leven hospital.

Thank you. That was spot on three minutes—well done.

Louise, you mentioned the fact that you have to travel to Paisley to use the RAH. I was interested in the lack of maternity care if the Vale of Leven hospital were to close. Has it been confirmed that people would have to travel through to the maternity unit at the RAH in Paisley?

We have been told that the service in Alexandria must be cut. People who are having their first child or who have complications at the birth will have to travel to Paisley.

I am ignorant about this hospital. How long has it existed as part of the community?

The Vale of Leven hospital has existed for about 50 years; it was built after the second world war. Because of the location of the area, it was built to withstand nuclear fallout.

Is the geriatric unit at the hospital still open?

Yes, but it is rundown. The trust says that it does not have the money to undertake the repairs.

How many elderly people are in the unit?

I am sorry, but I do not know.

Where will they go?

That is the problem—we do not know.

What do you know about the maternity unit? I know the Vale of Leven hospital well, as I was a union official who looked after the nurses there. Can you tell me about the number of births at the Vale of Leven maternity unit? Do you know if that number has decreased? Has there been a decline in population?

I think that the number probably has gone down, but I am not sure about the figures. I know that the unit does not reach the official targets that people say must be met for the hospital to be kept open.

Our point is that we must improve the services. West Dunbartonshire has the highest infant mortality rate in western Europe. We need maternity services and we should be improving existing maternity services in our area, rather than making cuts and sending people—the poorest people, who do not have cars—to Paisley, which is what the trust is talking about doing.

I was just asking you what you knew about the birth rate and so on.

I do not know what the figures are, although I know that they are falling. Perhaps one of my colleagues knows. [Interruption.] No—we are not sure about the figures.

Your petition mentions proposals to cut jobs. How did you come to know about those proposals?

There was a leak to the press about a review that was taking place in the trust, which was talking about centralising a lot of the health services. We learned about the situation through that leak.

Have the trust or the health board conducted a formal consultation procedure in the hospital?

The consultation process is continuing, but the tune keeps changing. We are not sure what is happening. We are told one thing but, when we then hold public meetings, we hear another.

Have you seen a consultation document on the issue?

No.

Who has been consulted? Was it the unions, the staff and the public?

As far as I am aware, the public have not been fully consulted. We have invited officials to attend public meetings. They have come along and answered questions, but they have not asked us what we want to be put in place.

Thank you. We have heard from the petitioner and members will have read the suggested action. The petition asks the Scottish Executive to provide funding to the national health service to ensure that the area served by the Vale of Leven hospital has the health care that it deserves. We have a copy of a press release from the Scottish Executive, indicating the extra resources that it has allocated to the health service. The suggestion is that we send the petition to Susan Deacon, asking her to contact the petitioners directly.

What are real-time increases? The press release says "real term increases". Which term is correct and what do they mean?

We will have to raise that with the Executive.

I am referring to the bit that has been picked out in the petition. If it is inexplicable, it should not be here.

I think that real increases are increases over and above inflation, rather than increases that simply match inflation in the health service.

I agree that we should send the petition to the Executive. Could we ask the minister to find out what consultation the health board or trust had with local people?

Yes. I am sure that we could do that.

I may not have followed the matter carefully enough. I would like to know what the specific proposals mentioned in the letter are. There were proposals regarding maternity, but I would like to know about specific proposals on the maternity unit and the geriatric unit. The information seems to have leaked out.

Are you suggesting that we ask the Executive for confirmation of the specific proposals for the maternity unit and the geriatric unit and for information on the consultation procedure so far?

Yes.

Okay.

There is a big debate about the Argyll and Clyde Health Board and the Royal Alexandra hospital in relation to the provision of maternity services. What are the criteria for a maternity service? It would be useful to know how that relates to provision in the Vale of Leven.

We could extend that to include criteria for geriatric units. The goal is to keep older people in their communities. The three points are criteria, specific proposals and consultation.

We will refer the petition to the Executive and ask it to address the specific proposals for maternity and geriatric provision at the Vale of Leven hospital, the criteria for continuing the present level of service and what consultation had been carried out on any changes proposed by the health trust. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE263 is from Ms Joan Higginson. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to investigate the handling of the issues raised in previous petitions on the construction of the A701. Mr James Thompson and Mr John Moore have come to speak in support of the petition. [Interruption.] I have been told that only Mr Moore will speak as Mr Thompson has had to leave.

Sarah Boyack's decision on the planning application for the A701 is flawed and could lead to serious doubts about the planning process on the ground that Midlothian Council and members of the Scottish Executive could be seen to have manipulated the planning process to suit their own ends.

The No Alignment Action Group has obtained evidence that shows that, from the outset, Midlothian Council's intention was to avoid a planning inquiry. To that end, Midlothian Council submitted the planning application over Christmas in 1998, to minimise the public response. That failed, as there were 440 objections and three petitions were submitted, containing 266 names. The decision to pass back the application to Midlothian Council before the Midlothian local plan was released has effectively compromised the local people, who have not been given a fair hearing.

When answering parliamentary questions on the landfill site, Sarah Boyack said that no letters of objection had been received detailing geological problems or contamination of the Clippens landfill site. She also stated that there was no suggestion in the environmental subscription of any instability problems. However, NIAG has documents to show that Midlothian Council and the Scottish Executive knew about the difficulties and instability problems. Surely Sarah Boyack should have received that information. If she did not, why not?

The lost petition is now being resubmitted as part of the evidence against Sarah Boyack's statements. It is apparent from the desk-based study that the figure of £18.5 million is not a true estimate of the cost of the new road. That supports NIAG's suggestion that information was hidden and safety compromised to suit the needs of Midlothian Council. The desk-based study, which used old reports and further testing on the site, was carried out only after consultation on the planning application was completed. The details of the further study have never been made public.

Finally, the switch from the private finance initiative after the submission of the application to the Scottish Executive also proves that decisions had already been made, not only on the road, but on the sale of school buildings to pay for the road. That decision was made in late November 1999, which also shows a deliberate fudging of the facts on the road and the academy that was planned for Dalkeith.

