Public Petitions Committee, 27 Jan 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Official Report 340KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Play Strategy (PE913)

PE913, from Debbie Scott, on behalf of To Play or Not to Play, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to adopt a play strategy that recognises the right of all children in Scotland to have a safe, accessible and challenging play environment. Would members like to comment on the petition?

Although the Government has announced a commitment to improving children's quality of life through play, the papers that we have received highlight the fact that there is a gap for children between the age of eight and 11, leading up to secondary school. The Government should be invited to meet the petitioner to discuss the provision that could be made for children in that age range. Otherwise, many people will feel that there is a distinct possibility that those children might continue to suffer from a lack of access to reasonable opportunities for play.

It is not enough merely to provide football pitches and other formal sports areas; children like areas where they can simply play and do their own thing, informally and creatively. That can often be as valuable as, or more valuable than, sport. The Government should show willingness to sit down with the petitioner to discuss provision for eight to 11-year-olds.

I think that committee members are in broad agreement on the issue. For the benefit of members of the public who are here today, I will say that the Scottish Government has produced an early years framework that addresses 10 areas for improvement relating to play. Robin Harper has been drawing attention to children in a certain age group, for whom there might be a gap in provision.

Robin's suggestion is worth while—we could urge the Government to enter into dialogue with the petitioner on the issue of play, and the early years framework would be the background to their discussions. There are also recommendations for the Government in our paper on the petition. Shall we close the petition, with the proviso that we encourage dialogue between the Government and the petitioner? We shall pass on our recommendations to the Government.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Edinburgh South Suburban Railway (PE1080)

The next petition is PE1080, by Lawrence Marshall, on behalf of the Capital Rail Action Group. I understand that additional material has been received and circulated to members. The petition is about the introduction of local passenger transport services on the Edinburgh south suburban railway.

I have to declare an interest: I have been a member of the Capital Rail Action Group for many years.

The City of Edinburgh Council has said clearly that it does not intend to reopen the south sub line, and reopening the line is not a Government priority either, but the issue will not go away. If the committee thinks that we have taken the petition as far as we can, obviously we have no option but to close it. However, I would like to record my sadness about that, and I am speaking not only for myself when I say that the issue will not go away—CRAG will not stop campaigning for the south sub.

I understand what Robin Harper says about the campaign, which will probably find other strategies or opportunities to try to influence decisions.

Many members would be keen to support transport projects in their constituencies, but the Government has announced its strategic transport projects review. We have heard what Robin said and we accept that we should close the petition—

I have not said that we should close the petition.

I recommend that we should close the petition.

Okay. John Wilson recommends that we close the petition, and I feel that that would be the broad view of committee members.

Members indicated agreement.

Robin Harper has put his views on record.

---

Nursery Schools (Closures) (PE1093)

PE1093, by Helena Hamilton on behalf of the Friends of Cameron House Nursery School, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the guidelines governing proposed school closures to the proposed closure of nursery schools. Do members have any comments?

I should explain to members of the public that the Government has decided to extend its guidelines governing proposed school closures to cover the proposed closures of nursery schools, so the petitioner's request has been delivered on.

On that basis, I suggest that we close the petition.

Okay, I think that we accept that.

---

Rural Post Offices (PE1102)

PE1102, by Bill Herd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to assess the impact that the UK Government's recent announcement on the future of the post office network—both sub-post office closures and Crown post office relocation—will have on areas such as Galashiels, where the petitioner lives.

Do members have any comments on how the committee should deal with the petition? It has come in front of us on several occasions previously.

The strategy of closing post offices has been dealt with in another place. The Scottish Government has attempted to address local concerns by asking local enterprise companies and local authorities to look at the best way to retain post offices, particularly in rural areas. On that basis, I propose that we close the petition. I hope that many local and rural post offices can be maintained with the support of local authorities and local enterprise agencies.

Does the committee accept John Wilson's recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Cancer Treatment (Cetuximab) (PE1108)

The next petition is PE1108 by Tina McGeever. I thank her for her patience this afternoon and for travelling down quite a distance to Glasgow to contribute to the earlier part of our meeting. Her petition asks the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to consider the provision of cancer treatment drugs, in particular cetuximab, on the national health service, to ensure equity across NHS boards in determining the appropriateness, effectiveness and availability of such treatments.

In the year or so since the petition was lodged, we have explored many of the issues that it raises. We produced an independent report to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing that led to a parliamentary debate on the topic several months ago, but there are still some outstanding issues that we need to explore. Do members have any views on how we should take the petition forward?

