Public Petitions Committee, 29 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Official Report 314KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Landfill Sites (PE541 and PE543)

The first current petitions are petition PE541, by the Roslin Community Action Group, and petition PE543, by Karen Whitefield MSP, on the development of landfill sites. Both petitions call on the Parliament to investigate the impact of landfill sites on the health and environment of surrounding communities and for the planning process to be amended to ensure greater community involvement when such developments are proposed.

On 25 June this year, we agreed to refer the petitions to the Environment and Rural Development Committee for further consideration. A memo has now been received from that committee explaining that, at its meeting on 24 September, it agreed to follow up the issues relating to waste management as part of its inquiry into the national waste plan and those relating to the regulation of noxious odours as part of its consideration of petition PE517. However, the Environment and Rural Development Committee also agreed that, despite its concerns about the planning and health issues raised, the Public Petitions Committee should be invited to consider re-referring the petition to the Communities Committee and the Health Committee.

If members are happy with that suggestion, is it agreed that we refer petitions PE541 and PE543 to the Communities Committee for further consideration of the planning issues raised, with the recommendation that it should obtain the views of the Health Committee on the associated health concerns?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Prison Service (Staff Facilities) (PE557)

The second current petition is PE557, by James McGarry, on Scottish Prison Service staff social and recreational facilities. The petition calls on the Parliament to encourage the Scottish Prison Service to continue to provide adequate social and recreational facilities for its staff and to avoid the closure of existing well-used and well-run facilities.

At the time of the petition's submission, in October 2002, the petitioners were concerned about the proposed closure by the SPS of the Polmont staff social club. The previous Public Petitions Committee agreed in December 2002 to defer further consideration of the petition following a commitment given by the SPS to meet representatives of Polmont staff social club to discuss options that might allow the club to continue at Polmont.

The clerks have been monitoring discussions between the SPS and the petitioners. We now have before us correspondence that provides details of meetings held on 20 December 2002, 26 March 2003 and 6 June 2003 to discuss the various options available. That correspondence explains that only one of those options, involving the possible sharing of facilities in a new prison college facility, was considered worthy of further consideration. It appears that restrictions suggested by the SPS, from both staffing and financial perspectives, were considered prohibitive by the social club, which closed on 30 June 2003.

Members have been handed copies of a letter received from the petitioners within the past few days. Attached to that is a letter to them from the SPS, which confirms that they will receive no compensation for the closure of their club. The petitioners indicate that other prison officers' clubs have recently been given five years' notice of closure. They feel that the situation is unfair, as the Polmont club did not have the benefit of such advance warning, resulting in about £45,000 of expenditure on club improvements. They are of the view that, had they known in advance of the likelihood of the closure, they could have saved that money and might have been in a position to purchase new premises. The points seems to be valid.

I agree that the point is a valid one. We should write to the Scottish Prison Service to ask why it is not acting consistently. We should ask it why the clubs that have been mentioned appear to have received considerably better treatment than the Polmont club did.

I should say that I am not sure who any compensation would be paid to, given that the club has closed. Has a body been constituted that could receive any compensation that might be paid?

I share that view. I remember this case vividly, particularly the long and detailed questioning session that we had with the petitioners. I suggest that we copy the correspondence and the report to the MSPs who were involved—a list of their names is attached to the correspondence—and ask them to comment on the Scottish Prison Service's response.

I am not aware of the background to this petition. Did the prison officers make any investigations into the matter before spending the money? It is a one-year lease with a 40-day termination notice. Did they seek assurances from the SPS that there would be continuity of the lease?

Their concern was not so much about the lease—I believe that the lease was extended to allow discussion to continue—but about the fact that they would not have spent £45,000 if they had known that support for the club would be withdrawn.

That is the pertinent point. The letter from the Executive to Derek Green says:

"the letter that was issued in 1998 was merely seeking to establish whether or not you would have been interested in bidding to purchase the premises, should they have been made available for sale."

I would say that, by asking that question, the SPS gave the impression that the premises would be made available for sale. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

The petitioners have been hard done by. There is a case for following the suggestions made by Mike Watson and Helen Eadie.

