Current Petitions
High Court (Appeals System) (PE617)
The first current petition is PE617, by Mr James Crossan, which calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to establish a system of independent appeals against Crown decisions in the High Court. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's experiences: he is unable to appeal a High Court decision of not proven in relation to the murder of his son. The petitioner is particularly aggrieved that, in the original trial, the Crown Office failed to call the police, forensic experts or the petitioner—who was the only witness to the incident—to give evidence and that the jury heard only four hours of evidence before giving its verdict. The petitioner believes that victims' families should have the option to appeal against decisions of the Crown in murder trials.
Members may recall that we heard a presentation by the petitioner on 25 June and that we agreed to request comments from the Executive and the Crown Office, as well as to ask the petitioner to provide copies of correspondence between the Crown Office and Mr John McAllion, in his capacity as constituency MSP at the time of the case. In its response, the Executive states clearly that it does not support the call for a third-party system of appeals against decisions in the High Court, and that such a system would be inappropriate and unworkable. Both the Executive and the Crown Office have provided details of the role and development of the victim information and advice service. They are of the view that many of the issues that the petitioner raises have been addressed by the significant improvements that have been made in victim liaison as a result of the work of the VIA service.
The Executive also provides details of the forthcoming pilot victim statement scheme, which will give victims of certain crimes, and the victims' families in murder cases, the right to submit a written statement to the court that outlines the emotional, physical and financial impact that the crime has had on them. Do members have any views?
Should we ask the clerk to write to the petitioner to ask for his comments on the responses that we have received? We can consider his comments at a later meeting.
The standard action when we receive reports from the Executive on specific cases seems to be that we ask petitioners for their views on the response; it would be wrong of us to sit in judgment on the response without hearing the petitioner's views. Are members happy to contact the petitioner to ask for his views on the responses?
Members indicated agreement.
Violence (PE621)
The second current petition is PE621, by Christopher Yorkston, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to address the violence that affects Scotland by providing violence-intervention programmes and anger-management courses to anyone who feels that such a course would improve their quality of life. The petitioner believes that the Executive should promote actively intervention in all types of violence and aggression that exist in Scotland, but particularly domestic, social, racial, sectarian and international violence, which he claims are increasing. The petitioner would like such programmes to be available to anyone who requests them, not only to offenders and psychiatric patients.
We considered the petition on 3 September and agreed to write to the Executive to ask for its views, and for details about promotion of violence-intervention programmes and anger-management courses. The Executive has provided details of the range of anger-management services that are available through the health service, the voluntary sector or the Scottish Prison Service and has given details of its work with local authorities to create a positive ethos in schools and to tackle indiscipline. Anger-management services seem to be targeted at those who are identified as having a clear need for them. Such services are already stretched, although in an effort to address the situation steps are being taken to train clinical psychologists and other psychological therapists.
Do members have any comments on the petition or recommendations on what to do with it?
We had great sympathy with the petitioner. The Executive's response appears to say that it has been rolling out anger-management programmes, which are unfortunately not preventive, but only once somebody has shown anger do they get on a programme. It all comes down to cost. I would like more preventive programmes, but I believe that the Executive is doing as much as it possibly can at the moment. We cannot take the petition any further because the money for anger-management programmes is limited. Perhaps individual MSPs should write to the Executive on the issue next year, but at the moment, we cannot take the petition any further.
Do members agree with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Matrimonial Law (Women's Land Rights) (PE624)
The third current petition is PE624, by Ann Mallaby, on a proposal for new legislation to protect women landowners. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to introduce into matrimonial law new legislation that would ensure that women landowners are not arbitrarily dispossessed by the courts, that spousal commercial matters are resolved in the commercial courts and that farming cases are heard by special judges. The petitioner is concerned that, when farming business partnerships are dissolved under matrimonial law, the divorce courts tend to favour the male farmer and to strip the female partner of the land, proprietary title and business assets against her will.
We heard a presentation from the petitioner on 25 June and agreed to write to the Executive requesting its views on the issues that are raised in the petition, with a particular request for confirmation of whether the problems that the petitioner highlighted could arise under Scots law. We also agreed to ask the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions for details of the outcome of its consideration of a related petition.
The Executive states that it is satisfied that current procedures do not discriminate against female partners when farming businesses are dissolved under matrimonial law in Scotland, and that the principle of equal sharing is applied in the courts. It explains that relevant matrimonial legislation is written in gender-neutral terms and provides details of the principles that guide the courts in making orders for financial provision on divorce.
