Public Petitions Committee, 29 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Official Report 227KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Sex Offenders (Home Office Project) (PE486)

Our next agenda item is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE486. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to note the progress of a Home Office project to help sex offenders to avoid reoffending and the work of the Scottish Quakers to apply the principle of the scheme in Scotland, and to consider the scheme's possible application in Scotland.

At our meeting on 28 April 2004, the committee agreed to seek clarification from the Scottish Executive of the timescale for the Home Office's comparative study on the circles of support and accountability projects. The committee also requested details of the proportion of sex offenders currently involved in progressive programmes in Scotland.

The Executive's response states:

"The Home Office has advised that a report is expected in March 2005 which will inform the future policy and funding of the projects in England and Wales."

Following a meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 23 April 2004, the Executive agreed to consider the evaluation of the pilots in England and Wales and said that it would be willing further to consider the scheme at that stage.

I am a wee bit disappointed by the Executive's response. The Executive is not able to tell us what proportion of sex offenders are in progressive programmes because not all sex offenders are subject to a period of statutory supervision. With all due respect to the Executive, those people are in custody, so I would think that information on whether they are in a programme of education would be recorded and could be collated. If not, why not? We need that information if we are to be able to assess, in response to the petitioner's specific request, whether enough is being done. I would like to get the petitioner's formal response to the Executive's response and we can take it from there. I envisage that I will want the petition to be referred to the appropriate committee.

Shall we contact the petitioner and await a response before referring the petition to a committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Institutional Child Abuse (PE535)

Our next petition is PE535. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to have an inquiry into past institutional child abuse—in particular, abuse of children who were in the care of state bodies under the supervision of religious orders. The petitioner also calls on the Parliament to make an unreserved apology on behalf of those state bodies and to urge the religious orders to apologise unconditionally.

At our meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Education and Young People, seeking an urgent response detailing any progress made towards conducting such an inquiry and any information on the timetable for such an inquiry. The committee also agreed to write to the First Minister expressing disappointment that the Executive had failed to respond to the committee despite a number of reminders since its initial request in March 2003. However, despite further reminders to the Executive by the clerks, the committee has yet to receive a response either from the Minister for Education and Young People or from the First Minister.

I am really angry about this. The issue directly affects people whom I represent, on whose behalf I have been writing to the First Minister, separately from the committee, for months and months—I think that I said that when we discussed the petition previously. Not only has the First Minister not responded, he has not even had the decency to acknowledge that the letters have been received. When we compare that with the First Minister parading in a Sunday newspaper, saying that he was going to get the issue sorted out and promising an investigation, and with the fact that Ireland has managed to get an inquiry under way very quickly to the satisfaction of people who now feel that they are being listened to, we have to conclude that the Executive's behaviour is completely out of order.

The Public Petitions Committee—both the current committee and our predecessor committee in the 1999-2003 session—has tried to make progress on this issue, but I believe that a committee of this Parliament is being treated with absolute contempt, which is very worrying indeed. Is there any more that the committee can do, other than write yet another strong letter to the Executive expressing our disappointment at the lack of response? We should say, "Look, guys. Time's up. This is just not good enough. You have to start coming up with some answers."

May I ask the clerks whom they wrote to or spoke to? Have letters been followed up with phone calls?

A letter was sent to the Minister for Education and Young People on 19 May and a letter was also sent to the First Minister, as requested by the committee at the meeting on 12 May. Since then, we have had telephone conversations with officials, who have said that they hope to get a response to us. That has yet to materialise.

I think it extremely unlikely that either the First Minister or the Minister for Education and Young People will have seen those letters. This is a civil service issue. When a letter goes to officials, I think that it goes from the clerks. May I suggest, convener, that you write—perhaps delivering the letters in person to the First Minister and the Minister for Education and Young People—to highlight the delays that have been encountered and the discourtesy that has been shown to this committee? I am sure that that discourtesy comes not from the ministers but from the ministers' officials.

When letters are sent, I sign them off. They are sent from me to the ministers' departments. You might be right to say that the ministers do not actually see the letters, but they come from me.

Normally, we put a petition on the agenda when we receive a response, but this petition is on the agenda because we have received no response. However, I have spoken to the minister about the situation and he knows that I am not happy. He has apologised to me and has assured me that a response will be forthcoming. The petition was already on today's agenda when I spoke to him.

I am glad to hear that you have discussed this with the minister in person. This would be an unusual step to take—I do not recall that the committee has ever done it before—but if no reply is forthcoming, ready to be discussed at our next meeting, perhaps a meeting should be held with the convener, the deputy convener and the minister.

