Public Petitions Committee, 01 Dec 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Official Report 303KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)

Item 2 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE812, by Caroline Paterson, on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines, and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.

A couple of elected members have shown a keen interest in the matter in the past. I welcome Chris Harvie MSP and Dr Richard Simpson MSP.

The petition focuses on potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines. The matter is of particular concern to me, as the proposed 400kV high-voltage Beauly to Denny line will run through built-up areas of my Mid Scotland and Fife constituency, from Bannockburn to Dunblane.

I have heard numerous concerns expressed about the detrimental effects of the proposed overhead line on landscape, scenery and tourism. The health aspect is by far the most worrying of those effects.

When I submitted my previous statement in May, I listed in some detail the studies that provide evidence for tangible health risks. I am not satisfied with the responses that have now been received from the Health Protection Agency and the Scottish Government. Both claim to uphold the 1999 European recommendation guidelines on public exposure to electromagnetic fields—EMFs. Those guidelines are outdated: they basically permit high-voltage power lines to run directly above homes, schools and nurseries, and they give a benchmark guideline of 100 microtesla. Subsequent studies have shown that even 0.4 microtesla can pose considerable health risks.

In its response of 25 September, the Health Protection Agency admits that its current advice is based on

"a comprehensive review of the science published in 2004".

That is a year before the agency was set up in its current form. It claims that recent research is being monitored but that it has not sufficiently changed the balance of evidence.

In response, I point to the appended list in my notes of 12 peer-reviewed publications since 2002, all of which evidence considerable health risks—particularly to children and infants—resulting from proximity to power line EMFs. However, the HPA has not engaged with or advised the Westminster and Holyrood Governments on any of them. Instead, the joint Government response of 16 October states:

"The HPA advises that the EMF association with childhood leukaemia is weak and unproven".

There is no mention of any other associated conditions such as Alzheimer's, adult cancers, motor neurone disease, miscarriage, or other cancers and brain tumours in children.

The HPA's dismissal of those studies contradicts the Scottish Government's confidence in that body's diligence, expertise and ability to review and advise

"on the totality of the available scientific evidence".

Furthermore, the precautionary principle to which the UK signed up in the Maastricht treaty means that decisions need not be based on such established evidence. The principle comes into play when health risks begin to emerge that might, in time, be substantiated by research.

Denis Henshaw, who is a professor of physics at the University of Bristol and the author of one of the papers, points out:

"We have long passed the stage where application of the Precautionary Principle and of appropriate legislation against undue exposure is warranted, including a substantial lowering of permitted MF exposure limits, currently 100 microtesla. In the case of high voltage overhead powerlines, these should not be built close to houses".

Other European countries with advanced electricity-dependent economies, such as Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, have already taken precautionary steps, even though the UK remains intransigent. The Scottish Government needs to engage critically with such evidence, and consider an enlightened precautionary approach. That would mean either routing the proposed Beauly to Denny line away from residential areas, or—better still—undergrounding it in crucial areas, thus avoiding all health risks and other disadvantages.

Chris Harvie has outlined the case in some detail. We have already presented to the committee the fact that the evidence for childhood leukaemia is certainly at the point beyond the precautionary principle and is well established. We now have a new paper from Japan, by Tomohiro Saito and colleagues, on "Power-Frequency Magnetic Fields and Childhood Brain Tumors: A Case-Control Study in Japan". There is some indication of growing evidence that brain tumours could also be a factor here.

We await a further study that will cover six countries and include those Japanese data. One problem is that the numbers are very small, and studies therefore have wide confidence intervals, which makes things difficult. If even just a few cases switch from one direction to another, one can get a negative rather than a positive outcome.

The proposed new pooling of data from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the UK, the USA and Japan is under way, and we look forward to the analysis. We would expect it to confirm health risk associated with high-frequency lines, particularly those of 400kV-plus.