Ms Mallaby's petition to the European Parliament is still being pursued, although the Committee on Petitions has established that there is no infringement of any EU legislation and that the only recourse for the petitioner would be through the courts on human rights grounds. However, the United Kingdom Government has been asked to respond to the issues that the petitioner has raised.
Members will recall that when the petitioner spoke to the Committee in June, she was unable to provide any evidence of the problem that she claims to have faced arising in Scotland; it appears that her concerns are based on the outcome of individual decisions in divorce actions in the English courts. Members will also note the additional material that she has supplied to the committee for consideration.
Do members have any views on the petition?
You just summed the matter up. I remember that, when first we considered the petition, we were concerned that no evidence had been given to us that the problem related to Scotland and that therefore we could not recommend anything. The Executive's answer also makes that point: it does not think that the problem would arise under Scots law, so I am not convinced that we can take the petition any further.
I concur with that view. We need to consider the petition in terms of Scots law; the Executive is clear about whether the problem would arise, so I support Linda Fabiani.
Can I raise a side issue, convener?
I will give you some leeway.
Thank you. Among the papers in support of the petition that were circulated this morning, there is an interesting e-mail from Robbie the Pict, of whom the committee has experience. I find his reference to me to be inaccurate, offensive and actionable. I will pursue that separately, but I would have thought that papers should not be circulated if they contained clearly offensive and inaccurate comments.
That is a fair comment. I had not picked up on that, although I have addressed such an issue previously. I am assured that the new guidance that we will discuss later this morning will make it clear that such comments are inappropriate and that the committee will not accept them. I take your point on board.
Do you have a view on what we should do with the petition?
Yes, I expressed that view before I got on my high horse. I do not think that we can take any further action with the petition.
Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Solar Power (PE637)
Petition PE637, which was submitted by J Russell Thomson, concerns the installation of solar panels on new buildings. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend planning and building regulations to ensure that all new buildings be fitted with sufficient solar panels to provide an adequate hot water system for the building.
The petitioner claims that an advanced form of solar panel, which is designed and developed for use in Scotland, produces electricity to run the system's pump in addition to heating water. The system involves less installation time and is more cost-effective than traditional methods. The petitioner restates the argument that he set out in PE267 that the installation of solar panels on all new buildings could contribute to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. It would encourage owners of existing properties to adopt solar panels and it would stimulate jobs in manufacturing, fitting, servicing and research and development.
We considered the petition on 3 September 2003 and agreed to write to the Executive. We asked for the Executive's view on the petition and whether it has plans to amend building regulations or the relevant guidance on planning, design and building to encourage the use of solar heating. The Executive's response has been circulated to members.
It appears that over the next few years, through implementation of the European Union directive on the energy performance of buildings, and through changes to building regulations to include requirements for renewable energy sources for buildings, the Executive will seek to encourage use of renewable technologies, including solar power. Grants are also available to householders and communities under the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative to assist with installation of renewable energy technologies, including solar heating systems.
Although those measures appear to be a step in the right direction, they do not go as far as the petitioner would like. He calls for a requirement that all new buildings be fitted with solar panels. Do members have suggestions as to how we should deal with PE637?
The current planning and building control regulations give sufficient safeguards that properties are built to appropriate standards. To impose a condition that properties have to incorporate solar panels would be to impose a condition too far. I suggest that we agree on the recommendation that is set out in the paper. It is sufficient that we cover requirements in this respect.
Do members agree to that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Parliament had the opportunity to consider the subject last year with the passing of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. No need was perceived at that time for the introduction of such a measure.
The recommendation is that we take no action on the petition. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Water Fluoridation (PE649)
Petition PE649 was submitted by Lois MacDonell on behalf of the Highland movement against water fluoridation. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prohibit compulsory artificial water fluoridation of the public water supply in Scotland.
Petition PE649 is prompted by the petitioner's concern about the options that were considered by the Scottish Executive in its consultation on children's oral health in relation to adding artificial fluoride to the largest water supplies in Scotland. Since 1977, the Highland movement against water fluoridation has campaigned against water fluoridation on grounds of human rights, health risk and cost.
The Committee considered the petition on 1 October 2003 and agreed to write to the Scottish Executive. We asked when the Executive would be in a position to publish its response to the consultation on children's oral health. We also asked it to say whether it is likely to support proposals for water fluoridation.
The Executive informed us that the response to "Towards Better Oral Health: A Consultation Document on Children's Oral Health in Scotland" exceeded expectations. It received 1,346 submissions from individuals or organisations, more than 1,000 pre-printed anti-fluoride postcards, and petitions containing over 6,000 signatures.
