Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Official Report 276KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Field Impairment Tests (PE714)

The first petition under agenda item 3 is PE714, by Hugh Humphries, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the validity of field impairment tests in its road safety campaign regarding the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs; to issue guidelines on the disposal of vehicles belonging to individuals failing FITs; and to issue guidelines to courts about the evidential value of the FIT results.

At its meeting on 5 October 2004, the committee considered responses from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Executive and agreed to defer further consideration of the petition until live court proceedings relevant to it were concluded. Those court proceedings have now concluded and further responses have been received from the Scottish Executive and ACPOS. Do members have any suggestions on how we deal with this petition?

Given the response from the Executive that it is about to introduce—perhaps early next year—a procedure to identify the presence of drugs, we have a result, although that might have been going to happen anyway. There is no point in carrying on with the petition.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ancient Woodland (PE858)

Petition PE858, by Andrew Fairbairn on behalf of the Woodland Trust Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to address the threat to the fragmented remnants of ancient woodland by fulfilling its commitment under the UK Forest Partnership for Action, which was made in preparation for the world summit on sustainable development in 2002, to protect the nation's rarest and richest wildlife habitat.

At its meeting on 7 December 2005, the committee considered the responses that it had received to PE858 and agreed to seek the petitioner's views on them. We have received a response from the petitioner, so I ask for members' views.

The petitioner has highlighted what he sees as a flaw in the planning system; it would be sensible to seek the Executive's comments on the fact that much ancient woodland is not being detected under the current system.

Do members agree to write to the Executive?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Affordable Housing<br />(Scottish Executive Policies) (PE877)

The next petition is petition PE877 by Janet Walton, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policies on the provision of affordable housing, particularly in relation to the impact on elderly people and people on low incomes. At its meeting on 30 January 2006, the committee considered responses from Communities Scotland and Fife Council and agreed to seek the petitioner's views. Now that we have received a response from the petitioner, we need to decide what action to take.

I wish that we could take further action on the matter; after all, there is a problem with affordable housing for pensioners and people on low incomes not only in Dysart but all over Scotland. However, the committee cannot take the issue up with individual councils. I presume that the petitioners have already written to the Scottish public services ombudsman.

I am not sure. Even if the petitioners have done that, I do not think that we can get involved. We have to consider what we can do with the petition—I do not think we can do anything more. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)

The next petition is petition PE767 by Norman Dunning, on behalf of Enable Scotland, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation and effectiveness of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.

At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee considered a response from the Minister for Justice and agreed to await a further response. We have now received that response, which has been circulated to members along with correspondence from a member of the public on the petition. Shona Robison has an interest in the matter, so I give her the opportunity to make some comments before we consider it.

I thank the committee for its work on PE767, and I pay tribute to Betty Mauchland, who has campaigned tirelessly on the subject since 2000, when her brother died in hospital.

I have to say that this is unfinished business, so I ask the committee to consider referring PE767 to one of the justice committees in order to allow it to examine the operation of the current fatal accident inquiry system, particularly in respect of whether it represents the best way of getting to the truth of such matters, the lengthy delays in the system, the daunting experiences that families have to face, and the fact that families often have to bear the full—and often prohibitive—costs of putting together a legal team. Moreover, families often feel at the end of what is a difficult process that the FAI's recommendations are not implemented, enforced and monitored as they should be. That is almost a double whammy. Those issues need to be examined and families should have the opportunity to give evidence to a committee inquiry to find out whether a better system that gets to the truth can be put in place.

We cannot rule out the possibility of referring the petition to one of the justice committees, but we have not heard from the petitioner and I am sure that committee members will want to hear from the petitioner before we take any decision.

I was going to suggest that we send the Minister for Justice's response to Enable Scotland for its comments. I welcome the fact that there has been movement on the matter, but it is quite shocking that recommendations are not implemented at the end of fatal accident inquiries. That is a key concern. The fact that there will now be a central database is a credit to Enable and to Betty Mauchland, who first raised the matter with Enable. I would be interested to hear its comments—we can consider what to do thereafter.

We will not rule out the possibility of sending the petition to one of the justice committees for its consideration.