Are members happy for us to follow the suggested action and to canvass the opinions of the MSPs who supported the petitioners at the time?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Complementary Medicine (PE571)

The next petition, PE571, is from Ethne Brown and calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to require health boards in Scotland to implement the recommendations of the 1996 report on complementary medicine in the national health service by the national medical advisory committee of the Scottish Office department of health.

The petition is prompted by the petitioner's belief that a statutory obligation should be placed on health boards to integrate complementary alternative medicine within the NHS. She also believes that health professionals should receive specified training and that further research should be conducted on the safety and efficacy of complementary alternative medicine.

On 11 March 2003, our predecessor committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and the British Medical Association. The Executive response stressed the need for NHS boards to decide how best to deploy their resources to meet the healthcare needs of local populations and made it clear that it considers that it would be inappropriate to introduce legislation to introduce NHS board discretion in relation to the provision of complementary alternative medicine. The Executive also indicated that it was funding four current projects and one research fellow project concerning complementary alternative medicine.

The BMA stressed that the efficacy of complementary alternative medicine would have to be determined to justify any action being taken on the introduction of a comprehensive policy on provision or the implementation of compulsory training as part of the medical curriculum at this stage.

The committee agreed in March to put the petition on hold and to allow the clerks to monitor the progress of the Executive's current research projects. The committee also agreed to write to the General Medical Council seeking its views on the issues raised. A response from the GMC has now been received, as well as an update from the Executive on the status of its research projects and representations in support of the petition from the General Chiropractic Council and Sarah Mumford, who is a constituent of Jackie Baillie MSP.

It is clear from the GMC's response that it does not think that it has a role in determining what treatments, including complementary alternative medicine, should be provided by the NHS. The Executive is still awaiting the reports of two recently completed research projects concerning complementary alternative medicine. The two other research projects are still on-going.

We need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate to await the Executive's response to those reports or whether the petition should be referred to the Health Committee.

I feel that I should speak about the issue because one of my constituents raised it with me. The key issue is whether integrating complementary alternative medicine into the NHS should be a statutory obligation. I note the responses that have been received in that regard.

However, as I believe in evidence-based policy making, I think that it would be appropriate for us to await the conclusions of the research before we consider how to progress the petition. That said, we have no time scale for the research and no indication of how long it will take. As I am loth to keep the petitioner hanging on, I wonder whether we could ask the Health Committee to examine the matter once the results of the research are available as well as informing the petitioner of the responses that we have received so far. After all, the responses contain some interesting stuff that advances the petitioner's cause.

As well as sending the responses to the petitioner, should we send them to the Health Committee for its information?

Yes.

I do not think that there would be any harm in doing that, because the Health Committee is involved in the on-going process.

I back that suggestion. Indeed, there would be no harm in referring the responses to the Health Committee as soon as possible because they raise many issues. Making complementary alternative medicine a statutory obligation in NHS provision would throw up all kinds of regulation issues. The matter is quite complicated.

It would be useful for the Health Committee to have the information.

I am a keen supporter of complementary alternative medicine and agree with the views that Jackie Baillie and Carolyn Leckie have expressed. However, the Executive says in its response that it is quite willing to support more research. That picks up Jackie Baillie's point about evidence-based policy making. I do not know the global name for the organisations that represent complementary alternative medicine, but perhaps it would be helpful if we could find out what the organisations are and make them aware of the Executive's suggestions as well as carrying out the other actions that have been recommended this morning.

I am advised that those organisations probably receive such reports as a matter of course. I think that we should inform the Health Committee, Jackie Baillie's constituent and the petitioner of the steps that have been taken so far and then await the outcome of the Executive's research. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Detoxification Clinics (Legislation) (PE585)

Petition PE585, from Mr Alan Corbett on behalf of residents of Reddingmuirhead, Wallacestone and surrounding villages, concerns the siting of heroin and detoxification clinics. The petition calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to review and revise legislation to clarify and establish the mechanisms and powers of control that regulate the siting of heroin and methadone clinics near local primary and secondary schools.