The other arguments that have been put forward by the proposers of the line are that putting the cables underground would be inordinately expensive. Circumstances have changed since the process began. The old oil-filled underground lines are now being replaced with what is called XLPE—cross-linked polyethylene—cable, which rapidly reduces the cost. The latest German line to be implemented, as a result of new legislation and as one of four pilots, cost only seven times the amount. As oil and gas pipelines are already laid around Stirling, I suspect that costs there would be even lower because there is no evidence of massive rock formations on the route that is proposed by SNH, which came in purely on landscaping.

In North Yorkshire a line has been put underground because of one particular 18th century church. Stirling has the Wallace monument, the Sheriffmuir battlefield and the view from the castle. There are small power lines there at the moment and they are not particularly intrusive, but the proposed new one will be substantially higher and will affect the landscape. It is also proposed to put lines underground at Elstree, Beddington and the Olympic park—some of them will be tunnelled, but some will be XLPE lines—so England is going ahead with the undergrounding of lines for a variety of reasons.

Since I last presented evidence to the committee, other countries have also made similar moves. Copenhagen is undergrounding two lines of 12km and 22km respectively, and in Germany, following new legislation that came in this summer, four pilots are being done on lines of 16km and 30km. A considerable number of other countries are already undergrounding. We therefore suggest that the 23km on the route around Stirling should be undergrounded for health and landscaping reasons.

The Government has indicated that it will give its response before Christmas to the reporter's report that was tabled in March, but it might be that the committee will wish to make further comment at this stage before a final decision is reached.

We should certainly keep the petition open. We had a detailed submission from the petitioner before the meeting, so we could forward that to the Scottish Government, along with Richard Simpson's up-to-date information about undergrounding. I do not know whether the Government already has that information, but it would do no harm for us to forward it. I do not think that we can do much more at this point when the issue is with the Government, and I do not think that we can discuss it again until we have heard more from the Government.

We recognise the contributions that Dr Simpson and Professor Harvie have made today. If we pull them together as part of our response, we can pass it on to the Government and wait for its response on the report.

I thank you for your patience, gentlemen. It has been a long afternoon.

---

Stewart Committee Report (PE1106)

PE1106, by Jamie Webster, calls on Parliament to urge the Government to review the aspects of the Stewart committee report, "Keeping Offenders Out of Court: Further Alternatives to Prosecution", that relate to the rights of victims of crime to obtain information on handling of their cases.

The petition has been before us on a few occasions. I suggest that we suspend it for the moment because we are still waiting for information from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about its policy on public disclosure of warnings. It was expected in spring 2008, but it has been delayed. Can we suspend the petition until we receive it?

I suggest that we write to the Lord Advocate to find out why there has been a delay and when we can expect the report that was due in 2008.

Thank you for that. I accept those two suggestions.

---

Knife Crime (Mandatory Sentencing) (PE1171)

The next petition is PE1171, by John Muir, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce mandatory sentencing for persons who are found carrying knives or other dangerous weapons in public. Members will be aware that we have given the petition substantial consideration, which culminated in a major debate in Parliament on knife crime in Scotland. What do members want to do with the petition?

For a start, there are a couple of projects that we do not know the results of yet. One is campus cops and the other is medics against violence. It would be interesting to know the outcome of those two projects.

If you will forgive me, I will take a slightly pedantic line on this. I am bothered that we are having debates in the chamber and in public in which people are using the word "mandatory" incorrectly. John Muir himself understands that the word—which he included in the petition—may not have been the one that he really meant to use. I understand that you used the word in introducing the petition, convener, because it is in the petition. However, John Muir's latest letter—which, incidentally, contains a vast amount of good sense—states:

"The importance of ‘Damian's Law' was never specifically the absolute introduction of mandatory sentencing".

The word "mandatory" does not need to be qualified by the word "absolute", because it means absolute. It comes from the Latin word for "to command", and commands do not come with ifs, buts or maybes. Therefore, if folk want to talk about mandatory sentencing, they should be made aware of the fact that they are saying that there are no ifs, buts or maybes.

