Public Petitions Committee, 27 Feb 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 27, 2001

Official Report 173KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We have received quite a few responses to current petitions. The first petition is PE248 from Mr Robert Durward, asking the Parliament to introduce legislation to compel slower drivers to use passing places. We dealt with the petition initially at our meeting on 12 September. In December, we dealt with responses to the petition that we received from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and from the Scottish Executive.

We agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, seeking information on any future road awareness campaigns. We have received a reply from the Executive, which sets out in detail the steps that it is taking to improve road safety, including funding the Scottish road safety campaign and issuing a multilingual leaflet that provides advice on driving on single and two-way roads. The Executive is also providing signage at various locations, to encourage drivers of slow-moving vehicles to be courteous and to use lay-bys. We originally agreed to take no further action on this petition, and it is suggested that we note the latest letter from the Executive and pass a copy of it to the petitioners for their information.

There are notices on many single-track roads that say that people should use passing places. However, those notices appear very infrequently. It is usually foreign tourists who do not know that they have to move over.

Foreign tourists are an obvious example, but I have not heard of the leaflet that is referred to in the Executive's correspondence. I do not think that those measures will have any effect without a legal push to make people pull over.

When travelling through the Highlands, it is common to get stuck behind vehicles, especially lorries, which tend to be poor at pulling over. That is probably because it is difficult for them to pick up speed once they have slowed down. That causes enormous frustration, and an awful lot of the accidents on the road between Fort William and Inverness are caused by people overtaking in stupid places because they are running late and have been stuck behind somebody. Many people's lives are put at stake because of that behaviour, and I feel quite strongly about the issue.

Would you go so far as to say that there should be a legal compulsion to pull over? Should it be an offence not to do so?

Yes.

The matter was discussed in the response from the DETR. It is a reserved matter. It was pointed out that it would be impracticable to make pulling over a legal requirement, as people could argue that it is unsafe to pull over in some places. It would be difficult to give such a requirement legal force, so other measures are taken to encourage people to pull over. That is the way in which the DETR feels that the matter should be addressed, and the committee accepted that when it was discussed in December.

I understand that people can be charged with driving without due care and attention if they hold people up. I recall that someone was charged with that offence when they were driving between Perth and Glasgow, as there was a long tailback. Is there any way in which the committee could urge the police to use that power more often? I know that it is difficult for the police to catch people on rural roads, as not many police officers drive around them. However, if that power could be used as part of a campaign to inform people that, if they hold up traffic, they could be charged with driving without due care and attention, people might think about showing courtesy to other road users.

We could suggest that the Executive should consider taking that action. It would be for the Executive to do that, rather than the committee.

The notices to which I referred do not go as far as that, but they could.

As well as passing a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioner, we could write back to the Executive with the suggestions that have just been made, seeking its response to them. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition on which we have received a response is PE254, from Mr William McCormack, on publicly funded advice services. Mr McCormack wants the Parliament to introduce legislation to ensure that all lottery-funded or publicly funded advice services are subject to an annual independent audit, to assess the quality of the advice that is given by staff and volunteers.

When the committee considered this petition at its meeting in September, it was decided to seek the response of the six different organisations that are listed: Audit Scotland, the Scottish Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Citizens Advice Scotland, Shelter Scotland and the Federation of Information and Advice Centres. Replies have been received from all those bodies, and a précis of each has been included on the paper that has been distributed to committee members. They already employ a variety of methods of monitoring the quality of advice that is given by the staff and volunteers of advice centres.

From their responses, it appears that the main providers of public advice services have monitoring systems in place to ensure that the advice that is given is of the highest standard. There appears to be no evidence to suggest that the additional independent audit of those services that the petitioner requests is necessary. It is therefore suggested that the committee should pass copies of the responses to the petitioner and agree to take no further action.

Recently in Parliament we praised the service that is provided by citizens advice bureaux. On the whole, that service is wonderful.