The petition is prompted by the petitioners' own experiences surrounding the location of a proposed Green Door heroin and methadone detoxification clinic in Reddingmuirhead within the grounds of a children's play park and in close proximity to the local primary and secondary schools. It was proposed that the clinic would open in premises that were previously used as a residential nursing home for the elderly.

The previous committee considered a response from the then Minister for Social Justice on 25 March 2003. The response made it clear that the provision and location of rehabilitation services is normally a matter for the local drug action team and statutory agencies, which would be the local authority and NHS boards. As a result, the Executive has no direct role in the siting of health facilities. The minister confirmed that there were no plans for an overhaul of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 but said that, in recognition of the particular issues raised in the petition, the Executive would invite planning authorities to consider whether there are any wider concerns about the order's provisions. The committee agreed to ask the Executive to report back once it had completed its consultation. A further response has now been received.

In that response, the Executive explains that it has now considered the responses from planning authorities and that some definite areas of concern have been identified. Although the Executive does not consider that those concerns highlight a need for a general review of the 1997 order, it feels that there is evidence of a need to consider whether it is appropriate for certain uses to be specified in the classes to which they are assigned. A summary of the responses shows that concerns were raised about the scope of class 8, which covers residential institutions and which includes the specific development at Reddingmuirhead that the petitioners are concerned about.

The Executive indicates that it now intends to consult further planning authorities and other interested parties on proposals for a minor revision of the 1997 order to establish whether there are any objections. Do members have any views on this correspondence? The matter is quite complex.

I suggest that, as a starting point, we should copy in Cathy Peattie, who was one of the MSPs in the delegation that presented the petition. Perhaps we should also write to the Executive to ask it to provide the committee with details of its proposals once they have been drawn up. That would be useful. It would also be helpful to ask about time scales, as the petition raises specific concerns. Those concerns are being addressed to some extent as part of the exercise that has been mentioned.

That would be helpful.

I agree with Helen Eadie. The matter might be complicated, but the Executive's response is positive and shows what the Public Petitions Committee can do. Planning legislation is complicated. If matters are clarified and more power is given to local communities, I would look at what has happened positively. The response is positive and I hope that we can follow it up by doing what Helen Eadie suggests.

I, too, think that the response is positive.

Occasionally, we question and criticise the Executive, but when we write to it this time, it would be worth saying that we welcome the fact that the Executive has moved on the petition.

I do not object to what has been proposed, which does not undermine my view of drug rehabilitation services. However, I want to record in the Official Report my support for drug rehabilitation initiatives, which are necessary. I would not want to think that the committee had taken the view that it has taken and will act as it proposes to act on the basis that the places in question are a problem.

That is a good point, which I reiterate. We are not questioning methadone and detoxification policies. The issue relates to the location and siting of units and local communities' powers.

I agree completely, but add that local people have the right to make such decisions. There should not be centralisation and we are not saying that there should be centralisation.

Are members happy with what has been recommended? Is it agreed that we should await the outcome of the Executive's response?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Renewable Energy Projects (Funding) (PE615)

Petition PE615, from Peter Hodgson, is on the funding of renewable energy projects. The petitioner calls on the Parliament to ask the Executive to reconsider the funding of renewable energy projects to encourage the development of sustainable sources that contribute towards the Kyoto agreement. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's concerns about the manner of distribution of ROS—renewable obligation Scotland—certificates, which place an obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase green electricity.

On 17 September 2003, the committee considered a response from the Executive that appeared to counter claims that the petitioner made, particularly in relation to its support for less commercially viable alternative renewable sources. The Executive made it clear that support is available and that a wide range of renewable projects are encouraged and can be eligible for grants under the Scottish community renewables initiative. The committee agreed that it would be useful to obtain the petitioner's comments on the Executive's response before reaching a view on whether any further action should be taken on the petition. A response from the petitioner has now been received.

