Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Official Report 560KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Impact of Motorway (Central Glasgow) (PE1906)
Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The committee seeks advance views from the Scottish Government on all new petitions before they are formally considered, and those views are shared with the committee as part of our meeting papers.
PE1906, which has been lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of @ReplacetheM8, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow cathedral, specifically including complete removal of the road and repurposing of the land.
The Scottish Government states in its submission that Transport Scotland published a report, “Initial Appraisal: Case for Change: Glasgow City Region”, in February 2021. That was one step in the wider transport appraisal process, and it helped to identify problems and opportunities related to the transport network in the Glasgow region. The Scottish Government advises that appraisal work on a range of the transport options in that report progressed over the summer, and that a final set of draft recommendations will be published later this winter.
The Scottish Government highlights that the review has already considered a large amount of evidence that is related to the whole transport network across the Glasgow region, including the M8 corridor. It says that that has been supported by a significant engagement exercise that has, to date, not identified or proposed any significant change to the M8. The submission confirms that Transport Scotland is aware of the aspirations for an M8 cap at Charing Cross and that it has been willing to participate in those discussions and will continue to do so. Finally, the Scottish Government states that it believes that there is no need for a separate piece of work in relation to the section of the M8 through Glasgow city centre.
Do members have any comments?
11:00
I am familiar with this interesting campaign, because @ReplacetheM8 hosted an exhibition at the New Glasgow Society during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. It seems to have been motivated by the recent developments concerning the structural condition of the Woodside viaducts in the centre of Glasgow, which could lead to hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on rebuilding that infrastructure, which was completed in 1971. That led to a discussion, during COP26, about what other cities around the world have done and about best practice. There was the big dig in Boston, and there are other examples in cities such as San Francisco, Paris, and Seoul in South Korea. There is also the international campaign for new urbanism, which advocates for the impact of elevated, segregated, high-speed motorways through city centres to be reduced.
That approach does not seem to have been much of a feature in Transport Scotland’s considerations so far, as it itself has identified. It has never fundamentally reappraised the merits of having an elevated concrete motorway through the centre of the biggest city in Scotland or considered whether a sanity check, such as the one provided by the campaign, is needed.
Large numbers of the population of Glasgow were displaced to construct the road. The communities of Cowcaddens, Townhead and Anderston were cleared. Glasgow is the only city in the western world, apart from Detroit, that previously had a million people in it but whose population declined below a million—it lost a third of its population in the space of 30 years, from the 1960s to the 1990s.
The urban blight that was caused by the motorway, along with adjacent redevelopment, continues to have a negative effect on the city’s urban environment. There are high correlations with poverty, ill health and other issues that are associated with the road. Recently, a study was carried out that identified that the noise pollution at Charing Cross in the centre of Glasgow is equivalent to standing on the runway at Glasgow airport. That has been discovered only recently.
The negative environmental effects of the road need to be invested thoroughly. The petitioner has identified that as a major public policy need. The issue is one that seems to fall between the cracks. Glasgow City Council is responsible for the general urban condition of Glasgow and the normal road network, whereas Transport Scotland and its contractor, Amey, are responsible for the maintenance of the trunk road network. There is a bit of a disconnect between the national responsibility for trunk roads and local considerations to do with the urban environment. There is a need for the two to be married and for a co-ordinated study to be undertaken.
I fully support the petition’s intent, and I think that it would be worth while gathering further submissions from relevant stakeholders and attempting to understand whether there is scope to carry out a more thorough investigation of the merits of doing something. The petition is not necessarily about removing the motorway; it is not hard and fast about that. Some people might advocate for that, while others might be alarmed by the prospect, which is quite reasonable, given the potential implications. There are certainly practical measures that can be taken to reduce the environmental effect of the road, such as the capping project at Charing Cross. It would be good to investigate a spectrum of options that could be pursued to solve some of the problems that the petitioner has identified.
What stakeholders do you have in mind? Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland are two obvious stakeholders, but are there any others that you can suggest?
There is the New Glasgow Society, which is an amenity body in the city. We could also write to the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and civil engineering bodies such as the Institution of Civil Engineers. There is the Congress for the New Urbanism in the United States. There is also Glasgow’s city urbanist. There are a number of figures who may well be able to offer expert advice. Urban planner Brent Toderian undertook a similar project in America. There might be other projects around the world that we might want to write to to ask how they did it.
There are a number of ways in which we could proceed; however, we might require to reflect further on them, and we should therefore invite the petitioner to suggest stakeholders to engage with. In that respect, it might be worth communicating with the community councils adjacent to the road as well as the Glasgow Institute of Architects. There is a range of bodies and interest groups that we could go to. I have not compiled an exhaustive list, and I could probably come up with more, but there is definitely merit in thinking about who we should speak to.