The Executive explained that it has appointed an independent researcher to collate and analyse the responses. It expects to publish the report of that analysis, together with a statement of its future policy on the issue, before the end of the year. Until that time, its position on water fluoridation remains neutral. Do members have comments on the petition?
People on both sides of the argument feel strongly—the number of responses bears that out. Until the Executive publishes the collation of responses and its plans, there is no merit in our doing anything further.
Publication is likely to be very soon.
Will we keep PE649 in abeyance until we receive the results of the consultation, or will we end the discussion now? Is this as far as PE649 can go, especially given that Parliament will have a debate on the subject?
We are going to have a debate on the subject, petition or no petition.
Is the right way to proceed to end consideration of the petition here?
Members indicated agreement.
Sub-post Offices (Review and Closure) (PE651)
The next petition for consideration is PE651, from Fergus Ewing MSP, on the review and closure of sub-post offices. Fergus Ewing is calling on the Parliament to obtain from the Post Office information relating to the review and closure of sub-post offices. His petition was prompted by his concerns about proposals to close Culduthel branch post office. He argued that that was likely to disadvantage, in particular, senior citizens and those with restricted mobility who relied on the wide range of services that the post office provided. Since the submission of the petition, the post office has closed, but Fergus Ewing's general concerns relating to the process for the review and closure of post offices remain.
On 1 October 2003, we decided to write to the Post Office seeking confirmation of whether it would be willing to make available the information requested by Mr Ewing. A response has now been received. The Royal Mail provides details of the background to its network reinvention programme, together with details of the process that is followed in identifying potential closures, the consultation procedures that are followed when closure proposals are made and the impact that the programme has had in Scotland to date.
Fergus Ewing has provided the clerks with a response to the petition. He says:
"I thank Mr King for his response. However, the impression of my constituents many of whom complained about the closure of their PO was that the process of consultation had a pre-ordained conclusion. Mr King does not say how many POs in Scotland have applied under the scheme so far, nor whether, following the consultation … any in Scotland were saved from closure. My understanding is that none have been saved and all closed.
Nor does he answer the criticism that the process adopted by the PO of providing for Postmasters or mistresses controlling the process may lead to large swathes of our towns and cities having no office at all.
I thank the committee for considering this petition which may well be of relevance to other MSPs and constituencies."
Do members have any comments?
No member of the committee will not have had or be about to have a local post office closed. I certainly fall into that category. A number of issues concern me. Fergus Ewing's point is valid. I do not know of the reprieve of any post office as the result of a campaign. I have run two such campaigns in my constituency and am about to start another.
The six-week consultation period is also a matter of concern. Mr King says that the period has been extended from four weeks to six weeks, but that is still not very long. Last week, it was announced that two post offices in my constituency would close—in a six-week period leading up to the end of December. We all know what happens in the second half of December, so there will not really be a six-week consultation period. That may be a special case, but there are still questions to be asked. The difficulty is that we must deal with the petition as it stands. I am not satisfied that the closure programme is being handled with sufficient sensitivity to local needs.
I concur with Mike Watson. Similar things have happened in my constituency. From dealing with both the Post Office and Postwatch, I have the impression that they hear what is said but do not really listen to what communities are saying. I am inclined to support Mike Watson's view but, like him, I am not sure how we continue the petition. However, we must consider how we interact further with the Post Office. There is continued unhappiness with the Post Office, which is not hearing what MSPs are saying. Perhaps we should write back to it and say that. Would it be appropriate for us to do so?
I wonder whether it would. As Mike Watson said, every MSP must have some knowledge of a post office closing; there is certainly one closing in my constituency. However, the petition has highlighted the fact that the matter is reserved. Ultimately, responsibility for post offices lies with MPs. We can all support our colleagues in campaigns about post office closures, but can the committee do anything in respect of the strategy that the Royal Mail has adopted?
The petition is relevant to Fergus Ewing's area, but it relates to the review and closure of sub-post offices generally, rather than to closures in a specific area. The petition is wide ranging.
Like Helen Eadie and other members, I have in my constituency instances of post offices being closed. About 20 post offices are being closed in the Glasgow area alone. Some of those are in areas of hardship and deprivation where elderly people live.
It seems to me and to my constituents that the consultation process is such that the Post Office's mind is made up before proposals go out to consultation. As far as I know, none of the post offices has been given a reprieve, even though the public want to keep them.
The matter might be reserved, but that does not prevent us from writing to the Post Office—it certainly has not prevented the Post Office from sending £1 million to the London Olympic bid while still shutting sub-post offices. That is an aside. We should at least write to the Post Office asking what the criteria are for the closure of sub-post offices.