It has been a good exercise, as a lot of useful information has been gathered from the different organisations and that will be made available to the petitioner. I hope that that course of action will satisfy him. Is it agreed that we will pass the responses to him?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE286, from Mr Roderick McLean. He wants us to take steps to revise the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, to ensure equity for all service personnel and ex-service personnel in compensation for injuries that have been sustained in the service of the Crown.

The committee agreed that I should write to the Ministry of Defence for its comments on the petition. We have received a reply from Hugh Bayley MP, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. His response states that changes in the provision of pensions for those with a hearing loss of less than 20 per cent were made in 1993, following consultation with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. The aim of those changes was to redirect more money to those who were suffering from severe disability, bringing the award of the pensioner about whom the petitioner was concerned into line with those for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme.

Hugh Bayley is satisfied that the scheme, as it stands, is compliant with the European convention on human rights. He points out that, although the resources that are available are not unlimited, the changes were regarded by all concerned as the best way in which to deal with the situation. He does not think that the current arrangements should be changed.

It is therefore suggested that, as the issues with which the petition is concerned are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, we should pass a copy of that response to the petitioner and agree to take no further action. We could also suggest to that petitioner that if he wants to pursue the matter further, he should do so directly with the Department of Social Security or his member of Parliament. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE297, is from Mr Donald Matheson, on behalf of joint action against the M74, calling on the Parliament to investigate the impact that the proposed M74 northern extension will have on the communities and small businesses along its route.

When we dealt with this petition previously, we agreed to pass a copy of it to the Scottish Executive, Renfrewshire Council, South Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council for their comments, as they are all involved in the new extension. We have received responses from all those bodies. The responses from the three councils are fairly similar, asserting their view that the public consultation that was undertaken in 1995 by Strathclyde Regional Council and the statutory notifications of the current renewal application are sufficient and appropriate.

The Executive also points out that it is setting up a steering group to take control of the northern extension, which will be chaired by the Executive but which will include representatives of all three councils. The Executive proposes, as part of the new extension, to carry out an environmental impact assessment and to prepare an up-to-date environmental statement. It will also prepare trunk road orders and compulsory purchase orders and carry out further public consultation, which will provide opportunities for all interested parties to express their views, should that be required. Statutory objectors to the scheme will also have the opportunity to have their views considered at a public local inquiry.

The matter will be referred to the Scottish Executive by the councils, and it will be possible for the petitioners to have their concerns addressed as part of the public consultation. It is therefore suggested that the committee agree to pass the petition to the Scottish Executive, asking it to ensure that the petitioners are included in the public consultation that is to be undertaken. In addition, we can agree to pass the responses that we have received to the petitioners, recommending that they continue to press the Executive directly with their concerns, and to take no further action ourselves. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE298, from Mrs Avril McKen, is on the Forres ambulance unit. In the light of a proposal to relocate the unit to Elgin, it asks the Parliament to recommend that the unit should remain at Leanchoil hospital in Forres and be upgraded to a 24-hour service. We took the petition up with Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust, which stated that the consultation with interested parties on the proposal to redesign ambulance services in the Forres area would improve cover for Forres. We sent the petitioners the reply from the trust, asking for their view. In their reply they dispute the response times quoted in the Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust letter and remain unhappy with the situation. They quote recent examples of ambulance response times that they claim confirm their version of the situation.

We have no remit to interfere with or overturn the executive decisions of other public bodies in Scotland, but it might be appropriate for us to pass the petitioners' letter to the trust and to recommend that the trust enters directly into a dialogue with the petitioners, to discuss the proposals in detail with a view to allaying the petitioners' concerns. We would take no further action.

Since I became a member of the Parliament and of the Health and Community Care Committee I have become increasingly concerned about the treatment of the Scottish Ambulance Service throughout Scotland. I do not know the case intimately, but it seems plain daft that a unit that should be in Forres has been moved to Elgin and that anyone thinks that that is more efficient.

The problem is that the Parliament has given the powers to the trust to do that. It is therefore a matter for the trust and the petitioners. The best that we can do is to recommend to the trust that it enters a dialogue with the petitioners. It is not our role to override decisions taken by the trust.

