Current Petitions
We are pushed for time and I know that some members are trying to get away. We should bear in mind that we want to give due consideration to the petitions, but we should do it as speedily as possible.
It has been brought to my attention that Margaret Ewing is here to comment on the first petition. Once I have spoken about the petition, I will ask her to comment before we consider what to do with the information.
A96 Improvements (Elgin Bypass) (PE558)
Petition PE558 is from Pauline Taylor on behalf of the readers of The Northern Scot and Moray & Nairn Express about improvements to the A96 Elgin bypass. The petitioners are calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to include a bypass for Elgin in the programme of improvements to the A96 as a matter of urgency. The petition is prompted by the petitioners' concerns that the existing road at Elgin is unsafe, is a serious impediment to traffic using the trunk road between Aberdeen and Inverness, is a barrier to economic growth in the area and causes noise and pollution.
Our predecessor committee considered the petition in March 2003 and noted that a study had been commissioned by Moray Council on the case for a bypass. It was agreed to defer further consideration of the petition until the completion of that study.
Further responses have now been received that provide an update on developments. Members should note that the Executive and Moray Council indicate that the independent study found that a bypass would not provide any significant benefit to through traffic or to the people of Elgin because local traffic is the major cause of the problem. The study also confirmed the fact that a bypass would result in only modest reductions in traffic in the town and concluded that a bypass would not be the correct solution at this stage. The council has now agreed not to pursue a bypass in the short term, but to work with Executive officials to examine ways of resolving congestion along the trunk road route through Elgin. The council has made it clear, however, that a bypass will still be pursued as a long-term objective.
I apologise for my late arrival and late notification of that; I have been in Brussels for the past two days and I am just catching up on other issues.
I raised this matter in a members' business debate, by which time the independent assessors, Babtie Group, had reported back to Moray Council. Although it is generally accepted that the volume of traffic in the town may not justify a bypass, other aspects of life in Elgin should be taken into consideration. Given the fact that the minister said that he did not rule out a bypass as a long-term solution, I wonder whether the committee could ask where that will be placed in the strategic roads review.
Do members have any comments on that? Are we agreed that we will get a response from the minister on that?
Members indicated agreement.
Domestic Abuse (Support) (PE560)
The next petition is PE560, submitted by Ms Claire Houghton on behalf of Scottish Women's Aid, on support for children and young people who are suffering domestic abuse. The petition calls on the Parliament to provide and ensure adequate long-term funding for support workers who deal with children and young people who experience domestic abuse. It also calls on the Parliament to ensure the provision of national minimum standards of service for those who experience such abuse.
In March, our predecessor committee considered responses from the Executive and the cross-party group on men's violence against women and children. It was noted that the Executive was providing
"funding for the 11 local women's aid groups that currently have no children's workers in order to enable the groups to provide support for the children in those refuges until March 2004."
It was also established:
"Beyond that date, a strategic approach to the funding of children's support services will be put in place that will involve a variety of partners."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 11 March 2003; c 2956.]
Our predecessor committee agreed to invite the petitioner to comment on those responses before taking a view on how to proceed. That response has now been received.
In her response to the committee, the principal petitioner confirms that the national group to address violence against women in Scotland has approved a proposal to set up a co-ordinated, strategic approach to the provision of support services for children and young people who are experiencing domestic abuse. She advises that the Executive is funding Scottish Women's Aid to commission research on the extent of the services that are currently available. She makes it clear that SWA and the young people who are involved in the "Listen Louder!" campaign welcome those developments.
Do members have any comments?
We all warmly welcome the developments. It is pleasing to see a good outcome to a petition. We should perhaps note that and conclude our consideration of the petition.
Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Greyhound Racing (Regulation) (PE604)
The next petition is PE604 in the name of Andrew Wood. The petition calls on the Parliament to establish a Scottish independent greyhound regulatory body to oversee greyhound sport and the welfare of the dogs that are involved. It is prompted by the petitioners' concerns about the welfare of greyhounds in the absence of provision for retired greyhounds. They argue that the owners should be required to prove or declare how they have disposed of retired dogs.
Our predecessor committee considered the petition in March and agreed to consult the Executive, the British Greyhound Racing Board, the British Greyhound Racing Fund, the National Greyhound Racing Club and the Irish Greyhound Board. Responses have now been received, and members have copies of them together with an additional letter that was received from the League Against Cruel Sports.