Consultation in Dalkeith has also been compromised by Midlothian Council, which knew before it consulted the local people that the back-room decisions had already been made. The cost of the road compromises many factors, including health, safety, the environment and the education of people in Midlothian. We have a right to a fair hearing and a say in our future.

Thanks very much.

Was any response received from the Executive or the minister to the earlier petitions in the campaign?

I cannot answer that without looking through a lot of documentation. The main expert on this subject went on holiday today; she wrote this submission for us last night. I have copies of some of the parliamentary questions and the replies to them, which may provide you with the details.

After the petitions were sent to the minister, did any correspondence come back from the minister or the Executive to the campaigners?

When the petition was submitted initially, we received a reply from the Executive, stating that this was a serious matter and that the petition had been presented to the ministers. We heard nothing further; the petition got lost.

As there are no further questions, I thank Mr Moore.

The petitions initially came before this committee just before the Executive made its decision; it was agreed that the petitions be brought directly to the minister's attention. The clerk was assured that the request would be considered by the ministers and that this committee and the petitioners would be notified of the outcome. That does not seem to have happened. [Interruption.] I am advised that the petitioners were informed of the outcome, but the impact of the petitions on the Executive's decision was not clarified, either to the petitioners or to us.

The suggested action is that I write to the minister, seeking confirmation that the two earlier petitions were taken into account as part of the consultation process and asking the Minister for Transport and the Environment to provide responses to the other questions that have been raised by the petitioners in relation to the Executive's handling of the matter. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do you mean the Executive's handling of this issue, or its handling of the petitions?

Both. The paper from Joan Higginson contains a series of questions to which we should seek a response. The issue concerns not only why the original petitions were not taken into consideration, but the handling of the process.

The next petition, PE264, is from Mr J S Morrison, on behalf of the Scottish Private Investigators Forum. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to pass a private investigators registration bill. Mr Morrison is here to speak to this petition.

Good afternoon. I have brought my colleague, Mr Grant, with me.

The Scottish Private Investigators Forum, which I represent, was formed by members of the Institute of Professional Investigators and the Association of British Investigators as a result of the UK Government's proposals for regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales. Our chairman, Mr John Grant, who is a fellow of the institute, responded on behalf of the IPI; the Home Office is considering his report. A copy of that report was sent to Trevor Lodge, the head of branch at the Scottish Executive justice department, along with the recommendation that any similar legislation that was proposed for Scotland should be incorporated exclusively in a Scottish bill.

The Scottish Parliament is responsible for law and order in Scotland. It operates a separate legal system from that of England and Wales and is better placed to legislate in the interests of its citizens. Failing to recognise that and simply enacting the terms of an English and Welsh bill would result in problems. There is also a need for a private investigators bill that is separate from security legislation, to avoid problems and unnecessary expense and to ensure sound administration for the investigative profession—which is a completely separate entity. We need a statutory control bill that will enable the profession to self-regulate through an elected registration council, which would issue licences—or, preferably, certificates of practice—that could be withdrawn if necessary after any disciplinary hearing.

Provision of education and training must be made through the Institute of Professional Investigators and the Association of British Investigators to ensure a high standard for all practitioners and to safeguard the public, commerce and government. We need to ensure a level playing field, so that all individuals who undertake investigations—including media investigative journalists and insurance, fire and forensic investigators—are subject to the same legislation. Allowance should be made for other investigators who are licensed or controlled by countries outside Scotland—for example, England, Wales and other European Union countries—to conduct investigations in Scotland on a reciprocal basis.

The human right of an investigator to continue to practise his profession should be protected, as well as that of the client or clients who require his assistance to obtain evidence in the interests of justice. We must also ensure the protection of the Scottish Parliament against unnecessary and impractical bureaucratic regulations emanating from the European Union. Finally, it must be recognised that, over the years, we have received considerable support from members of Parliament, the judiciary, the police and the Law Society of Scotland.

Thanks, Mr Morrison. Do members have any questions?

What vocations does the Association of British Investigators cover?

It covers a wide and varied area. For example, security consultants who conduct security surveys on premises come under the heading of investigators. It covers all kinds of investigators who conduct sensitive and confidential investigations, as well as other members of the industry and the obvious commercial investigators who work on cases of vast thefts from factories, for example.

We tend to fulfil the role in the civil courts that the police would fulfil in the criminal courts. In various cases, we obtain evidence that is put before the civil courts.

What qualifications do you require?

One must have special training in current law and in the techniques of interviewing, taking statements and investigation generally. Special standards have to be created.

The problem at the moment is that there are no standards—anyone can start up as an investigator, and then fleece the public. People can claim that they are investigators despite the fact that they have had no training and are not members of any of the recognised professional bodies. That is why we are seeking new legislation.

But there is no recognised qualification.

It is not mandatory to have it, but membership of the Association of British Investigators or the Institute of Professional Investigators is recognised. The institute is working with various Government authorities to provide a national vocational qualification in investigation, so there will be a recognised qualification.

In the papers that came with your petition, you say that the Scottish Executive will issue a consultation paper later this year that will deal with these matters. Why then bring the petition? Why not simply respond to the consultation paper?

The petition is designed to focus on a specific area—private investigators—whereas the consultation is about the security industry in general, as was the Westminster consultation. Investigators were tagged on at the end as an afterthought.

Would it be fair to call this a pre-emptive move to ensure that the consultation paper addresses that point?

Indeed.

You make a persuasive case as to why there should be registration of investigators. Can you give us some more information about the bad practices that exist?

There is an awful lot of bad practice. One of our main concerns is that people are taking advantage of the public. If members look in Yellow Pages, they will see about 30 firms in Edinburgh—but they are not the same every year. There are a few regulars, which are the recognised firms, but there are others that are fleecing the public by claiming that they can do things that they cannot. They make up and submit false reports. We have even had cases of false reports, made up by fraudulent investigators, which have been submitted to the Legal Aid Board. Some people will say anything for a fee; we are seeking to protect the public from that.