The problem is that the petitioners do not feel that the Scottish Ambulance Service is taking them seriously. I have previously had dealings with folk who share the petitioners' concerns. They have disputed responses that I have received from the Ambulance Service. We may have to write to the service again. Could we encourage them to enter a dialogue with the petitioners?

As I understand it, it is the Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust—

No. It is the Scottish Ambulance Service that will deal with the ambulance service there.

Our previous correspondence has been with the trust.

Mary Scanlon, Margaret Ewing and local councillors are all on the side of the people who are unhappy.

It was the Scottish Ambulance Service that had a meeting with Forres community council, but our correspondence has been with the trust. We could take the matter up with the trust again.

As I understand it, it is the Scottish Ambulance Service that is dealing with this. I have been in touch with the service about it. There appears to be an impasse. There is very little local dialogue and people remain unhappy with what is happening. I know that we have devolved responsibility, but perhaps we could give the people involved a nudge.

We can pass the response from the petitioners to the Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust and to the Scottish Ambulance Service. We can say that it is the view of the committee that those bodies should negotiate directly with the petitioners and seriously take on board the comments that they are making. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE306, is from Mr Thomas Minogue. The petition calls on the Parliament to request that all members of the judiciary declare their membership of organisations such as the freemasons, and that a register of such interests be made available on request.

At our previous meeting, we agreed to seek the comments of the Lord Advocate on the current legal situation in Scotland with regard to declarations of interest and on whether organisations such as the freemasons are included in such declarations. We also agreed to seek information on the current situation in England and Wales on the issues contained in the petition. The committee agreed to defer consideration of a letter on the petition from the freemasons until it had considered the Lord Advocate's response.

We have now had a response not from the Lord Advocate, but from the office of the Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, who is responsible for this area. Members will see that the Scottish ministers have considered whether any action would be appropriate in Scotland but took the view that there was no need for any steps to be taken. The Minister for Justice states that, apart from the petitioner's representation, he is not aware of any court users being concerned about the matter.

We know that the situation is different in England and Wales, where there was sufficient concern for the Home Affairs Select Committee to hold an inquiry into freemasonry in public life and for the Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Irvine, to recommend that all new applicants for the judiciary should have to say whether they are members of the freemasons and that all judges should be asked to contribute to a voluntary register. That information is not available to the public, but is kept in the Lord Chancellor's office.

I am concerned that there are only four members present today as I am aware that other members of the committee have taken an interest in the petition. I think that we should postpone consideration of the issue until we have more members present.

I agree with the quote that the petition contains from Lord Irvine about the ethical obligations of a judge. It says:

"If the judge knew that someone appearing before him was a Freemason, then he would have an obligation to reveal that to the parties and ask the parties if that caused them any disquiet about him continuing to sit".

I agree with the suggestion to postpone consideration of the response until there are more of us present.

The area is quite controversial. The letter from the Grand Lodge of Antient, Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland says that its members are genuinely angry about what they see as their organisation's being singled out and picked on. We have to give careful consideration to the issue.

Are there other secret organisations?

I am not a member of any secret organisation, so I do not know. The campaign for socialism is quite an open organisation.

I believe that there are other secret organisations—the Catholic organisation, the Knights of St Columba, may well be.

Are we agreed to postpone consideration of the petition until our next meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE316 is from Hector MacLean and called on the Scottish Parliament to provide the funding and support necessary to design a national berry strategy to raise home-based consumption of raspberries within Scotland.

We agreed to seek comments from the Scottish Executive and also to pass the petition to the Rural Development Committee for its information. We have received a response from the Executive, which says that, while projects of this type should be encouraged, there is no conclusive evidence that berries provide specific benefits over and above other forms of fruit and vegetables, although the Executive is now funding research into the matter, which is currently under way at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen.

After discussion with the berry group, the Executive has decided to consider proposals for a pilot project for potential Government funding. Initially, the group did not take up the Executive's offer, but I understand that both parties are in discussion on the matter and that the group plans to submit a proposal for a pilot project shortly. The results of the berry project pilot will be reviewed inter alia in the context of the health department's national coronary heart disease plan.

