New Petitions

Petition PE314, from Councillor Alan D Grant on behalf of the Meigle community day hospital liaison committee, calls on the Parliament to investigate Tayside Health Board's decision to close Meigle community day hospital and to transfer its services to Blairgowrie community hospital. The papers that accompany the decision set out the liaison committee's concerns about that move.Yesterday the clerks received a letter from the petitioners in which they indicate that the health authorities have moved somewhat on the proposals that they put out for consultation. The authorities have now proposed a range of alterations to their physical plans at Blairgowrie community hospital. It has also been agreed that, given that there is no spare social day care capacity at Blairgowrie community hospital, discussions on social day care provision should take place between the health authorities and the local authority. The health authorities have indicated that, because of the proposed physical alterations, access to the locked Strathmore wing at Blairgowrie will not now be required. That will remove a significant anxiety from nursing staff, who were concerned about how such an interface could be managed.The petitioners are pleased that those changes have been made, but they have no desire to withdraw the petition. In their view, if they had not opposed the closure of Meigle community day hospital, it is highly doubtful that any of the proposed improvements would have been considered.The information that we have received confirms that, quite rightly, this issue is being dealt with at a local level. It is not for the Scottish Parliament to interfere with or to overturn executive decisions of public bodies in Scotland. It is therefore suggested, first, that the committee agrees to inform the petitioners that the Scottish Parliament has no powers to take the action that they are requesting; secondly, that the committee suggests that they continue their discussions with the health authorities, which have already resulted in some alterations to the proposals; and, thirdly, that the committee agrees to take no further action. Members will recall that the Health and Community Care Committee has already indicated that it will not take any further action on petitions on matters that it considers to be the responsibility of local NHS trusts and health boards.

I agree with the recommendations.

I am sure that trust members will read the Official Report of this meeting with interest.

We all welcome the proposals to which Sandra White referred; we are at one on that.

Are members agreed on the suggested action?Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE315 is from Mr William Smith, on behalf of Injustice by the Law. The petitioners originally submitted 10 petitions, which raised several issues that they felt should be acted on. The clerks discussed with the petitioners the importance of considering carefully the number of petitions that they should submit and what they wanted to achieve with the petitions. The petitioners have approached a wide variety of people and organisations on some of the issues, including the UK Government, Buckingham Palace, the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Scotland Office and the European Parliament. In addition, several issues that the petitioners raise have already been discussed in the context of other debates in the Parliament.It is suggested that we agree to note the petitions and to take no further action, unless any member feels strongly about any of the issues that are raised. In that event, they should raise those issues now. It is suggested that the committee agrees that the clerk writes to the petitioners to ask them to consider carefully their approach in submitting any further petitions to the Parliament and suggesting that fewer, more focused petitions on topics that the Scottish or UK Parliaments have not previously considered might have a more realistic chance of success.If members agree with that suggestion, I can quickly run through the issues that the petitioners raise and ask whether any members wish to discuss them. The first issue concerns health and environment and a cover-up in the west coast fishing industry by HM Ministry of Defence. Does anyone want us to take any further action?

The petitioners were originally given advice. We will write back to them.

The petitions were originally submitted individually. They all came from the same petitioner and were put together for the committee's convenience.

The subjects are diverse and cover a wide range of areas, most of which have nothing to do with the Parliament. The idea is that we tell the petitioners to focus on what the Parliament can do and to petition us on those issues.

It can debate these matters, but would that be worth while? It is unlikely that any of the committees would take up many of the issues that the petitioners raise.

I am trying to avoid doing that by taking each issue in turn.

The issues were originally raised in individual petitions.

The petitions came from one group. There is a danger that groups will send in batches of 10, 15 or 20 petitions. At that rate, the committee would be overwhelmed. We are trying to encourage people to focus their petitions and to limit the number of petitions that they send at one time. However, the decision is up to the committee. If the committee feels that the petitions should be resubmitted in their original form, that option is open to us. I can also go through each issue and ask whether any member feels that it should be acted on.

The petitions were received from the same people at the same time in the same envelope, but on 10 sheets of paper.

The petition is just a sample. Petitions are being sent not as individual petitions, but as batches that cover a wide range of issues. We can either encourage that or not.