It is serious when a petition has been carried through from the previous session of Parliament into the current session. If our letters are not bringing forth responses—because of civil service tardiness or whatever—a personal meeting with the minister might help to focus minds and ensure that we get a response. Let us hope that there is a response in time for our next meeting.

I am certainly not in a position to judge why we have not received any response. When we write to ministers and the First Minister, it is their responsibility to ensure that there are systems in place to produce replies. From a trade union perspective, I am always a wee bit wary of criticising employees without any justification; it is not for us to speculate about people's jobs.

Politicians are supposed to be accountable and they have to answer for their actions. If there are problems with systems, that is their problem, not ours. The lack of response is disrespectful to the committee, but more important than that are the delays. When people come to the Public Petitions Committee, they have a sense of hope that we will be able to get some movement on whatever issue they are pursuing. More than anybody else, it is those people who have been treated with contempt when even we, given the office that we are supposed to hold, cannot get replies from the Executive. It is unacceptable.

The letters that we sent should be copied and delivered in person, but it is ridiculous that we have to go to those lengths. If we still get no movement after that, we should find ways of airing the issues in Parliament if that is all that we can do.

I am concerned that our convener has spoken to the minister yet again and has been told informally that there will be a response. Here we are in the last week of the session and we are talking about another two months going by. Not only did the matter come up in the first four-year session of Parliament; it came up again in the first year of the current session. A year has now passed and we will be into the second year before we get a response. It is absolutely not good enough. Does the committee have to rely on the good will of ministers for a response or is there anything else we can do? Can concern be expressed to any other parliamentary body about such a delay?

I am listening to what everyone is saying. I want to hear all your views before I make a couple of points.

Like Linda Fabiani, I represent a survivor of child abuse who was abused when she was in the care of a religious order. One cannot help but contrast what we have done—or not done—with the swift and comprehensive action that was taken in Ireland, where the decision has been a slightly more uncomfortable one. I would like to see a similarly swift and comprehensive response in Scotland.

I concur with Mike Watson absolutely—ministers do not see correspondence until it is time for them to sign it off. That might be an error and there might need to be changes to the system, but I suspect that that is what has happened in this case. That does not make it right, but it offers some background explanation as to why the correspondence has gone adrift. The fact that the convener has made the minister aware of the situation suggests that the position will now be tracked, which is appropriate.

I will make a wider point. This is not the first case in which we have had to wait for responses from the Executive. In the recess, it might be worth while having a look at those other cases and finding out whether the problem of not getting responses in time is persistent. We could take that wider principle to the Executive for discussion as well as making progress on the individual petition.

This is an extremely important issue. We must remember that this is the Public Petitions Committee. When the public raise an issue it is totally unacceptable for ministers to fail to respond to the committee's requests.

Linda Fabiani said that we should not have to rely on the good will of ministers. Surely mechanisms must be in place in the parliamentary system to ensure that ministers and the First Minister can be held to account if they persistently ignore the requests of the Public Petitions Committee? With the greatest of respect, convener, it is not acceptable for you to have to say to a minister, "Come on, reply to the letter that we sent you a long time ago."

I have listened to what members have said and there is nothing with which I disagree. I should make the following points, however. We have a six-week timescale in which we expect to receive replies to our communications with the Executive. The clerks inform me that the timescale is adhered to in the vast majority of cases. The problem is not widespread; we are talking about a specific issue and a specific problem.

The question is how we address the problem in this specific case. We are about to go into the summer recess, which means that there is an eight-week period in which one of two things can happen: either the response will be received and we can address its contents at our first meeting after the recess; or the response will not have been received by that time.

We can do something to pre-empt either situation: we can invite the minister to come before the committee at our next meeting. The item would therefore be on the agenda whether or not we receive a response. Either way, we can question the minister directly on the issue. If we do that, we will have taken action on the specific problem of PE535.

There is also the wider context of how we hold the Executive to account for any tardiness in its replies. The way to do that is to go to the Presiding Officer, who can discuss the matter with the First Minister. We might want to hold that option in reserve until we have had the opportunity to question the minister and have received a reply from the First Minister outlining his views on the subject of responses from his ministers. I suggest that we should take that course of action. We can go to the Presiding Officer at some point in the future if we consider that the issue has not been addressed properly. What do members think of my suggestion?

I completely agree. If it is not possible for the convener formally to make that proposal, I will do so. We should invite the minister to our next meeting—regardless of whether we have received his response. After we have questioned the minister, we can decide whether to ask the Presiding Officer to look into the matter.