If members think that the carpet fitter who puts the Stanley knife in his pocket and, at lunch time, goes around the corner looking for a pie for lunch should be sent to jail for having that Stanley knife in his pocket, they may wish to advocate mandatory sentencing. However, like me, they may think that it would be better for there to be a presumption that there will be prison sentences for those who are caught carrying knives. That would be a much better way of putting it, although there may be other wording for it. Can we please register that "mandatory" means something and that we will not help the discussion or improve the English language if we use it to mean something else?

"conditions fixed by the Scottish Government".

The word has a place in the discussion, but can we please use it properly? More specifically, can we please not use it improperly?

In my view, it is absolutely clear to the vast majority of the public what "mandatory" means. I would be concerned if the term were softened, because I know that there is a huge amount of public support for mandatory sentences for people who are found carrying knives and other dangerous weapons.

Nanette Milne has made a specific suggestion, and both Nigel Don and Rhona Brankin have made comments on meaning and interpretation, which are now on the record.

I will meet John Muir tomorrow afternoon. I can have a chat with him about the word "mandatory" and see whether he wants to amend the terms of the petition.

We are, ultimately, the custodians of what petitioners put forward. As long as it is deemed to be acceptable under our standing orders, what the petitioner wants is what we must deliberate on. In the knife crime summit and the public debate that we have had in the chamber and in the wider world, there has been discussion about how we could, through legislation, implement a policy to tackle the use of knives and so on.

I think that the intention is to reach a situation in which people feel that a stronger message is sent out to those who carry knives with intent—I am not talking about tradespeople. Ultimately, the issue is about the fact that too many people in our communities—tragically, it is mainly young men—carry knives with intent on evenings out or at the weekend, when activity is guaranteed. We can explore those issues, but I acknowledge the positions that members have taken.

I would not want Mr Muir to think that the views that have been expressed about the word "mandatory" necessarily reflect the view of the Public Petitions Committee.

We will ensure that that is made clear.

I disagree with those views.

I understand that.

My point was about the use of a word. That word has a meaning, which I think Mr Muir understands. I, personally, am surprised at the length of the sentences that are handed down. I would have thought that anyone who carries a knife with intent should expect to go to prison, so I am probably of the same view as most people, including Mr Muir. That is not my point. As the convener has just said, it is a question of intent.

In addition, there is the slight problem of the fact that, in this country, we expect our judges to use discretion. We take away judicial discretion at our peril, which is why we must ensure that we know precisely what we are saying. The proposal to have a Scottish sentencing council is one way of dealing with the issue and getting people to sort out what the policy should be.

The convener quite rightly identified that the issue is about carrying weapons with intent. Nigel Don gave a good example of the difficulty with a mandatory policy. If someone who was working near a certain shop that sells pies went out at lunch time with his tool-belt on or with a Stanley knife or chisel in his pocket, he could be stopped in the street and arrested, because that would be mandatory for anyone who was caught carrying a dangerous weapon in public.

We need to be clear about what we are saying about how we treat people. The convener made it clear that intent is the determining factor when it comes to mandatory sentencing of people who carry dangerous weapons in public. We all need to be extremely careful about how we proceed. Are we saying that a person should be convicted and sentenced just because they happened to be, when they were stopped by the police, carrying in their back pocket a Stanley knife that they use at work for opening parcels or whatever? Should such a person be arrested and put in prison just because they had forgotten to take out of their back pocket the Stanley knife that sits there eight or 10 hours a day while they are at work?

It is clear that when Mr Muir lodged his petition, he was not thinking about people who happen to carry Stanley knives around with them. That is pretty self-evident, to be frank. I would not want Mr Muir to get the impression that the committee was being in any way critical of his petition. The issue will be considered by Parliament when it deals with the forthcoming legislation. It will be up to Parliament to make the decision.

One of the most important things to come out of the work on knife crime was the Government's encouragement of campus cops and medics against violence, but what concerns me about those initiatives is that they seem to be more like extremely small pilot projects. If we want to do something in schools, we must adopt a whole-school approach instead of just focusing on second year. All that we have are pupil numbers.