The Executive states that it does not favour any change to existing legislation, on the basis that existing legislation provides adequate means to pursue those who abuse or mistreat greyhounds. However, the petitioners and the League Against Cruel Sports are of the view that the problem of the abuse of greyhounds is commonplace, especially when their racing career is over. That suggests either that the legislation is not strong enough or that offenders are regularly avoiding prosecution.
In view of the commercial nature of the greyhound racing industry, it would not be appropriate for the Parliament to take a role in setting up an independent regulatory body, as the petition requests. The only issue that the Parliament could reasonably address in relation to the greyhound industry is that of animal welfare.
Might we refer the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which will deal with the proposed animal welfare bill? That committee will be able to pick up on some of the issues that have been raised in the petition and try to address them.
I agree. Animal welfare is a matter of concern to everyone, whether or not the legislation is reserved. As the Environment and Rural Development Committee is considering legislation on animal welfare, it would be eminently sensible to send the petition to that committee.
I should put on record the fact that Linda Fabiani, who has had to leave the meeting, has a particular interest in this issue, as she has a background in greyhound racing—you would have to ask her what that involvement entailed. She has asked the committee to take the course of action that has been suggested. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Abortion (Information on Procedures and Risks) (PE608)
The next petition is from Jane MacMaster and concerns information provided to women who undergo an abortion procedure. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that national health service trusts and other abortion providers in Scotland give full written information to every woman about to undergo an abortion procedure of the possible risks of the procedure, including the long-term physical and mental health risks.
In March 2003, our predecessor committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Family Planning Association on the issues raised. Responses have now been received. Members will note that the Scottish Executive makes it clear that the RCOG is the recognised authority on the provision of guidance on abortion issues to clinicians and patients and explains that the guidance that is available is about to be updated. The RCOG says that it is to review its abortion guideline later this year, and the FPA reports that guidance produced by health boards meets the RCOG's standards.
Given the reliance on the guideline by all the agencies involved in providing information on abortion, it would appear that any significant change to that document would require corresponding changes to be made to information material.
The FPA has flagged up the more general need to improve funding for counselling services. However, that is not the subject of the petition.
I was not a member of the Parliament when the petition was first submitted, but I am sure that everyone would support a commitment to increase resources to support women considering termination. However, the petition is heavily weighted towards the psychological cost to women of having a termination and does not mention the psychological cost to women of not having a termination or of being unnecessarily delayed in their attempt to obtain a termination. I would be concerned about including a slant in guidance towards any particular psychological aspect of terminations. We should bear that in mind in relation to the advice from the RCOG. I do not think that it would be right to concentrate on one specific aspect in guidance, which I think is okay at the moment. I agree with the FPA when it says that guidance has to be backed up with better resources.
The FPA addressed the issue of increased funding. Although the Executive quite fairly points out the that RCOG is the recognised authority on the provision of guidance on abortion, there is an important issue relating to the well-being of all women, whether or not they decide to have a termination.
We have to ask whether there are appropriate and sufficient counselling services for all women, whichever choice they make. I believe that the FPA's response indicates that they are not happy about the current situation in that regard. The Executive does not appear to have picked up on that point and it would be useful if we could ask the Executive what resources are being made available and whether any increase in those resources is expected.
The issue is not whether the guidance is for or against abortion; it is to do with resources and the ability of people to get access to information. I am not against anyone getting information about anything. The petitioner seems to be saying that information is not available because of a lack of resources. I back up Helen Eadie's suggestion of writing to the Executive to ask whether more resources will be made available to the FPA to provide information, although it should be equal across the board and not skewed in one way or t'other.
We must be careful because the petition does not ask for that; it asks for information to be provided prior to abortions. The Executive's answer was that it is for the RCOG to provide that information. The FPA picked up on that point. I do not dispute the fact that the resourcing of advice and counselling is an issue, but the petition is specifically about services that are provided prior to abortion, and that is the issue on which we must concentrate. Although the FPA response says that it would like an improvement in counselling across the board, we must decide what to do with the petition; we should not seek more information on something that the petition did not ask about.