There appears to be a solution in what the minister is proposing. I appreciate that the process that has been referred to should perhaps come at a different point in inquiries, but I think that the proposals are worth while, as far as implementation of inquiries' findings is concerned.

I agree with Jackie Baillie. We have moved on, and the response that we have received from the minister mentions "recording recommendations". We are halfway there, but I would like to hear the petitioner's response before we move the petition on to one of the justice committees. The situation has moved on in the sense that the petitioner has got something that he was looking for.

We will write to the petitioner and await Enable's response. If necessary, we will take the matter further and pass the petition to one of the justice committees.

---

NHS 24 (Independent Review) (PE917)

The next petition is PE917, by Kevin Herd, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the final report of the independent review of NHS 24. At its meeting on 18 January, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Minister for Health and Community Care. The minister's response has been circulated.

The petitioner has met the First Minister and we have received a response from the Minister for Health and Community Care. What he said is entirely satisfactory. A review is now taking place, and progress is being made within NHS 24. Perhaps no further action is required on the petition for the moment.

Do members agree with Helen Eadie?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Information Literacy (PE902)

Our next petition is PE902, by Dr John Crawford, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the national school curriculum recognises the importance of information literacy as a key lifelong learning skill. At its meeting of 21 December 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, the Educational Institute of Scotland and Universities Scotland. Responses have been received and circulated. In addition, correspondence has been circulated from the School Library Association in Scotland, Unison school librarians and the petitioner.

Given the number and quality of the responses, it would be reasonable to seek the views of the petitioner.

Do members agree that that is appropriate?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ecovillages (Planning Policy) (PE903)

Our next petition is PE903, by Eurig Scandrett, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop and introduce a Scottish planning policy document on ecovillages. At its meeting on 21 December 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Findhorn ecovillage and the Scottish Ecological Design Association. Responses have been received. We are joined by Chris Ballance, who has an interest in the subject.

I thank the convener and the committee for their consideration so far. The responses that you have received show that there is general support for low-impact sustainable developments, or ecovillages as they might otherwise be called. The Executive policy favours mainstreaming sustainable architecture and that type of development.

The problem with the Executive response and with Scottish planning policy 3, which identifies that

"Proposals for sustainable residential development … may be acceptable at locations where more conventional buildings would not",

is that the current policy automatically determines that the developments are not mainstreamed, and that they are put on land that is marginal or abnormal. Since the Executive issued its response, the petitioner has received an e-mail from Tim Birley highlighting the problem. Tim was formerly head of the then Scottish Office rural affairs division. I will happily forward that e-mail to the committee.

It should also be pointed out that most planners instinctively resist ecovillages and do not set aside land for them in development plans. I have experience of that in my work with the Tweed valley ecovillage group in the Borders, which encountered precisely that problem. That community has worked for something like seven or eight years to get planners to put aside land, but it has completely failed in its attempts so far. However, the group is still continuing to promote its plans.

I hope that the committee will see the complexity of the situation, and that the intended policy is not yet taking effect on the ground. I therefore ask the committee to consider referring the petition to the Communities Committee as a possible subject for an inquiry into how planning policy is working.

As I said earlier in response to Shona Robison, we are a stage away from that because we have not received the petitioner's views on the responses. I do not rule out the possibility that Chris Ballance's suggestion will be the ultimate conclusion of our consideration of the petition, but we need first to get the petitioner's views. Do members have other views?

Members indicated disagreement.

Okay—we will write to the petitioner with all the responses. Once we have received the petitioner's response, we will decide how to progress the matter.

Understood. Thank you very much.

---

Breast Cancer (Screening) (PE904)

Our final current petition this morning is petition PE904 by Katie Moffat. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider introducing an early breast cancer screening programme to start from age 30 upwards.

At its meeting on 21 December 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, the Institute for Cancer Research, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Cancer Research UK, the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on cancer, the Scottish Executive's breast and cervical screening national advisory group and the Minister for Health and Community Care. Responses have been received and circulated.

I suggest, as with the previous petition, that we send the responses to the petitioner for comment. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.