I do not want to encourage that. If an issue merits consideration by the Parliament, it must be accompanied by supporting views and documentation. To be honest, I do not think that the petitioners have supplied such information. There are many specific headings in the petition, but there is not much meat under the headings. That is my concern. I read what the petition said on some of the issues, some of which I think have already been debated in the Parliament. Others may be worthy of consideration and debate, but it would be better if the clerks wrote to the petitioners and asked them to consider carefully their approach, as has been suggested. That would be reasonable. That is not to say that we are trying in any way to diminish their concerns, or anyone else's, but it makes it feasible to do justice to the concerns that have been raised.

As far as we know, Mr William Smith is Injustice by the Law.

These petitions are similar to the petitions that Frank Harvey sends in, in that they cover a wide range of issues and lack in-depth back-up. For example, the first petition asks us"to debate the issue of a cover up by the MOD and to find out if the allegations about the weapons dump and toxic seed dressings related to anthrax spores contaminating the shell fish industry are found to be true".I have no reason to believe that such allegations have any substance whatever and the petitioners have not provided me with any evidence, so the question is whether there is sufficient reason to pass the petition on to a committee for investigation. I suggest that there is not.

In addition, some of these issues are probably reserved.

They are. Of itself, that is not enough to debar a petition from consideration, but the issue is the way in which the petitions have been submitted. I recommend that the clerks write to this person—assuming that the group is in fact a person—asking him to resubmit petitions in a different form so that the committee can deal with them more seriously. If we set a precedent that this format of petition is acceptable, we can expect all kinds of people to start flooding us with lists of 10 petitions covering a variety of issues. Some of them are issues of substance, but others are of less substance.

I suggest that we agree to that recommendation.

Yes. In fact, the second part of the suggested action is precisely that; it is a form of negotiation with the petitioner, saying that he can still petition the Parliament, but that there is a way of doing so. Shall we proceed with the recommended course of action?Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE317, from Mr Jim Irons on behalf of Rawlings and Lower Silvertonhill action group, asks the Parliament to request South Lanarkshire Council to adhere to the South Lanarkshire development plan when considering planning applications for Larch Grove and Silvertonhill Avenue open space site, and to undertake to maintain and improve that open space for recreational use. As with the other petitions on decisions by local authorities, it is not for us to interfere in or overturn the executive decisions of local authorities in Scotland. It is suggested that we therefore agree to inform the petitioner that the Scottish Parliament has no powers to take the requested action, and that we take no further action.

Yes, unless someone in South Lanarkshire was encouraging people to petition about the council. We cannot jump to conclusions just because we get a lot of petitions from South Lanarkshire.

I want to return to this issue when we discuss the convener's report. I want to talk about how we deal with petitions about not just South Lanarkshire Council, but all local authorities; we have to change the way in which the committee deals with petitions about individual planning decisions and make it known to people that this committee is not the final court of appeal on planning decisions.

Do members agree with the suggested action?Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is very different. It is PE318, from Bob and Vera Scotland. It is about mental health services and has more than 10,000 signatures. It calls on "the Scottish Parliament to take the opportunity presented, through the publication of its first Scottish Health Plan, to allocate new funds specifically for improving Mental Health Services and Care in the Community in particular."Members will be aware that a ministerial statement on the Scottish health plan was made in the chamber on Thursday 14 December. Like most members, I have not had the chance to read the statement in full. I know that the organisation of the petition has taken a lot of time and effort on the part of Mr and Mrs Scotland—the committee should take the matter very seriously. In the first instance, I think that we should write to the Executive, in particular to Susan Deacon, asking her to comment on the issues that the petition raises in the context of the Scottish health plan, so that we can further consider how to pursue the petitioners' points.

Speaking of coming at the end of the queue, this petition is at the end of today's queue—Mr and Mrs Scotland have sat patiently throughout the whole two hours of this meeting. They should be congratulated enormously for their patience this afternoon, as well as for their huge effort in organising the petition.

I agree that they should be congratulated, particularly as they gathered 10,000 signatures. I must ask, however: why are there 10,000 signatures on a petition that refers to a statement that was made only last Thursday?

The petitioners knew that a health plan was due to be published: the petition was directed towards its publication. It is the experience of all elected members that, despite the claims that are made in public about mental health services being a priority, they are neglected and underfunded. There is insufficient support in the community for people who have relatives suffering from mental illness. This is a very important issue, which Parliament has to take very seriously.

I support that view, convener. I come from the constituency neighbouring that of Mr and Mrs Scotland—I welcome them to the meeting. I and people in my constituency would welcome the actions that they propose.

We will write to the Executive, asking for its response. Once we have that, we will consider the petition further. We will keep Mr and Mrs Scotland fully informed of the petition's progress.