The petitioner's letter makes it clear that he is disappointed with the Executive's response, which he thinks does not address adequately the issues that are raised in the petition. He thinks that the renewables policy that is being adopted by the Executive does not appear to recognise that only minor savings on greenhouse gas emissions are achievable when unpredictable energy sources such as wind and wave power are used, as those need to be backed up by fossil fuel resources.

The petitioner claims that developers will always choose wind farms as a renewable energy source, as they can achieve financial rewards for very little outlay, but that they will produce power that will ultimately be more expensive for the consumer and will provide little in the way of emissions reduction. He argues that, rather than making financial subsidies that are based on energy output using renewable sources available to developers, subsidies should be based on the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are achieved. He states that if that approach were adopted, technologies that genuinely contribute to Kyoto commitments would proportionately benefit and become more cost-effective.

There are many concerns about the Executive's renewables policy. Probably because part of a wind farm is likely to be sited in an area that I represent, many people have written to me about various concerns. The petition sums up quite a few of those concerns. It would be worth while to send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, as I understand that because of concerns that have been expressed, that committee is to investigate the Executive's policy on renewables. It would be useful for that committee to examine the issues that are raised in the petition as part of its inquiry.

I agree. The petition proposes an almost philosophically different approach to delivering a reduction in the level of CO2 and it would be worth while to send it to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.

Are members happy with that?

The first option in our briefing paper explains everything. We can adopt that.

John Farquhar Munro refers to the proposal to refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee with the recommendation that it may wish to consider the issues that the petition raises as part of its forthcoming inquiry into renewable energy in Scotland. That would fit in with that committee's work. Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Education (Self-defence and Swimming) (PE626)

Petition PE626 is by Mr Frank Harvey and concerns self-defence for teenage girls. The petition calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that all teenage girls are taught at secondary school how to defend themselves from attackers and how to swim. It was prompted by the petitioner's concern about the increase in the number of attacks on teenage girls and young women in recent years and by his belief that politicians have a duty to take effective action to protect such groups. He argues that girls in secondary education should be taught how to defend themselves from attackers and how to swim.

Members will recall that we considered the petition on 3 September and agreed to write to the Executive. The Executive responded with details of a range of initiatives that aim to support the provision of swimming and physical education for all school pupils. It has said that it will prepare new guidelines for child protection in education that will recommend that all schools include in the curriculum opportunities for children to learn appropriate methods of keeping themselves free from harm. Are members satisfied with that response?

I am not satisfied with that response. I have read the Executive's letter, which clearly covers swimming lesson provision and personal and social development in the curriculum, but does not cover attacks on young people. That point applies not only to young girls, but to young boys. The petitioner talks about a concern that the public throughout Scotland highlight about how young people can protect themselves from violent attack. I would like people to focus a little more on that point. As a consequence, if other committee members agree, perhaps we could write back to ask the Executive to give more thought to that aspect.

I support that suggestion, although I am a wee bit reluctant to give any credence to the notion that the tabloid press sometimes advances that young women are somehow responsible for attacks on themselves and that it is their responsibility to defend themselves. My political emphasis is on the fact that it is society's responsibility to ensure that they are not attacked. The Executive's response does not address the petitioner's questions. The petitioner is really saying that young women have a right to such instruction through education.

Whether the response about swimming lesson provision stands up also needs further exploration, because many school swimming pools are having to close and I am not convinced that the alternative arrangements are adequate. That aspect has not been addressed.

The situation is difficult, because we are going into the realm of whether committee members believe that such lessons should be provided in schools, which is not what we are here to decide. We cannot decide whether such physical education—I am talking about self-defence rather than swimming—should be part of mainstream physical education in schools, so we are really talking about whether we should pass the petition on to the relevant committee.

I would be worried about the provision of self-defence lessons in schools; it would send a message about crime and violence that would convey the idea that our children are likely to be attacked at any time. There is a big discussion there. We should either keep clearly to what Carolyn Leckie and Helen Eadie have been saying about the matter's not having been addressed by the Executive and pass the petition on elsewhere to be discussed, or we should decide that the petition has been dealt with adequately and that we will take it no further. I am a bit worried about the realms that we are getting into.