I agree. Thinking further ahead, does the Public Petitions Committee get the opportunity to make a report to the Parliament?

We can ask the Conveners Group for time.

I am not suggesting that we do that right now; I am just trying to figure out what the options are.

The Public Petitions Committee had a debate in the first session of the Parliament. I think that it was on a health issue, but Helen Eadie will be able to keep me right.

It was on Blairingone and Saline.

The Public Petitions Committee asked for a debate in the Parliament because a series of health issues had been raised. If we thought that an issue required to be debated in the Parliament, we could ask the Conveners Group to allocate one of the committee slots to the Public Petitions Committee. We can keep open that option. Are members happy that we invite the minister to our next meeting?

I do not know whether I am happy, convener, but I will go along with the suggestion.

The issue touches on one of the petitions that we discussed last week. The same minister is involved and, again, we are waiting for a response, in that case in relation to the draft revised policy guidance on school closures. Two issues are causing us concern.

We would have to take them separately.

I am not suggesting that we take them together. I simply wanted to highlight that we have on-going concerns about one Executive department.

Are members happy that we invite the minister to come before the committee after the summer recess? I know that members are not happy about doing so; I am just seeking members' agreement.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Archives (PE628)

The next petition is PE628. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to consider the introduction of guidance to local authorities to establish best practice for the keeping, display and storage of Scotland's archives in an area of local relevance; to introduce proposals to publicise the archives; and to ensure that that heritage is not damaged or diminished because of the lack of a national policy.

At our meeting on 12 May 2004, the committee agreed to seek further clarification from the Scottish Executive on whether the Scottish public records strategy will include use of the internet and guidance on how the scanning of archives should take place and what processes should be used. In its response, the Executive states:

"Until the formal consultation process has been completed, it would be inappropriate for the Executive to give any definite commitment as to what guidance or other measures the Strategy will produce."

However, it also states that

"one of the main reasons for developing the Strategy at this time is the continuing development in technology"

and that

"accordingly, subject to the outcome of the consultation, the Executive expects that the Strategy will include the matters raised by the Committee".

Did we get a response from the Society of Archivists? According to the previous papers, we had not received a response.

I am told that we received a response, which was on a previous agenda.

The briefing paper for members states that we have not received a response from the Society of Archivists. I wondered whether the position had been updated.

Sorry, Helen. You are absolutely right—I was reading the wrong paper.

Would it be appropriate for us to write to the petitioners to ask whether they are happy with the response that we have received from the Scottish Executive?

The petition was submitted by Christine Grahame MSP on behalf of the petitioners; therefore, one would assume that other channels will be used to make the petitioners' point to the Executive. I think that the Executive's response takes us as far as we can go. I really think that we should leave it at that.

Are other members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Main Board) (PE680)

The next petition is PE680. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to disband the Scottish Environment Protection Agency main board and allow the agency to reform its board without political interference.

At our meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on SEPA's response, which is dated 3 February. In his response, the petitioner states:

"The majority view of individuals who have perused SEPA's response is one of disbelief. This organisation would have us believe ‘all is rosy in the garden' and cannot/ will not look inward and recognise its failings in the eyes of many people and their communities."

The petitioner claims that SEPA's chairperson has a conflict of interests as someone with a long career associated with the waste industry, which must be challenged and investigated in depth to ascertain an appropriate way forward.

The committee will recall that members of the SEPA board are expected to adhere to a code of conduct that the organisation is required to prepare under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. The Standards Commission for Scotland has responsibility for investigating and applying sanctions relating to any breaches. The view is that, if SEPA has fallen foul of the existing codes, there is a course of redress for the petitioner. We have raised the matter with SEPA and it has responded.

The petitioner is obviously not satisfied with the response. However, he made no specific allegations; instead, he has raised only a general concern about the chairperson's previous occupations or involvements. If the petitioner has any specific concerns about actions that any individual on the SEPA board has taken, there is a course of redress for him to follow that is not through the Public Petitions Committee. Do members agree with that and that we should close our consideration of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Minority Sports (Funding) (PE699)

PE699 calls on the Scottish Parliament to review sportscotland's vision world class policy and to ensure the equal treatment of world-class athletes by sportscotland and the national lottery. At its meeting on 12 May, the committee agreed to seek further clarification from sportscotland about who is responsible for setting the criteria in relation to priorities for funding sports and how priorities are decided. The committee also sought confirmation of the petitioner's claims that sportscotland has £13 million in reserve funds and agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on the points that were raised in the original responses from the Scottish Executive and sportscotland.