That is what we did and we received a response. It is fair to say that Fergus Ewing is disappointed with the response, but I think that he is resigned to the fact that his post office closed and he has thanked the committee for taking up the petition. We have written to the Post Office, received a reply and had the information provided in relation to Fergus Ewing's petition—he has thanked us for taking up the matter on his behalf. What more can we do?
We should close the petition, but pass the information to our colleagues at Westminster, because they need to be informed about the disappointment felt throughout communities.
To whom at Westminster would we send the information? Do we write to every MP? I really do not know what to do.
We could send the information to the chair of the appropriate committee. You and the clerk could identify which would be the appropriate committee. Committees at Westminster carry out inquiries into such matters, but I do not know where they are with their inquiries at the moment.
I do not have any difficulty with doing that, if we can identify the appropriate committee.
The petition is closed, but perhaps we should—if this is in our remit—write to the Post Office saying that we note its response and that, although the petition is closed, there is a general concern about how the organisation is going about things.
There is the specific point that the Post Office will finish the programme 15 months earlier than anticipated. The question is why, given that the Post Office wants the consultation, it is so keen to close the post offices so quickly.
We could write back to Mr King and send him a copy of the Official Report of our consideration of the petition. He would then be aware of the concerns that we are raising. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Society (PE654)
Petition PE654, from Jeevan Lakhanpal, calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate and consider the development of a more caring society in Scotland. It is prompted by the petitioner's concern that society is becoming more individualistic and selfish, together with his desire to see a return to a more caring, respectful, fair and friendly Scotland.
We considered the petition on 1 October and agreed to ask the Executive for its comments. The Executive has responded, confirming that many of its policies, as outlined in the partnership agreement, are targeted specifically at forging a sense of ownership, pride and belonging in communities and saying that it is of the view that such policies address many of the issues raised in the petition. The Executive explains that it is proposing a range of measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, on which it plans to legislate during the current session, including the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. The point is made that ministers agree with the petitioner that people in communities have an important role to play in preventing antisocial behaviour. The Executive's intention is to give communities the tools and confidence that they need to be able to do that.
Mention is also made of initiatives such as the "One Scotland. Many Cultures" campaign, which is aimed at tackling discrimination and intolerance. The Executive's policies are targeted at creating opportunities for people to integrate actively in their communities. Mention is also made of practical steps such as the free central heating and installation initiative and the Executive's role in supporting the voluntary sector in its work in helping to improve communities. Details are also provided of the role that community safety partnerships can play in changing attitudes, modifying behaviour, preventing crime and improving home, community and road safety.
On the petitioner's point about responsible citizenship, the Executive advises the committee that it is working with Learning and Teaching Scotland on education for citizenship. The aim of that initiative is to promote the idea that citizenship is about respect for and care of other people, the natural world and the environment. On family unity, the Executive states that it has a range of policies to support families with young children, particularly those who are vulnerable or deprived.
I think that the Executive's response is comprehensive. We can be encouraged by the range of initiatives that are being undertaken and the work that is being done in the various policy areas and, therefore, I do not think that there is anything further that we need to do with the petition.
I agree with Jackie Baillie. Can we send Mr Lakhanpal a copy of the Executive's letter?
There would be no harm in that at all. He will receive that as a matter of course.
Council Tax (PE656)
Petition PE656, from Sheila Gibb, deals with a proposal for a council tax dispute resolution process.
The petitioner calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to implement an appropriate dispute resolution process for council tax in Scotland, to investigate the service provided by the Scottish public services ombudsman and to initiate legislative change to ensure that no third party is able to intervene in the collection of council tax.
The petition is prompted by the petitioner's concern that there is no procedure, outwith the courts process, for resolving disputes relating to the levying and collection of council tax. The petitioner highlights her own experiences to illustrate the nature of her concerns.
The committee considered the petition on 1 October 2003 and agreed to write to the Executive requesting details of its position on the issues. From the Executive's response, it appears that the local valuation appeal committee in each local authority area can already deal with the majority of complaints and appeals about the collection of council tax. However, it seems that the various sorts of appeal that exist would not assist the petitioner as it was not the decision of the council that she should pay the council tax on the property that she was letting; rather, payment was deducted from her rental deposit by the letting agent.
The committee has already advised the petitioner to consider taking independent legal advice with a view to pursuing the matter with the letting agent in question.
Do members have any comments?
Regretfully, the position is clear. A range of appeal mechanisms exist but, because of the particulars of this case, the suggestion that the petitioner should take independent legal advice is sound, as it was the letting agent, not the council, that made the decision. I do not think that we can do anything with this petition other than provide that advice to the petitioner.
Does everyone agree with that?
Members indicated agreement.