I did not intend to say anything on the petition, but I have been driven to do so. I am satisfied that the swimming element of the petition has been covered. The matter now rests on whether self-defence has been considered adequately. I concur absolutely with Linda Fabiani's view; simply to suggest self-defence without reference to the wider pressures in society sends out the wrong message, so we need to be careful.

I am much more comfortable with the suggestion in paragraph 4 of the Executive response that there are national guidelines for five to 14-year-olds that cover personal and social development. The paragraph mentions the key aspect of personal safety and says that it is up to the education authorities to decide the way in which they implement the proposals. I would prefer to say that the petition has been dealt with and that it is a matter for local authorities, in implementing an agenda such as this, to do what they think is best for their school community. The issues have been dealt with, and I recommend that there be no further action.

Paragraph 6 of the Executive response talks about the active schools working group, which is the global working group throughout Scotland. It says that the working group

"was set up in April 2003 to produce a school-policy driven implementation plan which responds to the recommendations made by the Physical Activity Task Force, the Physical Education Review and the Sport 21 strategy and targets."

I would be interested to know whether there is any reference to self-defence in those documents or in the work in which those task groups have been involved.

I hear what Linda Fabiani is saying about sending out the wrong message to the public about the need to take steps to protect themselves. There is also the view that we already have the police and the military services; in other words that there are other people to protect us. However, the providers of education should take some responsibility for that in schools. It is important that a physical education strategy ensures that that facet—self-defence—is included in teaching practices in schools. We all know that if we shape people at the most impressionable stage of their lives it can help to make a difference. It is not only about expecting other people to consider an individual's welfare and defence; it is also about ensuring that individuals take responsibility for their own welfare and defence. That can happen in tandem with the authorities, which can help individuals to access support.

The petitioner has a point. Many people go to karate and judo. My researcher has been to karate; his name is Dan Wynn, but he has a dan in karate. He values how important such skills are for young people and he has promoted those skills among young people. I will dig my heels in a bit about this.

You are more than entitled to do that. We have two different views, and it is clear that we are not going to achieve consensus. That is fine—it is legitimate for members to have different opinions.

We seem to have begun discussing the political merits of the petition rather than whether it has been dealt with. I am trying to be objective. From the facts that are before us, the petition has not been dealt with, but the political debate—on which I have my own views—should happen somewhere else.

I have a deal of sympathy with what Jackie Baillie says and a deal of sympathy with what Carolyn Leckie says. So that a wider debate can take place, should we consider referring the petition to another committee? We cannot have the debate here, because that would not be within our remit. However, the petition should perhaps be referred to the Education Committee or to one of the justice committees.

Perhaps we should send it back to the Executive and ask for more information on the points that have been made.

Yes, it would be good to ask for more information. Paragraph 6 of the Executive's response outlines all the work that is being done, but does not give any more information.

There is one sentence in the Executive's response that sums up the important issue. Paragraph 3 on child protection in education talks about

"opportunities for children … to learn appropriate methods of keeping themselves free from harm."

If we write to the Executive, can we ask what that means?

The petition is about self-defence lessons for female pupils. We all know that the Executive will not write back to us and say, "Yes, we are going to implement self-defence lessons for female pupils." We have to decide whether such lessons are worth considering. If we think that they are worth considering, or if we do not feel qualified to make a decision, we have no option but to pass the petition on for others to make the decision.

I think that the petitioner's main points have been addressed in the Executive's response. They have not been addressed fully in relation to self-defence for young women in schools, but paragraph 4 does address the points. If members disagree with that, that is another issue and there is a mechanism for pursuing it. However, because I feel that the points have been addressed, I propose that we take no further action. I was minded to compromise and say, "Yeah—let's give it to the Education Committee." However, I now want to propose that we take no further action. We should just go to a vote on the matter, convener. It will be fun.

I am happy to do that.

I want to make a counter-proposal, which is that we write back to the Executive and ask it to clarify what it means by "personal safety". We should also refer specifically to paragraph 6 in its response.