I seek clarification. There has been a change in policy on the issue in England and Wales, but we have not yet had a definitive statement on the policy for the NHS in Scotland. Is that correct?

The critical issue in the rest of the UK is that the Secretary of State for Health indicated that he wanted a review of co-funding arrangements. In our parliamentary debate, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said that she would accept several of our recommendations but would come back to us on a number of issues. For the sake of consistency, I should say that the cabinet secretary indicated sympathy—

She is sympathetic to our recommendations.

Yes, but she argued that she was troubled by the impact that co-funding might have on other people's right to access treatment. Some fundamental issues need to be explored.

In my view, we should continue to put pressure on the Government and emphasise the significant time that has been spent in reaching this stage. Given the policy announcement that was made for the rest of the UK—or at least for the rest of Britain—there are good reasons why we should reach an early and urgent conclusion in Scotland.

I have some observations, but I will let John Wilson speak first.

We know that the Scottish Government published a consultation paper, for which the closing date for submissions was 12 January. It is incumbent on the committee to seek the results of that consultation from the Scottish Government as they will help us to determine the best way to take forward any issues that arise. We should urge the Scottish Government to release the information as quickly as possible. As the convener pointed out, the petition has been with the committee for about a year.

Like the convener, I commend the hard work that the petitioner has done to get us to this stage. I hope that, when we get the consultation results from the Scottish Government, we will be able to declare a way forward for future treatment, particularly when there is a crossover between private and public health care.

The petitioner is fully aware that the matter has a series of implications because we are dealing with a big beast called the health service. There are complications in the way in which it interprets guidelines and guidance and the resources that are available to health boards.

I will suggest what we might want to do in relation to the petition, and members can add to that if they wish. We raised a series of points in our committee report and asked the Government to respond to them. Its initial response, rightly, was to say that it was undertaking some work and that it would get information back by the end of January. In addition, it said that the better cancer care strategy should be part of the overall framework.

The committee has discussed the fact that some of the initiatives will not require big resources but need just a different approach to patient liaison. I think that the petition was precipitated as much by the way in which the issue and the people who are involved in it are handled as by the difficulty of the issue itself. We could argue about whether certain drugs should be available on the NHS, and it is understandable that there are different ideological and philosophical positions on that, but the matter is fundamentally about how we care for people who have such traumatising experiences.

We can liaise with the clerk about the series of questions that arise from our report, but I would welcome members' views on the areas to emphasise. That will help us to seek a clearer response from the Government and more information about its direction of travel on the petition.

We need to know what is happening with the evaluation of the Scottish medicines consortium and more about what is happening with quality-adjusted life years. We have also been presented with a draft statement. Would it be appropriate for that to be read in full now, so that it is on the record?

That is a cue for the convener. I am happy to read it, unless you want to do so.

No. I think it should come from you, convener.

I will give the statement for the benefit of members of the public.

As I said earlier, it is more than a year since we first considered the petition from Tina McGeever and her late husband Michael Gray, who started the process along with Tina but sadly lost his life in the interim period. The petition led to our inquiry and report, which set out 16 conclusions. We thought that those would be addressed in partnership with the Scottish Government through "Better Cancer Care, An Action Plan". Specifically, we wished to see how the conclusions of our report were addressed in the minister's deliberations.

We recognise that the action plan addresses wider issues and not only those that were raised by the petition and our inquiry. We will continue to press the Scottish Government to put in place procedures, facilities and people that will improve the system for patients to access cancer drugs on the NHS. In his evidence, Michael Gray told us that he felt strongly that that was the right thing to do, rather than have a system in which people had to use personal savings or look to friends to make a contribution.

Although the review of the guidance on NHS patients who receive private health care is welcome—ministers and the Parliament will determine their view on that in due course—we must remember that our inquiry highlighted other issues, such as the exceptional prescribing procedures, which were part of the process that the petitioner and her family underwent in their local NHS board, as well as communication and patient liaison.

Our report states that some of the issues

"can easily, readily and quickly be addressed with some imagination and commitment."

We welcome the broad action that the Government has taken to date, but we wish to discover whether practical improvements have been put in place at the grass-roots level as a result of, for example, our support for the appointment of liaison officers in NHS board areas.