It appears that the Executive is aware of the berry group's objectives and is providing advice on how the matter may be dealt with. It is suggested that the Public Petitions Committee should pass the Executive response to the petitioners and take no further action other than recommending that it continues its discussions with the Scottish Executive.

By coincidence, in my travels I met a consultant in the field of nutrition who told me about the Finnish view that massive consumption of raspberries was beneficial to the health of the nation. Ever since then, I must confess, I have been enormously indulging in raspberry consumption.

When the petitioners spoke to us, they mentioned the experience of Finland. It is good to see that the Executive is funding research into the matter and is supporting the pilot project.

I am glad that the Executive is taking the matter seriously. It is widely believed that red fruit and vegetables are anti-carcinogenic, although there is no proof yet.

One of the major problems for the berry industry is the closure of the jam factories that used to be in the berry areas. In Glasgow, of course, the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society had a massive jam factory that is no longer there and the Robertson's factories have closed down. Those closures meant that the berries were not going into jam production in Scotland. I suggest, therefore, that it might be possible to refer the petition to the Enterprise and whatever committee—what is the code for jobs? Is it Enterprise?

Seemingly, these days.

Yes, we could refer it to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. As I have only recently joined this committee, I do not know whether the petitioners mentioned that aspect when they spoke to us.

I do not think that they did. However, I remind members that this committee cannot freelance on the back of petitions. We have to deal with what the petition asks for. If people want to raise the issue that you mention, they can bring another petition to the committee.

Is it agreed that we pass the Executive response to the petitioners and take no further action other than recommending that the group continues its discussions with the Scottish Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE318, from Bob and Vera Scotland, which has more than 10,000 signatures, calls on the Parliament to take the opportunity presented by the publication of the Scottish health plan to allocate new funds for the improvement of mental health services, particularly in relation to care in the community.

Members will be aware that a ministerial statement on the Scottish health plan was made after the petition was submitted. We agreed to pass the petition to the Executive for its comments and have received a response that includes a full copy of the health plan and the "Framework for Mental Health Services in Scotland". The response indicates that the Scottish Executive will be increasing the NHS spend on mental health by £17 million on previous years. In addition, the Executive intends to identify and tackle issues of particular concern, such as the national framework for the prevention of suicides.

The Executive is also considering the recommendations for the development of modern mental health services in the Millan committee review. The response outlines the ways in which the Executive will work through the NHS to co-ordinate services better.

All that appears to address the issue raised by the petitioners and it is suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioners, with the documents supplied by the Executive and take no further action. I am sure that the issues that are raised will be taken up by the Health and Community Care Committee when it examines the findings of the Millan committee.

Do we agree to follow the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE326 from Stella Anderson, on behalf of the Scottish People's Mission, and calls for the Scottish Parliament to return the stone of Scone to the community of Scone. We agreed to refer the petition to Perth and Kinross Council for its comments. We have received a response from the council, which says that it agrees to reaffirm its previous decision—that the stone should be returned to Scone—and supports the petition's call for the return of the stone to Perth museum and art gallery.

It is suggested that now we have that response, we should approach the Executive for its views before we consider the matter further.

One of my complaints was about being charged to see the honours of Scotland. I do not know whether that point was followed through. There should be no charge for seeing the honours of Scotland; they belong to us.

We can raise that issue when we write to the Executive.

I am not suggesting any particular policy on charging for museums, but I think that the honours of Scotland and the stone of Scone are rather special and that people should not have to pay to see them.

We will ask specifically for the Executive's response to that point.

The Executive might respond by talking about the security angle. I examined the matter at the time of the return of the stone in 1996. Security was the major reason—or excuse—for the addition of the stone to the collection at Edinburgh Castle. Edinburgh Castle has umpteen goodies and the stone would be of more use back in its native area. We do not want some bland reply that merely repeats what has already been said about the security issue. We want the costs to be spelled out and so on.

We will ask the Executive for its views on the charge to see the honours of Scotland and the stone of Scone. If it believes that it is necessary to charge to see them, we will ask for a breakdown of the costs involved.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE332, from Mr Steve Ratcliffe, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to create controls to require MSPs to declare to the Standards Committee details of members of their staff to ensure that, in instances where they have recruited a relative, that person is the most suitable person who could be hired for the post.