I am not necessarily saying that all those people are relevant or that it is necessary to contact everyone, but there are a number of groups out there that it might be worth engaging with. Those are just some initial ideas.
Thank you very much for that comprehensive list of stakeholders, Paul. I hope that the clerks got them all.
I am happy to follow this up in writing once I have reflected on it, and I am sure that the petitioner, too, will have some ideas.
That would be great. Does everyone agree with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Caithness County Council and Caithness NHS Board (Reinstatement) (PE1915)
PE1915, which has been lodged by William Sinclair, is on the reinstatement of Caithness county council and Caithness national health service board. The petitioner has highlighted particular concerns about the loss of consultant-led maternity services and the closure of two palliative care hospitals in Caithness.
In its submission, the Scottish Government states its commitment to ensuring that
“decisions are taken at the right level, and as close as possible to those most affected.”
It highlights the joint local governance review with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which it states
“aims to strengthen local democracy by considering how power should be shared between national and local government, and with ... communities”
and highlights on-going work to create a national care service and the recent consultation on this topic, stating:
“there are currently no plans to bring about any changes to the structure of NHS Boards.”
The Government also states its intention to introduce a local democracy bill within the lifetime of this Parliament.?
The submission explains that the decision to change from a consultant-led obstetric unit in the Caithness general hospital to a midwife-led community maternity unit was
“taken on the grounds of safety”.
Moreover, in relation to palliative care, the submission advises that although Caithness has no
“specific hospice facilities, the teams locally work very closely with the Highland Hospice located in Inverness.”?
Do colleagues have any comments?
Notwithstanding the fact that the Scottish Government has no intention to restructure the health boards, I think that at the crux of the petition is healthcare for individuals in Caithness. I wonder whether colleagues would agree to writing to NHS Highland for an update on the community midwifery unit, including a timescale for its completion.
I also wonder whether we should consider this petition alongside a couple of others mentioned in our papers—PE1845, on an agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland, and PE1890, on finding solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland—and invite the petitioner to give evidence.
Thank you for that. Does the committee agree with those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Parental Access to Children (Legal Aid) (PE1917)
PE1917, which has been lodged by Amy Stevenson, is on providing full legal aid to all parents fighting for access to their children.
The petitioner highlights that, when couples separate and are unable to agree on contact arrangements, parents are often faced with High Court costs and contact centre access fees that they might struggle to afford. She states that that often results in many parents experiencing mental health issues.?
The Scottish Government’s submission on?this petition highlights a 2019 consultation on legal aid reform in which 75 per cent of respondents agreed that those who could afford to contribute towards costs should do so. It also explains that
“The number of cases relating to child contact and residence means that providing legal aid without a means test for those seeking these court orders would have a considerable impact on the legal aid budget”,
and it advises that the Scottish Government provides financial support to Relationships Scotland for the operation of contact centres.
Do colleagues have any comments?
I appreciate the Scottish Government’s response regarding the details of legal aid and the consultation that has taken place. I also appreciate the point about means testing and affordability in a budget context. Nonetheless, the matter is really important. It comes up in my constituency casework—as, I am sure, it does for other members of the committee.
The petitioner talks about the mental health impact on parents. We need to remember that the issue is not simply access to justice but the wellbeing of children. We need to ensure that what we have in place is as helpful as possible to families that are going through break-ups and looking after children.
I suggest that, in the first instance, we write to some stakeholders to seek their views on the issues that are raised, perhaps including One Parent Families Scotland, Relationships Scotland, the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
I concur with Ruth Maguire’s comments; there is no doubt that there is an impact on mental health. In situations in which there is domestic abuse, it is important that that is recognised.
Only yesterday, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee held a round-table event on a very similar topic involving access to support for families and young people. It would be useful for us to take on board and think about what came out of that evidence session. I would be very keen to continue the petition in order to see what more information we can glean on the issue, and we can analyse that at a later stage.
I concur. I recognise that some of the issues are being raised in casework, and the petitioner has identified a valid public need to investigate the issue further, so I am content with the suggestion that we continue the petition.
We will keep the petition open and write to all the relevant stakeholders. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
High-caffeine Products (PE1919)
The next new petition is PE1919, lodged by Ted Gourley, on prohibiting the advertising and promotion of high-caffeine products to children for performance enhancement.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under-18s for performance enhancement. The petitioner believes that the continued sale of such products puts children and young people at risk of serious harm. He cites examples of where such gum has been distributed widely at races, with the caffeine content exceeding the daily recommended dose for a young person. The petitioner points out that both scottishathletics and sportscotland have previously warned of health risks from consuming high doses of caffeine, particularly for those under 18 who have undiagnosed medical issues.