We need to ask the Government whether it will step up the initiatives on the back of the two pilots and go for a whole-school approach that has a chance of being effective. It will not be particularly effective to carry on piecemeal. Taking just the second year in perhaps no more than three schools would give the Government an idea of whether the initiatives might work with second years, but it would not have any impact on overall knife crime in the school or area.

We will have a major opportunity to get to the heart of the issue in the chamber debate. Members will determine the best course of action on the sentencing council and the role that judges need to play as part of the wider concern that we all have about the impact in our parliamentary areas on individuals, not only the victims, but young men who, at a particular age, have chosen to behave in a certain way for which they need to be punished, which also has future consequences for them and their families. I am conscious that members feel strongly, but we want to interrogate the additional points a bit more thoroughly. I thank Robin Harper for his contribution on that petition.

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

Our next petition is PE1236. It was lodged by Jill Campbell and calls on Parliament to urge the Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade-separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk.

Mike Rumbles has spoken to the petition in the past. I welcome him to the committee and ask him to make a brief opening speech on the petition.

I was struck by Transport Scotland's answer to the committee's question about why the strategic transport projects review concluded that there should be no grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk. The agency said that it was not necessary because the accident level at the southern junction had improved, but it failed to examine the accident statistics at all three junctions around Laurencekirk. If it had done so, it would have seen that the figures in its own report show that, in the three years since the improvements were made in 2005, there had been 13 accidents compared with only six accidents in the three years before that. Transport Scotland's own figures show that the accident situation is getting worse, not better.

Since writing to the committee, the petitioner—Jill Campbell, who is in the public gallery—has obtained from Grampian Police the information that the full cost of dealing with fatal accidents, such as the latest one in September, comes to the incredible figure of £1.9 million. Add to that the costs of all the accidents that Transport Scotland includes in the report that the committee has, and the total cost of dealing with all those accidents—remember, we are talking about the past four years only—is £4.3 million.

In the same report, Transport Scotland says that the cost of a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk would be in the region of £4 million. The cost to the taxpayer of not building such a junction there is enormous, not to mention the human cost to devastated families.

The scandalous point about the situation is that those costs do not come out of the transport budget, but they all come out of the budget that is available to the Scottish ministers. If ever there was a case for employing common sense in the spending of taxpayers' money, this is it. It is particularly galling that the last sentence of Transport Scotland's response to the committee says that the junction's "adverse effect" on Aberdeenshire Council's housing expansion plans—it has huge expansion plans for Laurencekirk—should be covered by a private developer. In other words, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will not authorise a grade-separated junction but will leave it to a housing developer to do it.

Where do we take the petition? It would be appreciated if members would call the transport minister to the committee and ask him specifically whether he considers it to be a good use of public money to spend more on clearing up the aftermath of accidents around Laurencekirk than on improving the junction. I know that the petitioner would like you to do that. The minister could save public money by constructing a £4 million grade-separated junction.

I have focused my comments on the money, but I am far more focused on the loss of human life and the families that are devastated by it. It is mounting; it is getting worse, not better. Please help.

Thank you very much, Mike. Do committee members have any immediate comments or observations?

Mike Rumbles made some very valid points. I appreciate that we are talking about different budgets across ministerial portfolios. I was going to suggest getting back to the Scottish Government, but I would be happy to invite the minister to give oral evidence to the committee, if members agree.

We will pursue that suggestion. Robin, are you just moving your pen?

I was just nodding my head.

I am sorry, but I am being incredibly attentive to matters this afternoon.

We will take forward Nanette Milne's suggestion. The petitioner's letter raises specific points that we should forward to the minister. We had a good experience in respect of the petition on cancer drugs of identifying a number of issues early on to which the minister could respond. That certainly helped when we had Nicola Sturgeon in front us. We will therefore send the petitioner's points to the minister's office and see from our diary where we can fit in an appearance by the minister.