That is a fair point, but the FPA's response says that it is not entirely satisfied, even though the initial point has been addressed. The reply states that improvements in counselling pre-abortion and post-abortion could be made available in all areas and that more funding needs to be made available to provide counselling services for all women who feel that they need them. Technically, you are correct, convener, because the specific point that the petition raised has been answered. However, we might want to pick up on that further issue. I am not sure what other members feel about that.
The petition, which was made on behalf of a pro-life organisation, is specific and we would not be addressing it if we generalised our work to cover information that is provided across the board. That does not mean that we cannot consider the wider issue, but the Executive's response has answered the petitioner's point about counselling and information that is provided prior to abortions. If we took further action, we would go into issues on which the petition does not touch. I do not want to stray into issues that are not covered in the petition.
My concern is that the intent of the petition is to prescribe the sort of advice that is distributed to women, from the point of view of one agenda. I do not want the committee to pursue the matter any further than is necessary to allow people their democratic right to express their view. I hope that there will be a consultation on the sexual health strategy. People should contribute to that strategy, which is not only about leaflets and counselling on terminations or fertility—there is a host of issues, such as access to terminations, postcode terminations and so on. The subject is worthy of examination by the Parliament. It is not right to consider only a wee bit of that larger issue, particularly given the nature of the petition.
Do members agree to take no further action on the petition, as the responses answer the points made in the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Seagulls (Health and Safety Hazards) (PE616)
Petition PE616, which is from John Boyd on behalf of Wellpark Action Group, calls on the Parliament to investigate and assess the health and safety hazards caused by seagulls in urban areas. The petitioner is concerned about the threat to public safety in the Wellpark area of Kilmarnock caused by the marked increase in the number of seagulls that nest and breed in the area and their level of aggression during the spring and summer months.
The committee considered the petition on 25 June and agreed to write to the Executive to request its views on the issues raised and to consult the Royal Mail about the action it has taken to protect its staff from attack by seagulls. Responses have been received, together with a letter from Fergus Ewing MSP, who supports the petition. The Executive has indicated that, as an interim measure, it will issue new guidance on the matter following discussions with local authorities. The Executive acknowledges that the problem has no easy answer, but states that it intends to commission research into the breeding cycles and feeding patterns of seagulls as a step towards identifying a long-term solution. The research will be completed in 2004.
The Royal Mail indicates that the practice of issuing protective clothing to some of its staff in the Kilmarnock area to help to combat attacks from seagulls has been discontinued. It explains that although the practice offered protection from seagulls, it did not prevent the attacks. A solution was found that involved adjusting delivery times during the nesting season and no further problems have arisen. Fergus Ewing has supplied a copy of a letter that he sent to the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland expressing his concern that a complacent approach had been taken in assessing the public health risk caused by seagulls attacking humans. In the letter he suggests that the Executive take urgent and positive action to address the problem.
My interest in the subject began years ago, before the day when I was out for a jog between Lossiemouth and Burghead and was dive-bombed by a seagull, which was not a pleasant experience. Over the summer, a number of mothers in Nairn were terrified and sought a cull of birds that were nesting in the vicinity of their homes after a number of incidents forced them to keep their children indoors. There is also the well-reported case, which I do not think has been mentioned, of Mr Wilfred Roby who, in July 2002, was swooped on by herring gulls while clearing a nest from his garage in Anglesey and died of a heart attack.
I feel strongly that more and more people in Scotland are experiencing the nightmare of being dive-bombed by seagulls. Although physical contact is made only rarely, I am concerned that the elderly, the infirm or the very young might be at risk and that there might be fatalities in Scotland, as there have been south of the border, as a direct result.
I have seen a briefing from the RSPB, which argues that no lethal control should be used. However, I understand that Allan Wilson recognised in a debate last year that there is a power under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for licences to be issued for lethal control.
In areas such as Nairn, where women are terrorised by seagulls to the extent that they cannot leave their house, local authorities should be able to employ lethal methods of control in the most humane way possible, which can include pricking the eggs—no doubt there are other methods. Local authorities have pest control departments that provide an excellent service in clearing lofts of rats, mice, squirrels and so on. It seems to me that there is a strong case for the Executive to say right now that local authorities should be tasked similarly and should be willing to act in cases such as the one in Nairn. I know that the ladies involved sought help, but they got no help from the RSPB or anybody else.