In its response, sportscotland said that the setting of

"criteria in relation to priorities for funding of sports … is clearly explained in our Achieving Excellence strategy".

On the petitioner's claims that sportscotland has £13 million in reserve funds, sportscotland says:

"during the four years 2004-2007 we aim to invest an average of about £25 million a year in new Lottery categories … However, £25 million a year can only be achieved by managing a significant reduction in our Lottery balances which we hold in reserve."

In his response, the petitioner says:

"For some years the Scottish Executive and Sportscotland have projected and promoted the theme of ‘Sport for All'. It now appears that Sportscotland in particular have either dropped or shelved this theme."

Do members have a view on the petition?

Sportscotland has clearly stated its position. The strategy that the Executive has adopted will not be to everyone's liking, but at a time when lottery money is reducing, it seems to be good management on the part of sportscotland to keep a balance in reserve. The organisation must keep an eye on its likely future income. I do not know what else we can do with the petition; the petitioner received a detailed response and I cannot see that further action would be appropriate.

I agree with Mike Watson.

I wish that I had checked back on this, but I remember a discussion in the committee about referring the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. Did we decide to wait for a response from the Executive before referring the petition?

We did not decide on a course of action.

I understand the petitioner's worries about—for want of a better phrase—minority sports.

Are you suggesting that we refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee?

I understand Mike Watson's point about the fact that the Executive and sportscotland have clearly set out their strategies, which seem on the surface to be reasonable. However, I am worried about the achieving excellence strategy. Am I right in thinking that archery was mentioned at the time?

Yes—archery is the petitioner's sport.

I understand why there are concerns that some sports will be missed out, such as the non-sexy ones that are not often televised. I do not think that the Enterprise and Culture Committee should carry out an inquiry into the matter, but we should draw that committee's attention to the petition. It would be worth while to send that committee copies of the petition and the responses and to ask it to bear the matter in mind.

We can do one of two things. Either we send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee and ask it to address the matter, or we send it to that committee for information. If we do the latter, it will be up to the Enterprise and Culture Committee to decide what to do with the information.

I would be happy to send the petition for information.

The petition might fit in with other work that the committee is undertaking, but we will not request action on the petition.

That is reasonable.

We will send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for information.

I would probably agree with that. The Enterprise and Culture Committee is better placed to make a judgment on whether the strategy and the responses address the problems that the petition raises. Sportscotland was not specific about the amount by which its reserve will be reduced and there is no justification for not using part of the reserve to fund the sports that the petitioner mentions. I am not sure what the balance of funding is.

I am concerned about gender issues that arise when certain sports are promoted and funded. Members of the Public Petitions Committee are not qualified to make a judgment about those issues, so I would like the Enterprise and Culture Committee to address the matter. If the consensus in this committee is to send the petition for information only, I will accept that, but I am not sure that we are sufficiently informed—I plead guilty to not reading the background material properly—to be able to close the petition. We should refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.

I think that we could close consideration of the petition, but still send it to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I do not see what else we can do with it. We sought responses from the Executive and from sportscotland, which we got. We have also had a response from the petitioner, who is obviously not satisfied. There are funding issues, but we have had responses on them. If we send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for information, we can close our consideration; there is nothing else that we can do with the petition.

As long as it goes somewhere, that is fine.

Can we close our consideration of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gulf War Syndrome (PE709)

Our next petition is PE709, in which the petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the health aspects of gulf war syndrome and the other devolved matters that relate to it.

At our meeting on 17 March 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's comments on the issues that the petition raises and to obtain an indication of whether it has any plans to conduct an inquiry of the nature that is proposed by the petitioner. Members expressed concern that some gulf war veterans appear to be having difficulties in accessing their medical records and, as a result, may not be receiving appropriate treatment for any medical conditions that they may have contracted. The committee requested comments on that and sought confirmation of what medical records on gulf war veterans are kept in Scotland. In spite of setting an initial deadline of 30 April 2004, the committee has yet to receive a response from the Executive. The clerks received a holding response from the Executive, which was dated 6 May, in which officials stated that they hoped to respond during May, if possible. Even though the committee issued a further reminder, it has yet to receive a response.

Rosie Kane has joined us. Would you like to make some comments, before we start to discuss the petition?

I found out that the petition was on the committee's agenda on my way in, so I am ill prepared. I thank the clerks for giving me the paperwork when I came in this morning.