---

Same-sex Marriage and Mixed-sex Civil Partnership (PE1239 and PE1269)

Petitions PE1239 and PE1269 are grouped together. PE1239 is by the LGBT Network, calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to allow two persons of the same sex to register a civil marriage and a religious marriage, if the relevant religious body consents. Petition PE1269 is by Tom French on behalf of the Equal Marriage Campaign, calling on Parliament to urge the Government to amend legislation to allow same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnership.

We have had PE1239 before us on a number of occasions. We have explored some of the issues that it raises with those who would determine the legislation. The position has been made clear to us, but I invite members to comment on how we should handle the petition.

I am reluctant to close the petition, because the issue still exists. Way back in 2000 or 2001, on a similar kind of human rights issue, the then Scottish Executive set up a committee to look into the issues around hate crime, which eventually ended up in a bill in Parliament. I am minded to ask whether the committee would approve the idea of writing to the Government to ask whether it would set up a similar committee and invite appropriate people to take part in it to carry on the discussions.

What are the Public Petitions Committee's options? It just seems to me that the Scottish Government says that what the petition seeks is not a priority at the moment and the UK Government says that it is has no plans to change the law. Nobody says that they are against what the petitioners ask for; they just say that it is not a priority at the moment. However, I have had a number of e-mails on the issue, as I am sure my colleagues have, and the point is very well made that it is about equality for people who want same-sex marriages.

I am not sure whether we can do anything, because I am—well, I cannot call myself the new member of the committee any more, because Rhona Brankin is now the newest member of the committee. However, as a relatively new committee member, I am just looking for advice on what we can do with the issue and whether what Robin Harper suggests is a possibility.

I support Robin Harper in asking that the petition be continued, because I think that issues have arisen from the responses from the Minister for Community Safety and—as Robin pointed out—the UK Government on the petition. I am also conscious of a current court case in which a couple have taken the Austrian Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of same-sex marriage. I suggest that the minister be asked to arrange a meeting that is not dissimilar to what Robin suggested, but which in the first instance is a meeting with the petitioners to discuss fully the issues and concerns.

I am quite concerned at the suggestion in Fergus Ewing's letter to the committee that people in same-sex marriages would, under the petition, have greater legislative rights than people in other marriages. Such issues have to be addressed.

I suggest that we ask the minister to meet the petitioners and that we keep the petition open until the European Court of Human Rights has made its judgment on the case that is before it.

I am not sure what Robin Harper was suggesting.

I was suggesting that an ad hoc committee be set up with representatives of Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and representatives of interested parties in order to take the conversation forward. That would be a way of keeping the issue alive, keeping the Government onside and doing some ground work to prepare the way for legislation in the next parliamentary session, if not in the next two years. It would be good if the process did not have to start from scratch at that point and if there were a group of people who had already investigated the issue thoroughly.

Do you think that we should call on the Government to establish a committee?

Yes. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice would be the person who could establish such an advisory committee.

We face a dilemma with regard to the powers that we have to either do that or get the UK or Scottish Government ministers to—

It was a suggestion.

I know, Robin.

Over the past few months, we have all received e-mails on this issue from people with differing perspectives. I think that we should interrogate some of the issues that John Wilson raised about the minister's letter. That will enable us to determine whether we can do anything to help the petition on its way. If we cannot do anything further as a committee, individual members and other campaigners have opportunities to take matters forward, although it might not easily be done through the structure that Robin Harper has suggested.

I am feeling frustrated by the fact that we have been unable to help a number of petitions to make progress because action must be taken by people in other areas of the decision-making process. We can alert people to issues and tell them that we would like things to be done but, ultimately, other people have to sanction any action.

What I am saying is that there is a previous example in which an advisory committee was set up on an equalities issue by the minister who then had responsibility for justice. In a sense, we are simply pointing out to the justice secretary that he might do something similar and that it would be a good idea if he did.

In the correspondence that we receive on this matter, the issue of equality is always raised. We have a committee in the Parliament that deals with equality, but I do not know whether its work programme includes consideration of matters with which the petition is concerned.