Jackie Baillie has made a clear proposal that we should accept that the issue has been dealt with. We will vote on that. If the proposal is defeated, the committee can then consider Helen Eadie's proposal.

The question is, that we take no further action on the petition. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)

Against

Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

Abstentions

McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 2.

It is agreed that we take no further action.

---

Dungavel (Detention of Children) (PE671)

We tried to avoid a split on the previous petition and I do not know whether we will manage to avoid a split on this one.

Fortunately, we received information on PE671 this morning, as we requested, although it would have been better if members had had more time to digest it.

The correct thing to do would be to postpone our consideration of the petition until the next meeting. I have tried to read the information, but there are seven pages of very detailed legal arguments for and against. Unless we take a 15-minute break now for us all to absorb the information, we would be better to wait until the next meeting so that we can do the petition justice.

I agree that we want to do it justice, but the separate issue arises of this information being made public.

May I ask for clarification? We have stuff from the Executive; do we have stuff from the Parliament as well?

Yes—it is all together.

I see. I had thought that all the information had come from the Executive because it was all pinned to the back of the Executive letter.

Margaret Macdonald is from the Parliament's directorate of legal services.

We received the information late last night and it was all put together.

I have not read this in any detail and I am not in a position to express an opinion on it without consulting people and so on. It would be wrong to take a view on the future progress of the petition when we have not had enough time to digest the document.

I am more than happy to accept your position. As I said, I did not expect to be given a seven-page document at quarter to 10 this morning. It would have been helpful to have it earlier.

We are in possession of the documents and we have to decide what we do in relation to them becoming public knowledge.

The petitioners are entitled to receive the information. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for us to possess this information for two weeks and not make it public. What do people think? We will still have to make a decision on the petition in two weeks' time. I am not concerned about the public having a debate about the information in that two-week period.

There is no way that we can keep this information under wraps for two weeks. The petitioners are entitled to it and they are entitled to let those who signed their petition know what the response has been. Why not just make it public?

The information has not been given to us in the form of a public document; it comes in the form of advice. That is not to say that the Parliament could not find a way of getting the information into the public domain. I am just asking for guidance about how we might do that. The information is vital to the public debate, regardless of what view people take on the outcome of the issue.

I think that the Public Petitions Committee, having sought advice on behalf of the public, should make the public aware of the advice that has been received. That is my principled view, but I am not sure about the means by which we would get the information into the public domain.

I have no problem with releasing the information. However, one of the reasons for not discussing this matter today is that the conclusion of Margaret Curran's letter seems to differ from the conclusion of the judgment—if that is what it is—of Margaret Macdonald.

Margaret Curran says:

"discussions between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive and South Lanarkshire Council and HMIE are underway."

However, Margaret Macdonald finishes off by saying:

"the education of such children … is entirely a matter between the education authority and the Home Office … in which neither the Scottish Ministers nor the Parliament have any powers to intervene."

That is a good reason for not discussing the matter today.

That is a valid point, but I still believe that this committee has a responsibility to get this information into the public domain.

I agree. This matter has been the subject of much heated debate and differing opinion. The detail of the opinion provided by the Parliament will help to inform the discussion. It is important that the reasoning behind the argument is challenged and that will happen only if it is in the public domain. Is there a concern about to whom the document is attributed? Is there an issue about protecting the staff of the Parliament?

No, the only concern is about the format in which the information is released. If a committee is to make information public, it should do so using an appropriate format. We should check what that format is rather than just handing documents out to the press and the public. It is probably just a technicality.

I see what you mean. The only caveat that I would add is that, regardless of the format in which it is placed in the public domain, the information should be complete. None of the information that is in the document before us should be left out.

Every point that is covered in the letter and the document has to be made public. We are not trying to select which bits of information are released; we are trying to determine the technical means by which we release all the information.

I believe that the committee is happy for the information to be placed in the public domain. I suggest that you and the clerks pursue the best way of doing so.

Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy with that. We shall deal with the petition at our next meeting.