To date, we have had no formal indication from health boards that they wish to appoint liaison officers, although we had assurances from individuals whom we interviewed as part of the inquiry that they would welcome such an initiative. The petitioner's local health board recognises that it needs to put in place better opportunities for that. We hope that we will get a clearer picture, and we await the outcome of the Government's consultation and of its "Better Cancer Care" plan. We hope that the Government will recognise the key recommendations that committee members took time to make.

Do members have any final points?

We have probably covered everything.

Thanks—that was a long shift for me. The issue is important, and none of us, as parliamentarians, has had to deal with the dilemmas that Tina McGeever and her family have faced. Our recommendations could be of benefit in the long run, and we hope that they will be taken on board by those who make the final and formal decisions.

I recommend that we keep the petition open until we explore the key issues that have been identified. I thank members for their patience; I also thank Tina McGeever for her patience in staying for the course of the meeting.

---

Child Care Strategy Review (PE1114)

PE1114, by Gillian Vance, on behalf of the Galloway Childcare Company, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to conduct a review of its child care strategy to ensure that there is adequate funding to provide for child care services in all local authorities.

The petition is one of several that are before us that have been in the system for a while. Are there any views? We have received several similar petitions. The Government has produced an early years framework, which we hope will shape the quality of services. There will always be a debate about how to define the word "adequate" and about how the resources get to local authorities. However, the Government needs to meet the petitioner and Voluntary Organisations Influencing Childcare Environments to discuss the future provision and funding of child care services.

I recommend that we close the petition on the ground that a broad framework is in place. However, we will encourage the Government to enter into dialogue with the petitioner.

I am heartened to find that the petitioner is encouraged by the Scottish Government's work. We should note that in closing the petition.

That is appropriate—sorry for that oversight. Contrary to what people might think, it was not deliberate. Although we have barneys in the Parliament on various issues, there is broad agreement among the parties on the early years framework, because we know the value of investment in the early years and that it can provide opportunities for youngsters. Taking on board those points and the recommendation that dialogue should take place, do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Free Nursery Education (Eligibility) (PE1116)

PE1116, by Alexis Stevenson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that a fully funded placement for free nursery education is provided from the date of a child's third birthday. The petitioner's constituency member, David Whitton, was at a Public Petitions Committee meeting a few months ago. He has submitted an additional letter, in which he raises an issue that we might explore. Comments from members would be welcome.

The Government is clearly committed to progressing the issue and increasing entitlement to pre-school education over time. It has reaffirmed its policy on the provision of free pre-school education and confirmed its plans to amend existing legislation to achieve an increase in entitlement to 570 hours in 2010, as part of its commitment to give a 50 per cent increase in entitlement to pre-school education.

It is clear that progress is being made and that the Government has taken on the spirit of the petition. I suggest that we cannot take the petition much further in this parliamentary session, so it is appropriate to close it.

I am happy with that recommendation. Before closing the petition, I draw attention to the paragraph in my colleague David Whitton's letter in which he asks whether a fourth nursery intake date—in October—could be considered. That is a matter for the minister and local government; an agreement would be needed on that. We will close the petition, but I ask for that point to be drawn to the Government's attention for its consideration.

---

Personal Expenses Allowance (PE1125)

PE1125, by David Manion, on behalf of Age Concern Scotland, argues that the personal expenses allowance does not reflect the true cost of living and that it should be raised to allow care home residents to have independence, dignity and a good quality of life. We have discussed the petition before and we have had the chance to consider the issues. We might wish to pursue one matter, so I invite members' comments.

The UK Government is undertaking a consultation on care home charging rules and we could ask the Scottish Government its view on the framework for Scotland, as it is probably responding to that consultation. Most—if not all—such matters are devolved, but Westminster deals with the broader interpretation framework, because of its benefits implications. Are we happy to ask the Scottish Government that question and to keep the petition open until we have explored the issue?

Members indicated agreement.

---

A92 Upgrade (PE1175)

PE1175, by Dr Robert Grant, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government immediately to improve and upgrade the A92 truck road—I mean trunk road, but it probably is a truck road—in particular between the Prestonhall roundabout and Balfarg junction, to reduce the number of hazards and accidents and bring about improved benefits to the local and wider economy. A recent development in the Parliament since we previously considered the petition is the strategic—I can never get my teeth round that word—transport projects review. How do members wish to deal with the petition?

Not all the questions have been answered. Until they are all answered, we should keep the petition open. We need to know what action will be taken on the A92 following the results of the assessments that BEAR Scotland is undertaking, and we need answers to the points made in the petitioner's submission.