We should explore the issues that John Wilson has identified. That will enable us to identify the best course of action. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Faith-based Schools (PE1262)

PE1262 continues our wee run of interesting petitions. It was submitted by Luca Scarabello and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ban all faith-based schools from teaching only their particular faith and to make all schools teach non-denominationally. Are there any comments from members?

I think that everything that needs to be said about the petition has been said. The curriculum for excellence makes it clear that schools must teach about other faiths, and I do not think that there is any evidence that that does not happen. My personal experience is that that does happen. What can you do?

We might consider closing the petition, given that we have explored a number of points and it seems that, within the frameworks that we have legislated for, people have the right to have their faith or lack of faith respected. For example, parents can request that their child does not receive such instruction.

Would it be appropriate to ask the Government whether it could give specific guidance to local authorities?

I think that such guidance already exists. The issue of faith and religion in Scottish schools has been a fairly contested issue for at least my whole life. There are views about whether we should have denominational schooling, but the petition is concerned with the procedures around the teaching of religion. We have explored those issues and have received assurances about the legal framework that exists around a child in school.

It was good that the petitioner raised the issue, because we wrote to many organisations and faith groups, which served to remind them that they ought to be doing what the petition asks for. It was worth submitting the petition, but I do not think that we can take it much further.

Do we agree to close the petition on the grounds that have been discussed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Suggestion Box Network (PE1264)

PE1264, by Alan Hind, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to set up a network of national suggestion boxes to allow members of the public to submit their comments, ideas and suggestions directly to it. I think that it is quite an attractive option, as I have a few things that I would like to say—as long as the system is confidential, I should be okay.

I do not know whether we can take the matter much further than we have, as the Government has told us that there are already a number of ways in which it consults the public. Consultation is always a central feature of any legislative proposals that come before the Parliament and people have had lots of opportunities to make suggestions on many interesting topics in the past couple of years.

I am a new member of the committee and I was not here when this matter was discussed initially. Was there a suggestion that the committee should change its name to the petitions and suggestion box committee?

I have enough trouble as it is, without that. Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We already have the sort of suggestion boxes that the petition calls for. They are painted red and are called postboxes.

Exactly.

---

School Closures (Children with Additional Support Needs) (PE1266)

PE1266, from William Stevenson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to establish how the procedures and guidelines that are used by local authorities to close a school properly reflect and recognise the needs of children with additional support needs.

I think that the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill has dealt with the issues that are raised in the petition. I do not think that there is anything further that we can do.

I take issue with a couple of points in the submission from Glasgow City Council. It says that the council provided interpreters to explain the consultation documentation. It is true that interpreters were available, but if you did not know that your school was closing and you did not know that interpreters were available—because you could not read the initial letter, which came in English only—there was no point in those interpreters being there. The council also says that, out of the 4,156 reasons raised against the closure proposals, only one related to a concern about a child with additional support needs.

That is the issue that the petition deals with, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that only one consultation response raised that concern. Billy Stevenson, the petitioner—who was present today but has had to leave—raised that issue, and I am sure that several other parents also raised it. It was one of the biggest issues in the campaign.

Do you have any suggestions about what we should do with the petition? It has been suggested that we close it.

I do not know what else we can do. The petitioners were right to raise the issue, however.

And you have put on the record your concerns about the response from one of the organisations that we consulted.

---

School and Nursery Closures (Public Inquiry) (PE1267)

PE1267, by Richie Venton on behalf of the Glasgow save our schools campaign, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to conduct a public investigation into the impact on a range of issues of the proposed closures of schools and nurseries by local authorities. Do members have views on how to deal with the petition?

The petitioner's response raises many issues. Schools are central to many communities, and one of the main things that the petition calls for is consideration of the impact of school closures on a wide range of things apart from education, such as social inclusion and jobs. There does not necessarily have to be a public investigation. PE1295 proposes environmental impact assessments and I think that the petitioner who lodged PE1267 was looking for that kind of thing—retrospective social impact assessments or investigations. Obviously, that will not happen, but we might want to say to the petitioner that he could lodge another petition calling for such social impact assessments to be made in future. That might be worth it.