You said that it would be advantageous to have qualifications, but that it was not necessary to have any qualifications whatever.

Absolutely none. Somebody could come out of prison tomorrow and start up as a private investigator, just like that.

That is obviously a worry. On the front page of your submission, you mention that the Home Office intends to introduce legislation. Do you have a date for that?

No, we do not. However, the Home Office has been kind enough to place us on its consultative list.

Thank you very much for coming to the committee.

Thank you, convener. I have given some supporting documents to the clerk, which are part of our file.

That is very useful.

The suggested action for the petition is to pass it to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—who is responsible for the consultation paper that will come out later this year—to draw the views of the petitioner to his attention, and to ask for his response. Once he responds, we can consider further action.

We should also draw the minister's attention to the Official Report of this meeting and to the points that were raised by the petitioner—particularly the fact that the petition was a pre-emptive move because the petitioner was worried that the issue would just be tagged on to the end of the consultation. That would be fair to the petitioner.

I will certainly draw the minister's attention to the Official Report.

Members indicated agreement.

Should the petition also be passed to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for it to note?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Mr George McAulay on behalf of the UK Men's Movement. The petition calls for the Parliament to take various actions in relation to false rape allegations, including creating a new crime of false rape allegation.

As well as George McAulay, two MSPs have indicated a desire to address the committee. Brian Monteith will speak in support of the petition. Gil Paterson will also speak—I do not know whether in support of or against the petition, but we will find out eventually. The same rules apply to you, Mr McAulay, as to everyone else. You have three minutes to speak.

Do members of the committee have my petition and a copy of the evidence?

Members have all the papers.

Ladies and gentlemen, some of you may know me. I suspect that those who do will tend not to like me; I see Sandra White nodding in agreement. I am used to that. I am asking members of the committee to do what Nicholas Fairbairn did. Mr Fairbairn was a Tory. He was instinctively pro hanging, but he voted consistently against it, to his political cost. He did that because he was an experienced political lawyer—a Queen's counsel—who knew that innocent people would be hanged if hanging were reintroduced. He had the courage to rise above his emotional comfort zone and prejudices and to base his decisions on fact. I am asking the committee to do that today.

False rape accusation is a vicious and evil crime. It is utterly malicious. We want to extend the anonymity that is currently given to accusers to men who are accused. Last year in Ayr there was a case in which a young man was stigmatised by a false accusation. His accuser got four months' probation and the young man, Stephen McLaughlin, hanged himself. If members do not think that anonymity should be extended to the accused, they should give their reasons for that to Mrs McLaughlin, not to me.

Our other request is that a register of false rape accusers should be kept. That is sensible. The useful register of sex offenders has been instrumental in saving a great deal of police time and bringing some individuals to justice. A similar register should be instituted for those who make false rape accusations.

A neutral study should be carried out of all rape allegations from the moment of complaint to the moment of judgment or the dropping of the complaint. That will provide us with proper scientific evidence of the extent of false rape accusation, as well as of how many men are guilty but are evading the criminal justice system.

Our most controversial proposal is for the creation of a new crime of false rape allegation that would carry sentences commensurate with that which the victim of a false and malicious accuser would have received had he been found guilty. If members think that that is draconian, they should consider the effect of false rape accusation on the man concerned, his family and his children. We are asking members to go against the tide of populist fervour on the issue, to put aside their ideological viewpoints and to act on the evidence. Members may find me gritty, rude, abrasive and unpleasant, but allow me to be the bit of grit in the parliamentary oyster that produces the pearl of justice.

Thank you very much. Before I take questions from members, would Brian Monteith or Gil Paterson like to make brief statements to the committee?

I would be happy to make my statement now. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Until Mr McAulay wrote to me—as he did to a large number of, if not all, MSPs—I had not been aware of the issue of false rape accusation. Rape is an appalling crime, and I share the concerns of many of my colleagues about ensuring that any changes in the law do not diminish the status of rape as a crime that appals us. Neither do I seek any changes in the law that would reduce the possibility of convictions for rapists. However, given that we regard rape as such an awful crime—worse than nearly every other crime—making a false accusation of rape must by definition be a particularly heinous offence.

In supporting Mr McAulay's petition, I am merely calling for his evidence and any other evidence—including evidence that refutes his evidence—to be heard, so that some consideration can be given to whether changes to the law are necessary.

A number of questions need to be asked. For example, are current laws on perjury and wasting of police time adequate for dealing with the offence that Mr McAulay raises? Is the sentencing for those crimes adequate or appropriate? Would anonymity of the accused in rape cases go any way to prevent the offence of false accusation from taking place in the first place?

Those are the sort of questions that could usefully be explored in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which is the appropriate body to deal with the evidence. I hope that the Public Petitions Committee might forward the petition for consideration by that committee.

We have laws in place to deal with false allegation. Judges have available to them a full range of penalties. Why single out rape as a special case, especially when reporting of and conviction for rape is low in comparison to other crimes?

All the evidence suggests that people are reluctant to report rape. There are many reasons for that. If we make a peculiar law for false allegation of rape, it would be an enormous barrier to people who wish to report rape. People might assume that if they made an accusation of rape, if the case went to trial and if the judge or jury decided not to convict, there would be a penalty. A rape may in fact have taken place, but it might be difficult to prove it.

If such a peculiar law on rape was implemented, what would effectively happen is that a judgment would be made on an innocent person. That may be before the fact, but the evidence clearly suggests that people are under pressure not to make the complaint of rape.

Can I respond to any of those points?

To explain the position, the two MSPs who have just spoken asked to address the committee on the subject. Committee members will now question you on your contribution, then the committee will discuss the merits or demerits of the petition.

Do you have any statistics on what you say are false rape allegations?

No. You will notice that one of the submissions that we have made is that a neutral study should be undertaken. We are not salaried. We do not have the resources that the women's movement has, but we have a considerable body of—

What do you believe the statistics to be?