I am not advocating a mass cull, because that is plainly impractical. However, action should be taken where there is a clear and present danger from seagulls during the nesting season, when, understandably, they are out to defend nests and chicks and they dive-bomb people, which is an horrific experience. If a dog behaved in that way, it would be regarded as unacceptable and the dog would probably have to be put down. If rats, squirrels or any other animal behaved in that way, they would be destroyed by local authorities. It seems rather odd that we treat seagulls entirely differently only because they are birds and perhaps because of the lobbying power of the RSPB.
I am shocked at the Executive's complacency. It did not take action when I raised the matter in the first session. It seems that it is going to commission a report, but we already know what we need to know about seagulls and their habits; we do not need any more delays. There is a need to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 so that gulls are included in the definition of a statutory nuisance. That would give local authorities wider powers to act. As I have said, the existing powers should be sufficient for local authorities to step in, but that is debatable and depends on the interpretation of whether the birds constitute a threat to human health and safety or a threat of spreading disease or causing serious damage to crops and livestock. A wider definition of statutory nuisance would allow local authorities the scope that they need to act.
I urge members to accept that seagulls pose a growing and serious problem all over Scotland. If we fail to act and a fatality occurs, today's debate will be looked at again by the family that submitted petition PE616. They might well ask us, "Why did you not act before it was too late?"
I do not think that any one of us takes the problem at all lightly. Those of us who have seen the problem, read the newspapers or watched news programmes know how serious the problem could become if action is not taken. However, the paper that we have on petition PE616 shows that the Executive is commissioning research and issuing interim guidance. Given that new guidance is to be issued and research is on-going, it might be appropriate for us to defer the petition until a future date. We could revisit it once we have seen the impact of the new guidance. If the guidance backs up what the minister said in the chamber not so long ago, it will be welcomed. I suggest that we agree that that is what we should do.
There is probably more of a problem with gulls in city centres now than there is on the seashore. Certainly, I seem to see plenty of gulls in the middle of Glasgow. One of the concerns that I raised, which I thought we were to include in our letter to ministers, was about the task force that was supposed to have been at work in 2002-03. The reply from the Executive does not address the task force and seems to indicate that the Executive is only starting out on some of the work that should have been done in 2002-03. However, the reply shows that there is at least movement in the right direction.
I am not sure whether we should leave petition PE616 until we receive a further report from the Executive on the long-term solutions to the problem. One of the important long-term solutions is for councils to issue wheelie bins. The problem is far reaching. I am not sure that I would go so far as to say that a cull should be undertaken, but something needs to be done about the menace that seagulls pose.
Given that local authorities are responsible for cleaning up areas and providing wheelie bins, perhaps petition PE616 should be referred to the Local Government Committee. I will listen to what the rest of the committee has to say on the subject. I would like the Executive to give us a reply on the task force.
We could do both. The Executive's response said:
"officials have met with a number of local authorities' Directors of Environmental Health on this issue".
We know that officials are hearing about the problems and learning more about councils' attempts to introduce solutions.
We could do what Sandra White suggests and wait until the report is published. We could also ask the Executive for a periodic update on the meetings that its officials are holding to find out what progress is being made. That would allow us to keep on top of the information that is being issued by whatever task force has been set up. It would mean that we are not sitting waiting until a report is published at some point in the future. Do members agree that we should monitor the situation as it develops?
I agree with the convener's suggestion. I would be concerned if we simply left the issue ticking over, as the subject of the petition has to be dealt with. I am not persuaded that lethal methods are warranted. The RSPB response raises some serious issues in that respect that have resource implications in the long term.
Even if lethal measures were taken, I am not sure that that would solve the problem, as the population of gulls is falling. The problem is where the gulls are, not how many of them there are. Measures need to be taken to ensure that the gulls are not attracted to urban areas. We need to tackle rubbish—including from outlets such as McDonalds—nesting sites and so forth. Although such measures are complicated, I hope that there is no delay in implementing them.
What I was saying in response to Sandra White's suggestion was that, in addition to the report that we expect to receive, the Executive is considering interim measures and new guidance. We could request the information when it becomes available and consider it to see what progress has been made to address the concerns that Carolyn Leckie set out. Ultimately, we will have the report. I hope that it reaches us in the near future. At that point, if we believe that a parliamentary committee should examine the issue, we could action petition PE616.