I want to draw the committee's attention to the motion that I lodged on gulf war syndrome—motion S2M-1397. Alex Izett is a Scottish veteran of the first gulf war who is known to the committee. Like many other soldiers, he received nine vaccines in 24 hours during preparation for deployment. He now suffers from a number of illnesses, including autoimmune osteoporosis, which a court ruling in 2003 found was caused by a concoction of drugs.

I did not get a chance to speak to Alex Izett before I came in today, so I cannot relay a message from him, but I have spoken to him in the past. He asks how Parliament can assist his request for an independent public inquiry into all aspects of gulf war syndrome.

As members will know, Alex Izett went on hunger strike. He came off that strike because he felt that he was supported by the Scottish Parliament—he had had quite a positive response from some MSPs and my motion had received support. He also felt supported when an early-day motion was lodged at Westminster. However, he has suspended his hunger strike only until 1 July. I guess that I come here to plead on his behalf and to find out what positive news I can take back to him to encourage him not to go back on hunger strike.

I welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government has announced that there will be an independent public inquiry.

It is not the Government that has announced the inquiry.

There is certainly going to be a public inquiry, which I think will be independent. We are very pleased about that. When I was first elected in 1999, constituents raised the issue with me. A power of research has been done on gulf war syndrome. Right from the start, the fact that the health issues needed to be addressed was pinpointed. It seemed that there was a variety of responses in different health areas throughout the country. That is why I am pleased that there is going to be an independent public inquiry.

It is important to put on the record that the Government has resisted the inquiry, which has had to be organised under pressure from the Royal British Legion. The inquiry is not only independent; it has been organised independently. Therefore, the setting up of the inquiry is not an indication that the Westminster Government or the Scottish Executive intend to take the issue seriously.

This Parliament has authority over health and we have a duty to address the issue, because health professionals are out there grappling with and attempting to treat the symptoms that these veterans are presenting with. It is incumbent on the authorities to examine those illnesses and syndromes and to introduce guidelines that are similar to, for example, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines for diabetes, and to set out best practice for treating them. The Government's intransigent refusal to recognise the syndrome or combination of illnesses is holding back proper and efficacious treatment of veterans and puts health professionals in a difficult situation.

I am disappointed that, yet again, the Executive has provided no response to a politically difficult issue, which seems to have become the pattern. This issue has a real human cost, and Alex Izett does not want to hear the news that the Executive is rubber-earing us and slinging us a deefie. I believe that the members of the Public Petitions Committee are sympathetic to this petition and I hope that we will send Alex the message that we do not accept the Executive's lack of response, that we will harry it to ensure that it takes the issue seriously and that we will try to find some avenue to pursue these issues. I want to give Alex some hope that we are trying to pursue the matter.

The fact that we have yet again received no response from the Executive is unacceptable, particularly as we received a holding response on 6 May. Have the clerks made telephone contact to chase the matter up?

Yes.

But with no effect.

That is right.

We have gone through the same procedures again. As members know, we are having this additional meeting to consider outstanding issues and to deal with them before the recess. We decided to put some new petitions on the agenda because we felt that they had merit. However, given that we had already highlighted petitions as being urgent, and that we had received no response to our questions, the clerks and I agreed that we should try to achieve something before the recess. If the petitions are being kicked into the long grass during the summer months, we have to act as a kind of lawnmower to cut that grass down a bit.

We must collectively reconfirm our view that the matter is urgent, that it should be addressed as quickly as possible and that we expect a response from the Minister for Health and Community Care to the very clear questions that we framed after hearing Mr Izett's views on the matter. We are not dropping the subject and will pursue it until we have a response. I agree with Carolyn Leckie—after all, Alex Izett has previously gone on hunger strike. As we cannot be seen to allow the situation to drift, we must seek clarification from the minister on when his response is due and what it will be. We must also make it clear that we need the response before our first meeting after the recess.

I am sure that it will be done anyway, but we should also write to Mr Izett to let him know that we have had this discussion, that we are all very concerned about the situation and that we intend to pursue the matter. Indeed, I want the committee to send him the positive message that, even though the Executive has not provided a response, we are pursuing the matter vigorously. I do not think that any of us want him to resume his hunger strike on 1 July.

Absolutely—we need to make that point. If signalling our intention to pursue the matter further encourages Mr Izett to take a positive attitude, we should do that this morning.

However, as parliamentarians, we must also hold the Executive to account, which is the primary purpose of putting the item on our agenda. We have to go back to the minister and ask him for a response. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.