I have an opinion, which may or may not be accurate. There are women who do not report rapes. I would wish women to report rape, as it is a filthy crime, which should be punished seriously. However, it is equally vile to inflict—

I have heard what you have to say, but if it is okay with you, I want to ask you a few questions now.

Have you seen the report from the US Department of Justice, commissioned by Janet Reno, the Attorney General?

If we can move on to—

You asked me whether I had statistics. I do have some, but not for this country. The US Department of Justice investigated a sample of cases and applied retrospective DNA testing to them. It concluded that almost a third of the men accused of rape were not guilty and that the judicial system had been skewed by political and social pressures to arrive at convictions. I would contend that that is extremely dangerous, not only for men and their families but for society in general.

We have some reports, which we have submitted to the committee—

All that information has been circulated to all members of the committee.

In that case, I do not understand why Pauline McNeill asked me the question.

I was interested to know whether you had any statistics on—

This is one of our submissions: we want a neutral, proper, scientific study to be undertaken. If I am wrong in the matter, I will hold my hands up and admit it.

In your opinion, how do you suppose that it is possible to distinguish between a false accusation and a trial in which there has not been enough evidence? Gil Paterson has already pointed out that—

Yes, I have pointed that out as well.

If I could finish—Gil Paterson has already pointed out that the problem with the crime of rape is the very low conviction rate. It is that low conviction rate which means that women do not come forward to report rape, because they do not have confidence in the current system.

First and foremost, the low conviction rate does not necessarily indicate that prosecutions are false; it might indicate a spate of false allegations. That may be a pretty biased standpoint, but that is why we want investigation.

A not guilty verdict by no means indicates that a woman who makes the accusation will face charges of malicious allegation. It may be a case of mistaken identity, as occurred in a third of the cases that were investigated in the US; it may be because of a grey area of the law; or it may indeed be the case that a guilty man has gone free, which I would regret as much as—

What I was specifically wanting to know—if you are able to answer this—was how you can distinguish between a false accusation and there not being enough evidence for a conviction. Do you think that that is possible?

Absolutely. A not guilty verdict means only that the Crown has failed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. For a woman to be convicted of false accusation of rape, the Crown would have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. The mechanisms by which the Crown could do so could include confession—as in the cases of Wendy McClung and of Eilidh Connell, who caused the death of Mr McLaughlin—skilful interrogation, or physical evidence proving impossibility. For example, there was a case at Butlin's a couple of—

Can we be careful, please: we must be careful about individual cases.

Those cases are well documented; I understand the laws of libel.

We are not protected in the same way that the Westminster Parliament is.

Thank you for pointing that out.

You could be subject to legal action for things that you say here, so you must be careful.

I understand that, and thank you for looking after my interests.

My interests as well—I would have allowed it to happen. We are simply trying to obtain information on which to base our judgment.

I want to clarify that you are making a distinction between a not guilty or not proven verdict and perjury.

Could you clarify your question, please?

Are you focusing on cases in which the woman has been found guilty of perjury in a trial?

That is one of the areas that we are focusing on.

I am asking specifically whether we are considering perjury, which is a clear case of not telling the truth while under oath, and—clearly distinct from that and another matter entirely—a not guilty or not proven verdict.

I am still not quite clear about what you mean.

People can be found not guilty or the case can be not proven for want of sufficient evidence. Perjury is very clear: it means that the accuser has been found by the court to be telling lies. Are you focusing on cases of perjury or on the whole gamut—not guilty, not proven and perjury?

On the whole gamut—but I repeat that the safeguards must exist, and that a not guilty or not proven verdict by no means indicates that the woman has made a false and malicious allegation. It would be up to the investigative authorities to decide whether the allegation had been malicious before they took any action. That would be subject to the same burden of proof—

Can I be clear that, after a trial, which has disposed of a case, you want a further investigation into the evidence in that trial?

Only if it comes out in the trial that a malicious allegation was made. Many of the malicious allegations never get to trial. We would want a further investigation only if it was perfectly clear on the evidence offered, for example, perjured testimony or physical evidence, that there was a malicious allegation, should a woman be charged with—

Does not the law on perjury already deal with that?

Not adequately. We have found that there is a lack of political will among fiscals and the judiciary in general to prosecute for this crime. I suggest that that does no favours to women who are genuinely victims of rape, because every false allegation plants a seed of doubt in the mind of the jury with the result that a real rapist may escape justice.

I remind members that we are asking questions now; we are not debating the matter.

Are you saying that in any rape case the accused man should remain anonymous?

Only until found guilty.

You say that false rape claims may be made for

"advantage in marital disputes now that prosecutions are made for rape in marriage."

What do you mean by that?

We were approached by Johnstone Stallard, who was the first victim of the false allegation of rape within marriage. Unfortunately, it was one of my old commanding officers, the fiscal at Dumbarton, who prosecuted him. Allegations were made twice against Mr Stallard, but the prosecutions failed. If an allegation of rape, domestic violence, or any form of abuse is made against a man in marital proceedings, it is game, set and match to the wife, regardless of any rights or wrongs, because the court will immediately—

I think that you are giving an opinion—I have heard enough.

The court will immediately award interim custody to the woman. It is very dangerous to have such a crime.

Thank you, Mr McAulay. As there are no further questions, we will move to consideration of the petition.

It is up to us what we decide to do. We can decide to take no further action or to copy the petition to the Minister for Justice, and to ask him whether there are any proposals in this area. We should distinguish between the issue of the false allegation of rape and the radical proposals that are contained in the petition. We could ask what, if anything, the Executive plans to do in this area before we decide what we do with the petition.

I do not believe that we should burden the minister with the petition.

I think that there is an interesting general issue relating to press regulation and the naming of people who are accused. The minister may be able to tell us of any policy moves in that area.

I support Christine Grahame. It would be worth passing the petition to the minister and writing to him on that basis.

I agree with John Scott that we should do nothing further with the petition.

I will try to take an objective view of the petition. The difficulty with Christine Grahame's suggestion is that we could not refer the petition to the minister because there is no prospect of our turning Scots law upside down so that one would examine the evidence at the end of a trial. There are perjury laws, whose adequacy could be examined.