We passed the petition to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, asking it to respond directly to the petitioner. We also passed the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for information only. We have received a memorandum from the SPCB, saying that it is not responsible for the recruitment of MSPs' staff. It recommends that an amendment to the code of conduct would be a more appropriate way of achieving the petitioner's aims.

The clerk to the Standards Committee has responded by stating that the register of interests of the staff of MSPs, which was endorsed by the Parliament, covers the parliamentary duties of staff under the members' allowances scheme, but that there are no provisions on the recruitment procedures for MSPs' staff. The clerk states that the Standards Committee would view the employment relationship between MSPs and their staff as essentially a private matter in which the committee would not want to become involved. However, the clerk is happy for the petition to be forwarded formally to the Standards Committee should the Public Petitions Committee so decide.

It appears that neither the SPCB nor the Standards Committee really wants to become involved in the matter. We need to consider whether we should therefore take no further action and whether the clerk should write to the petitioner to explain the reasons behind that decision. Another option would be to forward the petition to the Standards Committee for its formal consideration.

We should not take any further action. I do not employ any members of my family, but I know that those who do often get far more working hours out of a member of their poor family than they would ever get if they employed someone on the open market.

That sounds like exploitation.

I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that this is a private matter. I deplore the insult that is contained in the suggestion that MSPs are not doing their public duty if they happen to employ a member of their family.

Under equality legislation, if people feel that someone has been appointed over them on unfair grounds, they can go to an industrial tribunal.

I do not understand how a person who is not employed by an MSP could take the matter to an industrial tribunal.

If the person applied for a job and felt that—

That would require MSPs to advertise publicly for staff, which we do not have to do.

I think that we are encouraged to do so, are we not?

We are not obliged to do so, and I do not think that many members do.

The Equal Opportunities Committee received the petition for information and it has been considering terms and conditions of employment in the Scottish Parliament. If it felt that any action had to be taken, it could do so on the back of the petition. It has not informed us of any decision to take any action, so I feel that we should just reply to the petitioner in the terms that have been suggested.

Members indicated agreement.

The final part of this agenda item is to consider a summary of petitions that are being considered by various committees. Petition PE51 from Friends of the Earth Scotland, on the release of genetically modified crops, went to the Transport and the Environment Committee which, in response, has published a report on genetically modified organisms. The final page of paper PE/01/02/2 summarises the action that is being taken on PE51, and on petitions PE96 and PE242.

What interests me about PE51 is whether the matter should be dealt with by the planning departments of local authorities. I would like to think that local authorities would be consulted about planning permission before any change from ordinary crops to GM crops took place. That is not the position at the moment.

As I understand it, under European legislation, local authorities are not able to withhold permission to plant GM crops. The matter could not come under planning procedures, because planning departments would have to adhere to European legislation. I know that the matter is being discussed in Europe at the moment, and I hope that things may change.

I do not think that it is law yet—I will look into that.

The Transport and the Environment Committee has responsibility for planning law. It will be interesting to read its report, which I have not had a chance to read.

Will we just have to wait?

Yes.

The next petition, PE96, calls for a public inquiry into the adverse environmental effects of sea cage fish farming. The Transport and the Environment Committee has considered a report on the petition and has agreed to its recommendation that the Executive be asked to establish an independent inquiry into the issue. That action is being taken.

I find it strange, because the usual objection to cage fish farming is that there is shallow water and insufficient tidal movement. There must be a massive environmental improvement if the cages are at sea. I raised the matter at question time and received a sympathetic answer from the Executive. Northern Ireland is encouraging sea cage fish farming. To my knowledge, the only place that we have it in Scotland is an experimental site in Shetland. I think that sea cages are better than loch cages.

The Transport and the Environment Committee considered the petition and agreed to ask for an independent inquiry.

Fair enough.

The final petition, PE242, is on asylum seekers' rights of access to various support services. The Social Justice Committee has approved a report, which I have not seen, n relation to the petition.