May I—
I am sorry, Fergus, but we are pushed for time. We have given the subject a good airing and do not need to seek further clarification or raise further points about seagulls. We are talking about what we will do with petition PE616. I think that committee members agree that we should ask the Executive for updates on the progress that it is making towards addressing the petitioners' concerns. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Historic Scotland <br />(Church Building Restoration) (PE620)
Petition PE620 was submitted by Robert McWilliam on behalf of the kirk session and congregation of Riccarton parish church. The petitioner calls on the Parliament to investigate whether the grant-awarding practices of Historic Scotland are fair and reasonable and whether the use of listed places of worship is proper.
Members will recall that the petitioners were concerned that Historic Scotland's practice of approving applications for church restoration projects phase by phase makes it almost impossible to plan congregational finances. They illustrated the point by arguing that Historic Scotland had allowed the congregation of Riccarton parish church and its design team to assume that the original grant level of 60 per cent would carry forward into later phases of their restoration work, when in fact it was reduced to 40 per cent.
The committee considered the petition on 25 June 2003 and agreed to write to the Scottish Executive seeking its views. A response has now been received. It provides comprehensive information on the operation of Historic Scotland's historic buildings repair grants scheme and of the United Kingdom-wide listed places of worship grants scheme. The main point to emerge is that the level of HBRG is reduced in later phases of repair projects as an alternative source of funding from the LPWG scheme comes into play at that stage. As the LPWG reduces the overall cost of the project to the applicant, it is necessary for it to be taken into account when calculating the level of grant support to be offered, to ensure that public money is not, in effect, being paid twice.
The Executive's response to the petitioners' concerns appears reasonable, and there is little to suggest that the grants system is flawed. However, there is a current review of the system of grants, as well as an examination of the appropriateness of the process as part of the wider review of Historic Scotland's structure and functions. The lack of clarity in the way in which information was given to the members of Riccarton parish church led them to believe that moneys were available that were not available. There might be good technical reasons why funds from one grant might impact after a certain amount of money is raised, but the congregation did not know that, which is what the petition was trying to get at. Why did the congregation start on a process in the belief that a certain level of funding would come from one source and then discover halfway through that process that the level of funding would not be what they expected? It may be that another grant kicks in—technically, that seems to be the case—but the fact is that the congregation of Riccarton parish church was working on the basis of projections of funding. It had fundraised and believed that a certain level of finance would be available and was left in a state of turmoil when information that it should have had at the outset eventually became apparent.
We must examine the information that was provided and the communication, not only in the case of Riccarton parish church, but more generally. There seems to be a general concern. Although an answer has been provided, that answer raises issues about how grants have been dealt with and about the information that was provided to Riccarton parish church.
I agree with your assessment, but I am not sure what we do with the petition.
We could write to Historic Scotland and ask it to take account of the information that we have received. Historic Scotland has a duty to take applicants through the process properly. The issue is about not only distributing grants, but ensuring that applicants are aware of the process that they are entering into and that they can carry it through with confidence.
I assume that the petitioners are aware of the information. Has it addressed their situation?
It clarifies where they stand. I do not know that it will help, because I do not think that anything will change. Historic Scotland is undertaking a review. We should take advantage of that review to say that the issue has been raised in relation to Riccarton parish church and to ask Historic Scotland to take account of it and address the problem.
The problem was not that the funding was inappropriate or that the system that was in place left people without the funding that they expected; it was just that the communication process that was used left them in a situation in which they did not think that they had the money that was to become available to them. I am sure that if we are wrong on that, Historic Scotland will let us know. It seems that the process is legitimate; it is just that how the funding would be paid was not communicated to the people who were receiving the funding, which left them in turmoil.
As a committee, do we have any input to the on-going review of the grants scheme?
I am suggesting that we should make such an input. We now have the information; the problem was that the parish council did not have it.
The parish council had to plan on the basis of a lack of information or of misinformation. That is the problem that must be addressed and avoided in the future. We should use whatever avenues we can.
I suggest that we write to Historic Scotland to say that we want that area to be dealt with as part of the review. We will not take any further action on the petition. Technically, the grants system was okay; it is just that the mechanisms for funding were never explained adequately. We want to address that aspect.
Can we write to the petitioners to say that, although the committee will take no further action on the petition, we are so concerned that we will comment on that in the review?
That is exactly what we will do.