The issue of anonymity could be considered. That would have to be extended to all accused persons who are innocent until proved guilty. I do not know how that issue could be picked out of the petition.

That is the only issue which I would like to take up.

It would be possible to seek the views of the Minister for Justice on the suggestion that people should be anonymous until proved guilty and should be protected from the press.

What is the current position?

I do not know.

I do not want to express an opinion; I want to provide information. It is my understanding that, in Scotland, the anonymity granted to the victim in rape cases is not a legal regulation but an observance by the press. That is quite different from the position in England, where it is law. You might want to clarify that point first, as it would be germane to the discussion. Were a law to be brought in to give the accused the right to anonymity, it would be absurd not to have a law in relation to the victim.

Is it the committee's view that the issue that we should now raise with the minister in response to the petition is clarification of the legal position in relation to the anonymity of the victim and the accused in rape cases?

We should seek clarification, but I do not believe that we should take the petition any further.

Other than seeking clarification on the matter of anonymity, is it the committee's view that we should take no further action on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE269, is from James Nixon, who calls for the Scottish Parliament to repeal sections of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 regarding religious beliefs in the employment of teachers.

Equal opportunities and social inclusion have been the bywords of the Scottish Parliament since its foundation. Members of the Parliament have gone out of their way—often against media-led public opinion—to stress that the new Scotland must be free from discrimination and that genuine equal opportunity should exist for everyone in our society. However, the Scottish Parliament is responsible for the continuation of institutionalised religious discrimination against a majority of Scotland's teachers because of its failure to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which gives denominational bodies the right to issue certificates of approval based solely on adherence to a particular religious denomination. Such certificates are a prerequisite of employment by public bodies, that is, local authorities.

My current employer, Glasgow City Council, claims to be an equal opportunities employer and states that all applicants for teaching posts will receive equal treatment irrespective of race, colour, disability, age, sex or religion. However, of the 20 jobs advertised in an internal newsletter dated 22 August, teachers who did not possess a certificate could apply for only 12, while their colleagues who had a certificate could apply for all 20. Equal opportunities clearly do not exist in that situation. It is in pursuit of that fundamental human right that I invite the Public Petitions Committee to consider my petition on ending religious discrimination in the employment of teachers.

As can be seen from my submission, I have been a primary school teacher for almost 30 years. Throughout that time, I have made several attempts to have the matter considered by responsible authorities. On each of the previous occasions, the official response has been that, in the absence of any legislation relating to religious discrimination, the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 and all subsequent education acts legitimised the practice. I believe that the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law from 2 October 2000 will mean that there will be in place legislation that prohibits religious discrimination. That being the case, I call on the Scottish Parliament to amend section 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and establish genuine equality for all Scotland's primary school teachers.

The Education (Scotland) Act 1918 appears to give all denominational groups and faiths the right to establish separate school systems and to have them maintained by local authorities. Unless amended, the 1980 act gives each of those groups equal rights to discriminate in the employment of teachers. Such a fragmentation is undesirable and, in the interests of the genuine equality and social inclusion policies put forward by the Scottish Parliament, I call on the Scottish Parliament to merge the existing school systems in such a way as to maintain the strengths of each while overcoming the anxieties of those who might see that as an attack on their rights.

This morning, on a news broadcast, Mo Mowlam, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, stated that her biggest regret in the job that she had done there was not to have pushed for an integrated school system.

Thank you, Mr Nixon. Do members have questions for the witness?

Are there special Jewish or Muslim schools in Scotland at the moment?

To the best of my knowledge, in Glasgow—where I work—there is one Jewish school. Throughout Scotland there are one or two Episcopal Church schools. Most of the other Church schools tend to be in west central Scotland. As far as I know, there are no Muslim schools. However, I believe that Muslim groups are campaigning and petitioning for separate schools.

Is there special provision in Jewish schools for people of the Jewish faith to teach? My question is just for information—I am not taking a view on this issue.

The 1918 act is worded so as to give the religious authorities in denominational schools the right to administer a certificate of approval for staff working in those schools. In west central Scotland such schools tend to be for a particular religious denomination, which issues certificates. When I started teaching, posts in the primary sector for which certificates were required were promoted posts—posts with authority, where guidance was involved. Now, as members can see from the information that I have submitted, all primary school posts require a certificate, even posts that are filled on a temporary supply basis.

Are you in a teachers union?

Yes. I am a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland.

Has the EIS received advice on whether what you are describing contravenes the European convention on human rights?

As far as I know, the EIS is looking into that at the moment. Until the convention comes into effect on 2 October, the EIS believes that there are no grounds for my claiming religious discrimination, as there is no legislation that deals with that. I argue that such legislation will be in place next week.

So the EIS will take a view on this issue in the near future?

Yes.

Supposing that the restrictions on the recruitment of teachers to denominational and non-denominational schools were lifted, so that a non-Catholic teacher could legitimately apply for a post in a Catholic school, would you still call for an end to separate denominational and non-denominational schools?

If we want our society to be totally inclusive, we must find a way of doing that. That was the second part of my petition.

So your petition is really calling for an end to the denominational system of education. There are two separate issues here.

There are two separate issues. I have here an internal newsletter from the City of Glasgow Council. I can pinpoint 20 jobs that are available for primary school teachers, but I can apply for only 12 of them. That is a personal issue.

Supposing the restriction were removed and you could apply for those jobs, would you still call for an end to the denominational and non-denominational school system?

I think that the way ahead for education is to have multidenominational or multifaith schools. I do not know how that will come about, because it will take people in your esteemed position to do it. This is a matter of Scots law and it is for the Scottish Parliament, rather than a mere primary school teacher, to deal with it. However, I believe that social inclusion is the way forward.

I am trying to pin down what your petition is about. Which article of the ECHR do you claim this policy contravenes?

I believe that it may be in breach of article 14, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, practice and belief.

What do you think the Catholic community's response to your petition might be?