I concur with that wise course of action. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order (Accreditation Scheme) (PE1188)

PE1188, by Nick Dekker, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to investigate the circumstances whereby it agreed that 60 hydroelectric power stations could be accredited for subsidy under the renewables obligation scheme and that generation capacity could be cut to below the 20MW qualification threshold at others to enable accreditation, and whether, in the interests of electricity consumers, it will rescind those accreditations.

The Government's response is that it does not wish to have the inquiry that the petitioner requests and that it undertook two consultations on the obligation. Is there any value in keeping the petition open, or have we exhausted all the issues?

It should be noted that I convene the cross-party group on renewable energy and energy efficiency. We can close the petition, because the Government has responded adequately to all the petitioner's points and has made it clear that it intends to take no action. The committee can do nothing more.

Do members accept that recommendation?

I record a note of dissent. Although the Government has responded, there are wider issues about the renewables obligation and how it applies to hydroelectric schemes in Scotland. The hydroelectric power stations receive a large subsidy from the public purse. However, further investigation reveals that, despite the fact that we were informed that there would be investment under the renewables obligation scheme, that investment has not come about. I record my concern about those wider issues. The Scottish and United Kingdom Governments should take note of what we are doing with public subsidy in relation to the renewables obligation.

I am waiting for an answer to a letter that I wrote to the Minister for Environment about the fact that, in some cases, it may be more profitable for a company to reduce, rather than increase, its production of electricity in order to gain higher subsidy. I want to know whether that represents value for the consumer.

On a point of clarification for the member, the companies have reduced their rating and capacity but not the amount of electricity that is being produced. There is a difference between the two. The refurbished and reorganised stations will provide value for money. The evidence needs to be read carefully.

Shall we close the petition, with the caveats that members have raised?

I am happy for it to be closed.

We accept those points and close the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Social Rented Housing (Standards) (PE1189)

PE1189 is by Anne Lear, on behalf of Govanhill Housing Association. Anne Lear is present. I had better declare an interest, in that Govanhill is in my constituency. I stepped down from the discussion when we heard the oral submission from the petitioner. However, given that we are now dealing with the responses, it is appropriate for me to continue in the chair, with the consent of members of the committee—unless, that is, a coup d'état is imminent, although I do not want to encourage you.

The petition asks the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the responsibilities of private landlords, the levels of social housing that are below tolerable standard, the impact of slum living conditions on the wider community, and whether such conditions merit a review of housing renewal area status and additional Scottish Government funding.

We have received an e-mail from Govan Law Centre, which is one of the key new agencies that have been established with Scottish Government resources. The centre is making a welcome contribution to the legal framework for dealing with private landlords in the Govanhill area. There is a lesson for other parts of Scotland as well. A message from Mike Dailly from the centre indicates the work that it is undertaking.

When it comes to how we wish to take the petition forward, I am in the hands of committee members. I am happy to contribute to the discussion, but I am conscious of my constituency interest. The acute nature of the petition is down to historical issues to do with tenements. It has emerged that, because of the way in which it was constructed, much of that housing has been in a substandard condition for a considerable period. There have been intermittent efforts over the years to target housing that is below tolerable standard. However, the situation has been exacerbated by recent developments in the social and economic profile of the area and by the arrival of a substantial new immigrant community. Property belonging to private landlords has not been reaching the standard that people expect from a modern home. The situation has legislative and resource implications.

A major piece of research on legal remedies is awaited. That research, which is being done on behalf of Govan Law Centre by Mr Roy Martin QC, will help us with the dialogue that we want to have with ministers. The two ministers who have responsibility for the issue have visited the area recently—thanks, in no small measure, to the petition. I hope that there will be benefit from that sharing of knowledge. We still need to explore the issues and raise them with the ministers and their officials.

I remember the original evidence and it is clear that this is a very serious situation that needs to be addressed. I am in complete agreement with your suggestion that we keep the petition open and continue to press for further answers.

Like Robin Harper, I remember the original evidence, which involved a lot more than just the housing conditions in the area from which people suffer. It would be worth while putting on the record again the concerns and issues that the petitioner raised and how they gave the committee great cause for concern in relation to housing conditions, general environmental issues and other issues that I do not want to repeat. This is wider than simply how private landlords deal with housing conditions. When we discussed the petition previously, the committee raised concerns about other agencies and how they react to some of the issues that they are presented with.