In its submission, the Scottish Government advised that, from December 2018 to February 2019, a consultation had been held on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people, which had provided
“an opportunity for respondents to raise concerns in relation to other food and drink products, such as caffeine gum”,
as
“Chewing gum falls under the definition of food in food law.”
The Scottish Government stated that it is
“currently considering responses to the consultation”,
that it has undertaken to publish a report, and that it will update the committee in due course.
It went on to note:
“In May 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine. It advised that single doses of caffeine up to 200mg from all sources do not raise safety concerns for the ... healthy adult population. For children and adolescents, EFSA’s opinion explains that there is insufficient information available to set a safe caffeine intake. However, EFSA considered that due to children and adolescents processing caffeine at least at the same rate as adults, the single doses of no concern for adults may also be applied to children as a daily limit.”
Do members have any comments?
The petition has some merit. There is no doubt that caffeine has had and continues to have an effect on young people. The petitioner has identified some of the concerns. It would be useful for us to keep the petition open and seek some more advice and information from stakeholders, who could include the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, scottishathletics, sportscotland, Cardiac Risk in the Young and Food Standards Scotland. All of those organisations would be more than willing to support us and give us some information on the difficulties that caffeine intake causes. That would give us a much more balanced approach to where we can take the petition in the future. If we keep the petition open and ask for that information to be submitted, we can make a judgment and a response on the basis of that.
Do we agree to keep the petition open and write to the relevant stakeholders?
Members indicated agreement.
Diabetes (Care for Women) (PE1920)
Our next new petition is PE1920, from Laura Hastings, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide more thorough follow-up care for women with diabetes.
In its submission, the Scottish Government outlines a range of initiatives that are available to educate and support people who live with diabetes. They include its?women’s health plan, which was published in August 2021, and its diabetes improvement plan, which was published in February 2021. The improvement plan has eight priority areas, which include mental health, and a focused set of actions that is overseen by the Scottish diabetes group.
Do members have any comments?
I note the submission from the petitioner and the personal experience that she has had. I also note that she has engaged with ministers and parliamentarians on the issue. If she has not been satisfied with that, there is a valid basis for inviting further submissions. Perhaps we could write to the relevant charities that deal with diabetes and the Scottish diabetes group, which is the national advisory group, to ask whether they are satisfied with the measures that the Scottish Government has taken and establish whether there is a wider impetus for improvement.
The Scottish Government has indicated that it has relevant strategies in place for women’s health and diabetic health. We can ask whether those have been peer reviewed and whether there are further concerns. It is worth establishing whether that is the case.
On Paul Sweeney’s recommendation, are we happy to keep the petition open and write to the relevant stakeholders?
Members indicated agreement.
Voter Identification (PE1921)
Our final petition is PE1921, from Maddy Dhesi, on behalf of Hands Off Our Vote, calling on the Scottish Government to confirm that it will not introduce voter identification in devolved Holyrood or local elections in Scotland and that it will communicate that to voters.
In its submission, the Scottish Government confirms that it has no plans to introduce voter ID in devolved elections. It notes that that contrasts with the UK Government’s Elections Bill, which is at its second reading in the House of Lords.?The submission explains that the UK bill would require voters to show an approved form of photographic identification before collecting their ballot paper to vote at UK Parliament general elections in Great Britain, local elections in England and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales.
The Scottish Government?is also aware of concerns regarding confusion in the event of a UK poll occurring on the same day as a Scottish poll with different identification requirements for each contest. It also notes the additional responsibility that that would place on presiding officers at each polling station to police the ID requirement.
Do members have any comments?
The Parliament has already made a decision on the matter. It was not a unanimous decision but a majority decision that there would be no voter ID. We should close the petition, because the Scottish Government has made it abundantly clear that it will not introduce voter ID. However, in closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, it would be important for us to write to the Government about the possibility of confusion occurring if UK and Scottish elections took place on the same day. That is unlikely but, in the event that it happened, it would be useful to get a view on it. However, the decision has been made and voter ID will not be introduced, so we can close the petition.
If the committee agrees, we will close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
Members indicated agreement.
On PE1906, on the M8, does the committee agree to delegate to the convener responsibility for signing off the number of stakeholders?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. The committee’s next meeting will take place on Wednesday 9 March. We will now move into private session to discuss our final agenda item.
11:20 Meeting continued in private until 11:29.Previous
Continued Petitions