You seem to think that these are two separate issues. I did not use the word Catholic, but the word denominational.

Is not that what you meant? I apologise if it is not.

I imagine that now that the denominational authorities have pushed for all primary school teachers to hold a certificate of approval, they might be uncomfortable if that power of approval were lifted. I think that they would be unhappy with that initially.

I do not know how those authorities would feel about totally integrated schools, because I believe that multidenominational schools exist outside west central Scotland and the major cities. Denominational and non-denominational schools run side by side only in certain areas of Scotland.

I have said several times that I believe that the way forward may be for all children to be educated together. In my view, that would reflect the justice and fairness of the new Scotland that we hear about.

I want to ask you about the letter that you received, via Janis Hughes, from Sam Galbraith.

In that letter, Mr Galbraith says that the matter

"has not to my knowledge been tested at Strasbourg".

Have you checked that point?

My petition is a personal petition. Your colleague, Janis Hughes, who represents the Glasgow Rutherglen constituency, referred me to the Public Petitions Committee when I referred the matter to her.

I went through various MPs, when Westminster was in charge of this area, and various councillors and Church people. Up to date, the response has been that the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is a pre-eminent act, within which religious discrimination is permitted. No other legislation outlaws religious discrimination and therefore the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 takes precedence.

I understand that Scotland and the United Kingdom have signed up to the European convention on human rights and are putting in place its provisions. Glasgow City Council, which employs me, is a public body, yet it discriminates against me and thousands of others on the ground of religion by insisting that a certificate of approval is necessary for many of the jobs it advertises.

I wish to raise that point with the Parliament and to clarify whether such action falls within the remit of the European convention, which outlaws religious discrimination, and whether it should not happen in future.

You have placed a heavy reliance on article 14 of the ECHR. Have you placed any reliance on other articles that might relate to the artificial barriers to free movement of occupation in the European Union?

I have not, but if you think that that might be a way ahead, I would be glad to take advice on your suggestion.

You mentioned the other denominations, including the Jewish school in Glasgow. Is that a private school or is it state funded?

I understand that it is state funded and that it is a Glasgow City Council school. There are one or two other denominational schools in the country.

Ms McNeill was quite correct when she suggested that most of the denominational schools are Roman Catholic. The Education (Scotland) Act 1918 intended to bring what was then a disadvantaged minority into mainstream education. However, we are now faced with a situation in which other so-called disadvantaged minorities, such as Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus, are seeking to fund schools of their own in the same way—perhaps not in Scotland, but certainly in other parts of the UK.

It is clear that, as of next week, any individual will be able to use the courts in this country to challenge existing legislation on the ground of discrimination.

That is my understanding. I sought legal advice of a sort, in that I saw that the European convention was causing all sorts of upsets in the law of Scotland in relation to temporary sheriffs and so on. I sought advice from a well-known Glasgow lawyer; I submitted some documentation from him and he feels that the case might be worth pursuing. I hoped that the Scottish Parliament would feel that that would not be necessary because it was on top of the situation and would make the legislative changes.

Thanks very much for answering our questions. We move on to consideration of this petition. It is interesting that discrimination on the ground of religion becomes challengeable in the courts next week and that legislation will pass through the Scottish Parliament to bring Scottish law into conformity with the European convention on human rights. It would be best for us to pass this petition to the Minister for Children and Education, asking him to comment specifically on whether the Executive intends to do anything about the issue, in relation to the European convention on human rights.

Is this not an area in which there might be an overlap with the Westminster Parliament, as equality issues are reserved to that Parliament? Might it be worth asking the Westminster Parliament for its view on the discrimination aspects? Although there are a variety of policy issues in the UK about discrimination on the grounds of sex, disability and race, I do not know whether discrimination on the ground of religion is recognised in law.

There are two distinct issues in this petition, one of which questions a possible breach of the ECHR in the recruitment of teachers—that is the issue that needs to be examined. The second part of the petition simply calls for an end to separate denominational and non-denominational schools: an argument that has been put forward in debate for many years. The bit that is worth sending to Sam Galbraith is the bit about the recruitment of teachers, which raises the issue of a potential breach of the ECHR.

As there is agreement that there might be an implied breach of the ECHR, should the petition not be referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?

This committee is taking on the role of gathering information before we refer petitions to other committees. Our asking for information does not mean that we have finished with the petition; when we receive that information, we can decide whether to pass the petition on to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

It would be better to get the Minister for Children and Education's view on the matter before we decide whether to approach Westminster. The Equal Opportunities Committee might also want to comment on the petition before we do that. Can we refer the specific issue of certificates of approval to Sam Galbraith, asking him whether the Executive intends to address the situation, given the likelihood of challenge under the ECHR in courts in this country?

We should ask him whether he has satisfied himself that he is working within the likely constraints of the ECHR as it is understood by his department.

Okay. We can do that. Is that course of action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Mr Andy Gibb, on behalf of Westfield community council, calling on the Parliament to investigate and make recommendations to upgrade and complete the A801. Mr Gibb is here, and Fiona Hyslop would also like to address the committee briefly.

Westfield community council has a road in its area called the A801 Avon gorge road. It is a major link between the M8 and the M9. It has been due for repair since 1920, but nothing has happened. There have been a number of serious accidents on the road; I shall leave a copy of the up-to-date accident and traffic figures for the committee to read.

The traffic on the road has risen from 8,000 vehicles a day in 1988 to 12,000 vehicles a day in 1999. The problem occurs when the Avon gorge road is closed and the traffic is diverted through three small villages—two in Falkirk and one in West Lothian—Standburn, Avonbridge and Westfield. Our roads were not designed for the amount of traffic that uses them at those times; if the A801 is closed for a day, that can be more than 12,000 vehicles.

My main concern—the concern of the villagers and the community councillors in the area—is safety. We approached Fiona Hyslop, Mary Mulligan, Tommy Sheridan and two or three other MSPs about the issue, as we wanted a multi-party approach to be made to the Scottish Executive, asking it to upgrade and finish the A801. The West Lothian side has been semi-finished for approximately 20 years. It stops at Wallhouse roundabout and is all bottomed and drained until it hits the River Avon, where it stops. That is the section that we require to be finished.