I am very close to the issue. We might wish to raise a number of questions about the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 and the legal framework with the Government's legal team. The law centre is waiting for the outcome of the specific research—that research might help with the difficult issue of compulsory purchase. We are talking about people who own properties and, although they have not invested in them, they still have rights and might well have their own Queen's counsel and other legal advisers to protect their interests. It would be useful to keep the petition open and explore the issues that members have alluded to today as well as those that we discussed previously. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Investigation of Complaints) (PE1190)

PE1190, by George Hunter, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to require local authorities to provide the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the complainant with all information, at the point at which it is requested, that is deemed relevant to any investigation that the SPSO might undertake into a complaint lodged with it.

There has been criticism of the SPSO during the past couple of years—justified or not—and it is looking for greater powers. It would help the SPSO considerably if it were granted those powers. Perhaps we should ask the Government whether it supports the proposed amendments to the existing legislation so that the SPSO can compel evidence at the initial consideration stage. If the Government supports that move, when will it give effect to it?

We need to seek some clarity and we will explore the points that Robin Harper raised.

It is anomalous that there are different powers at different stages.

I accept that. We will keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government for comment.

Members indicated agreement.

---

New Housing Developments <br />(Maintenance of Common Areas) (PE1195)

PE1195, by Dr David L McNally, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to place a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain common areas in new housing developments. The issue has been the subject of intermittent debates in the Scottish Parliament during the passage of various housing acts. Are there any comments?

It is clear that progress is being made. The Government is liaising with the Office of Fair Trading and it is bringing forward secondary legislation. The industry is also developing its own code of conduct. Having noted all those developments, it might be appropriate to close the petition.

Do we accept the recommendation to close the petition, given that, as Robin Harper has identified, a series of actions have been undertaken, and commitments are being looked into, to address the petitioner's concerns?

Although I agree to the recommendation to close the petition, the actions that Robin Harper has outlined do not address the petition, which sought a statutory duty on local authorities. We must put it on the record that it is difficult to put a statutory duty on local authorities, given that private estates may be engaged in these activities. I would like to think that the actions that the Scottish Government and others are taking to address the issues raised in the petition will alleviate the problems that have been highlighted.

I accept those points, and they are now on the record.

---

Tail Docking (PE1196 and PE1230)

The next item is on petitions PE1196 and PE1230. PE1196 is by Michael Brander and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend, as a matter of urgency, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to allow the tails of working dogs to be docked. Petition PE1230, by Dr Colin Shedden, asks for an amendment to the regulations that would allow prophylactic tail docking of working dogs under tightly specified circumstances.

I invite comments from committee members on the two petitions.

The issue has been talked about a great deal in rural Scotland, where working dogs—especially spaniels and terriers—can suffer injuries to their tails. The petitions are about preventive prophylactic docking for certain breeds under special conditions, not cosmetic docking. We are not talking about something that is done to change the appearance of the dog for appearance's sake.

In the debate on the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill in 2006, Fergus Ewing lodged an amendment that was defeated, but at that point we were told that the matter would be returned to. I understand that the University of Bristol and the Royal Veterinary College are conducting a study that will document the risks of tail injuries to dogs in the United Kingdom. Of course, south of the border there is a derogation for working dogs. We should keep the petition open until the survey's conclusions are published.

John Wilson seems to concur with those comments.

We know what the Government's position is but, as research is being done on the issue and since—going by the letters that I received on the issue—vets were generally against docking, it is clear that the research will be balanced. It is our duty, therefore, to suspend our decision on the petition until the research is published.

Okay, we are agreed on that one. Thanks for that suggestion.

---

Crofting (Shucksmith Report) (PE1201)

Petition PE1201 is our final current petition today. It is by Netta MacKenzie and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government not to adopt the main recommendations of the Shucksmith report on crofting in any future legislation, including the recommendations on breaking up the Crofters Commission, permitting non-crofters by mere virtue of residency to sit on crofting township development committees, and introducing burdens which will reduce the value of crofters' homes, thereby rendering borrowing impossible.

John Farquhar Munro, who is the committee's deputy convener, could not be here today, but he has submitted an e-mail for us to consider as part of our discussion. I invite members to comment on the petition and on how we wish to proceed.

Once again, I must declare an interest, as I sit on the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on crofting. The matter of the petition affects my area a great deal. As there is no general consensus on the Shucksmith report, I would like the petition to be kept open. It will be a long time before crofting is revisited, so if the Government does not get it right this time, it will have a detrimental effect on the sector. Under the circumstances, the petition should be kept open until we have got to the bottom of all the issues.