The price of the work ranges from £5 million to £12 million. The bridge spans two council areas—Falkirk and West Lothian—and the problem is that that burden would be put on those councils, which would take the road budget away for the next six years. It is as simple as that.

I cannot say much more, except that I have a letter verifying the situation that has developed. I will close there, convener.

Thank you very much. If everyone was like you, we would get through our business much more quickly.

As Andy Gibb indicated, the campaign to improve the A801 goes back to the days when Manny Shinwell was elected locally. There have been improvements in recent years, but the geographic heart of Scotland has almost become a forgotten part of Scotland. The area suffered because of the reorganisation of local government, before which the old Central Region and Lothian Region would have been able to deal with the improvement.

Grangemouth is at the other end of the link. The only other way to get between the north and the south of Scotland is via the Glasgow or Edinburgh areas, or through the Avon gorge. There is a single track bridge with a 1 in 5 incline, and the number of accidents there is of great concern. This petition is, of course, about resources, but it links a genuine community concern about the safety of some small villages in West Lothian and in the Falkirk area to the national strategic impact of linking the north and south of Scotland. It would be one of the few environmentally friendly road completions, as it would prevent heavy haulage traffic going via Glasgow or Edinburgh—it could go through the middle. We have to address the environmental side.

The support that the petitioner has had from haulage companies, as well as from the local community, is significant. I therefore speak in support of the petition.

Does the A801 still have the status of being a designated trunk road?

The A801 is not a trunk road.

That is why it is a local authority responsibility.

That is correct. It should be a trunk road, because it is a major link in the road system. It was first designed to be the M8-M9 link.

What other routes of lobbying have you undertaken, apart from this petition?

It has just been the petition. We have spoken to MSPs. I hope that members have seen our video, showing the Avon gorge.

It is available to members of the committee if they want to see it. They have not yet seen it, but they can if they wish.

Seeing that video is the only way to arrive at a decision on this. The road is a death trap. There was one serious accident on it. The road is used in the summer by coach parties on tour buses. Ten years ago, a cattle truck and a diesel truck were involved in an accident. It was lucky that that was not a busload of old folk, kids or tourists. I believe that there has been one fatality in the gorge, but I cannot prove it. People can mind o it, but they cannae mind when it happened. The lorry went right across, and the driver was killed.

We do not want that to happen, especially given that half the road is technically finished. It is just the bridge span and the link back to the A801 on the other side that remain to be done. The police get involved in incidents on the road approximately twice or three times a week, as they will verify. According to the royal or Scottish—I am not sure of the name—accident association, the average cost of an accident is £33,000. There can be 29 of them in a year in Avon gorge.

I mentioned that there have been no fatalities—it is said locally that, if there were fatalities, the work would get done. That is right, but who the devil would want someone to get killed for something to get done? I do not, and I do not think that the Scottish Executive does either.

Do you know whether this matter has appeared as an item on the agenda of the south-east Scotland sustainable transport partnership, which embraces Falkirk, West Lothian, Edinburgh, Midlothian, East Lothian, Fife and Stirling?

That I do not know. Fiona Hyslop could maybe tell you.

The three local authorities—North Lanarkshire, Falkirk and West Lothian—are pursuing the matter. The point is that the problem arises because the road is not a designated trunk road, despite the fact that it has almost the same usage as the A1. The local authorities do not have the necessary level of resourcing.

I was going to pick up on the point that the road is under local authority control and so that is where the money has to go. It is only a two-mile length. The petitioner is basically saying that if it was redesignated as a trunk road, the Executive could put the money towards it.

That is right.

The petitioner will be aware that the Transport (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament. I presume that he would be quite happy if someone raised the matter in debate or in writing to the Transport and the Environment Committee, pointing out that the road could be redesignated as a trunk road in an amendment while the bill is going through.

To be honest with you, I do not care how it is done; my only concern is that it gets done. We have been fighting for this for ages. We have letters and petitions from Orkney and Shetland. Every driver who goes on the road will tell you that the road is a death trap. It is as simple as that. I will leave the video for the clerk.

Thank you. That was excellent. The video is available and can be obtained from the clerks on request. A number of letters from those who support the upgrading of the road, including MSPs, councillors, community councillors, hauliers, the Automobile Association and others are also available. Not being a trunk road, the road is not the direct responsibility of the Executive, but part of the issue raised in the petition is that it should be. The suggestion is that we should refer the petition initially to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking her to respond to the points made by the petitioners and to tell us whether the Executive has any proposals to have the road upgraded in line with what the petitioners are asking. That would be the most sensible thing to do. Is that agreed?

On a point of information, how many petitioners were there for this petition?

We do not have the signatures.

There were approximately 6,000.

From the back benches.

Given that stage 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill is coming up, could we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for it to note?

We will send it to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its information and tell members that we are taking the matter up with the minister.

Members indicated agreement.

That is the last of the petitions that has someone to speak to it. I thank Fiona Hyslop.

The next petition is from Mr Frank Harvey and is on general anaesthetics in dental surgeries. He calls on the Scottish Parliament to take immediate action to ban the use of general anaesthetics in Scottish dental surgeries. The suggested action is that we pass the petition to the Scottish Executive with a request that officials respond directly to the petitioner on the issues raised. Is anyone minded to do otherwise? Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have another petition from Mr Frank Harvey, this time on Kingston bridge. It calls on the Parliament to order a public inquiry into the Kingston bridge, highlighting all the aspects of design and construction that have necessitated the repairs and suggesting what could be done to avoid future disruptions to the traffic flow across the bridge. Questions along the same lines as the issues raised in the petition have already been asked by Kenny Gibson and Kenny MacAskill and are under active political consideration. It is suggested that the committee agree to note the petition and take no further action.

He may have a valid point even if it is in addition to the questions asked by Kenny Gibson and Kenny MacAskill.