Before I invite other members to speak, John Farquhar Munro specifically asked me to put part of his e-mail on public record. He explains that he is unable to be present today because he must attend a funeral. He first requests that we consider referring the petition to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, on the understanding that it might consider crofting in the spring. He goes on to say:

"My second point is with regard to a point of contention between the petitioner and one of the respondents regarding a conversation I had with Michael Russell regarding a consultation on crofting legislation. I can confirm that Netta Mackenzie's statement in her submission that I have been told by the Minister that there would be no consultation prior to a crofting bill was correct. This may have subsequently changed, however it was correct at the time."

He wanted that to appear in the Official Report.

The material issue is how we should go about getting the debate going. John Farquhar Munro has made a suggestion and Jamie McGrigor has suggested that we keep the petition open. Are there any other comments?

I seek guidance, convener. A draft bill is to be published in the spring. All the issues that the petition deals with can surely be raised as part of Parliament's scrutiny of the bill, which would be the right place for discussion of such matters. What would be achieved by our keeping the petition open, given that the issues that the petition deals with will almost certainly be discussed as the bill is developed?

I support Robin Harper's proposal that we close the petition but suggest that we pass all the communication that we have had on it to the relevant ministers and to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, if it is to hold its own investigation into the bill. I would be happy for us to do that rather than to take up more of our time with the petition. It is clear that the Government is making progress on crofting—it proposes to publish a draft bill in the spring. If the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is to consider the bill, it would be the most appropriate committee to address the issues that the petition raises.

I am concerned by the comments of the Scottish Crofting Foundation. I find it extremely surprising that in its response, it makes reference to Mrs MacKenzie's political affiliations and alleges that she

"may be using petition signatories for party politics, being a worker for the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party."

That seems to be an inappropriate response from an official organisation, and I think that we should pursue the issue with the Scottish Crofting Foundation. I am not even aware of whether the person in question is a member of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

The SCF goes on to suggest:

"With respect, any SLD MSPs on the committee should declare an interest."

In making that remark, which is obviously directed at John Farquhar Munro—the organisation would have been unaware that I would be attending today's meeting—the SCF goes beyond its remit.

I am sure that the same allegation could be made of many of the people who bring petitions to this committee, who could be members of the SNP, the Conservatives, the Greens or even the Labour Party. However, I hope that people's membership of political parties would not become an issue for scrutiny by public bodies in this way.

If we are moving to close the petition, it might be an idea to urge all sides to try to reach some kind of amicable agreement on how to take the discussions forward. Clearly, there have been less than friendly negotiations so far. I hope, however, that all sides can move forward and work towards ensuring that we get the appropriate legislation in place.

I gather that the consensus of the committee is that we should close the petition, but also that we want to ensure that information relating to the petition is passed to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and to the minister, given that a crofting bill is imminent.

On the other issue, I know that we are in a world in which everyone is cynical, but I have tried, as convener, to be as non-party-political as possible. The level of attention that has been drawn by a public body to an individual in this case is unusual. A person's membership of a political party is a private commitment rather than a public commitment. I think that we are all long enough in the tooth to recognise a party political animal by how they conduct themselves in relation to their petition. Accordingly, I think that we should instruct the clerk to write quietly and gently to the SCF to say that its comments are not what we expect to hear from a public body. That would address Nicol Stephen's concern.

I declare an interest, in that I happen to agree with John Farquhar Munro, although I am not a member of the Liberal Democrats.

It may yet happen. Funny things can happen, Jamie.

I am prepared to go along with your proposal, convener, provided that there really is consultation around certain issues. For example, although the Shucksmith report recommends the break-up of the Crofters Commission, nearly 80 per cent of the respondents—the practical crofters—were in favour of keeping the commission. The report's recommendations are not based on the evidence that I have heard.

If we are going to write to the SCF about its having raised the issue of political affiliation, we ought to notify the minister of that as well, just so that he is aware that the issue has come up, given that he has overarching responsibility in that regard.

The final sentence in the minister's letter says:

"As I have mentioned above, there will be further opportunity to debate these issues once we publish the draft Bill."

In that spirit, bringing everyone together to comment when the draft bill is published is the way forward.

I agree with what has been said, but I think that, out of courtesy, we should always remind public organisations about what information is legitimately given and what information should be sensitively handled, if that is the best way to describe that.