It is a valid point, but it is actively being pursued by the Parliament, so there is no need for the petition to be acted upon in any other way.

The next petition is from Mr Frank Harvey again, this time on the Western infirmary, calling on the Scottish Parliament to order a public inquiry into the findings of a report by Pat Grant, an accident and emergency consultant at the Western infirmary in Glasgow, on discrimination against elderly patients in the national health service. The petition is based on a report carried in the Scottish Mirror newspaper. Given the circumstances, it is suggested that the committee should note the petition and take no further action.

Questions are being asked on that point.

The matter is under political consideration.

The next petition is from Mrs Kirsty Dickson on telecommunications masts. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to take immediate action to stop the erection of telecommunications masts of 15 m and under in residential and environmentally sensitive areas until full planning powers can be established.

We know that the Transport and the Environment Committee already has conducted an inquiry into the Executive's proposals to introduce a prior approval planning regime for this kind of mast. In fact, the Executive proposes to take action on the committee's report in the near future, so it would appear to be unlikely that it will introduce any interim measures before it responds to that report. However, it is suggested that the committee write to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking her to comment on the issues that are raised in this petition, so that we can tell the petitioner what the Executive intends to do.

We should urge the minister to make the speediest possible decision on this, or get the implementation done as quickly as possible, because there is no question but that this is an issue in my constituency, and in others.

We could ask her to comment on the likely time scale.

I would be grateful if you would.

I go along with John. There should be a moratorium until the decision is made, because everyone is suffering.

We will ask the minister to respond quickly on the time scale for acting on the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Mr George Anderson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to appeal to the Government of Israel to grant Mordechai Vanunu's release from prison. This is a foreign policy matter and therefore reserved to the Westminster Parliament, so it is suggested that the clerk writes to the petitioner and explains the reserved nature of the matter that he has raised. It could be suggested that he raise it with his local MP or write to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Alex O'Kane and is about the north Glasgow community forum. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the north Glasgow community forum to answer in writing the correspondence and questions that have been sent to it by the petitioner. It is clearly not for the Parliament to become involved in disputes involving the actions and activities of community groups. It is suggested that the clerk write to the petitioners explaining that and urging them to continue to pursue this matter at the local level, and that we should take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Joseph and Hilary Currie, and is on vehicle fumes. It calls on the Parliament to pass legislation, preferably at national level, to ensure that all vehicle engines be switched off after two minutes at rest, in order to protect the environment. That would have to be done by amending road traffic legislation, which is reserved to Westminster.

It is suggested either that the clerk write to the petitioners explaining the reserved nature of road traffic issues—and that we take no further action—or that we raise the matter with the relevant UK Government minister or, if we are attracted by the environmental aims of the petition, we could seek the views of the Minister for Transport and the Environment as well. All those avenues are open to us.

I tend to the view that if petitions are on reserved matters, we should not deal with them. If the area is a grey area, we should consider it. This is a grey area, because it relates to the environment. I would go for the second option, which is to raise the issue with the relevant UK Government minister.

There are human rights implications. There will be people whose engines switch off when traffic lights change. You can easily be held in a traffic lights queue for two minutes. Your engine could switch off and someone could drive into the back of you. While I do not dispute that the petition has a worthy environmental aim, it is impractical.

Would it be sensible to take Pauline McNeill's suggestion and write to the responsible UK minister and ask them to give the Government's view, because the Government would be able to explain the detail?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from J R Thomson, on solar panels, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the planning and building regulations to ensure that all new buildings in which hot water is required are fitted with solar panels. I understand that pilot projects using solar panels have been carried out by the Executive with Glasgow City Council. It is suggested that the clerk obtain details of current and proposed Scottish Executive policy on the use of solar panels in new buildings. We could then consider whether any further action should be taken. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Frank Harvey again, this time on organ removal. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to order a public inquiry into the reasons why organs were removed from dead children and stored at the royal hospital for sick children at Yorkhill without parental consent.

Members will know that since this briefing was sent out, the Minister for Health and Community Care, Susan Deacon, has announced that she is to set up an independent review group to review matters arising from the retention of organs at post mortem without valid parental consent. I understand also that the parents may have a petition in the pipeline, which will eventually come before this committee. Given the high-profile nature of the issue raised in the petition and the fact that appropriate action is being considered, it is suggested that in this instance the committee notes the petition and takes no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

There is no point duplicating what has already been done.

The next petition—PE270—is from Andrew Baker, on behalf of the A1 East Linton steering group, on the A1 expressway. It calls on Parliament to consider reviewing the proposals for the A1 expressway between Haddington and Dunbar to ensure that it provides direct access to and from East Linton.

It is suggested that the Minister for Transport and the Environment should be asked to comment on the issues that are raised in the petition before the committee takes any action. The local MSP, John Home Robertson, has intimated to me that the draft trunk road orders, which will give the go-ahead for the project, will be published next month. The petitioners will be able to object at that stage. It would, in any case, be useful to get the minister's views before we consider the petition further.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition—PE272—is from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, on the Diseases of Fish (Control) Regulations 1994. It calls on Parliament to amend the regulations to include compensation payments, rights of appeal and access to scientific data. All the background information is provided, but it is felt that some fish farms have been put out of business simply because of suspicion that some fish might be diseased. Unnecessarily large flocks of fish—if that is what you call them—are being wiped out by the Executive. It seems reasonable that we pass the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee for further consideration. It is an important issue, which that committee should deal with.

Should it be passed ultimately to the minister?

It would be for the Executive to pursue the matter—I think that it would be interested in it.

It is an important issue. Those who are affected by the regulation have incurred huge losses.

The Rural Affairs Committee can process the petition then come back to us on it.

The last of the current petitions—PE273—is from the Friends of Durris Forests. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that four-by-four off-road driving does not take place in any public forest that is managed by the Forestry Commission. It is suggested that we should seek the views of the Forestry Commission before deciding what to do with the petition.

I agree. It is entirely up to the Forestry Commission what it does on its property.

Let us see what the commission has to say first.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.