Okay. The petition raises broad issues. I suggest that we close it in light of our discussions on it and because school closure programmes do not require the Scottish ministers' consent. It is therefore difficult for the committee to take a view on the matter.

---

School Buildings (Asbestos Management Plan) (PE1268)

PE1268, by Catherine Mitchell on behalf of St Gilbert's primary school and all schools in the west of Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action against local authorities that have failed to implement a robust asbestos management plan and procedures for school buildings that contain asbestos, and to ensure that parents and teachers who require data that are held by local authorities about asbestos in school buildings have full access to them. We have discussed the petition before. Do members have any comments?

The petitioner, Catherine Mitchell, is one of the few people left in the public seats.

The final thing that the petition calls for is to

"ensure that parents and teachers who require data about asbestos in school buildings held by local authorities have full access to this."

I do not see how that call has been answered, although it might have been; I might have missed something. I understand that most of what is in the petition needs to be taken up with Glasgow City Council or the Health and Safety Executive specifically. We have guidance for when parents and teachers know that there is asbestos, but I am not sure that the point about access to data on asbestos in school buildings has been addressed.

Irrespective of where people have stood on the difficult council decisions that have been faced—there are different perspectives—we should be conscious of the issue of asbestos in schools, particularly in those that were constructed in the 1960s, when there was a massive expansion of the school estate and materials that are perhaps no longer appropriate were used. I am not convinced that enough answers have been provided to what is in the petition or about the relationship that the Government would want with local authorities and others. I am sure that many buildings, not only school buildings, are involved. On that basis, we cannot easily dismiss the petition.

Again, I come to the matter as a relatively new member, but I have read the papers. The Health and Safety Executive has taken some action, but we need to know that there is on-going monitoring and that local authorities are carrying out their asbestos monitoring and management duties as set out in asbestos management plans. The key issue is how the Government ensures that that is happening.

I would like to go beyond the convener's comments about other buildings. Education authorities should now be aware of the situation. Because of what we and the petitioner have done, every education authority in the country should now be clicked into the possibility of asbestos being an issue in our schools. The Health and Safety Executive also has a website that tells people about asbestos. However, the problem remains that there will be asbestos in buildings that nobody knows is there; more important, nobody is looking for it.

If you are demolishing a building, you will take precautions; indeed, that is what demolishers do. They know about these things. However, someone who is simply knocking a building about does not really know anything.

I have no idea how we disseminate the information that should be available, but I am sure that, by bumping into asbestos that they do not know is there, plenty of people will put themselves at a slight risk. We should stress the slightness of the risk in this respect; it is a great deal better to bump into the stuff than to be padding around in it, as those who were manufacturing it had to do 40 or 50 years ago.

I do not have a way forward to suggest, but we should recognise that there is a blind spot. There are people who, until they find the asbestos, will simply not know that there is an issue or that the material is present.

I am inclined to keep the petition open, but if we do so we need to think about what action to take. Do members have any comments?

Surely local authorities keep the original plans and procurement details. You are shaking your head, convener.

Half the problem is that they have not always done so. Local communities know that certain buildings contain various forms of asbestos, which is why there has been a reluctance to demolish buildings automatically. A proper assessment needs to be carried out, and the economics of that are quite challenging.

It is a principle of engineering practice that, when you build something, you tend to assume that everyone knows—and will always know—the custom and practice of the time, so you do not bother to write anything down. When the next generation, which has learned something different, tries to find out what the previous generation did, they are unable to do so. It was assumed that everyone knew these things; now no one knows them. That, I suppose, is the nature of change.

I have not had recent experience of this issue, but my understanding is that the management plan involves identifying the presence of asbestos and then putting in place a plan for managing it. The key issue, therefore, is enforcement and the extent to which local authorities are complying with asbestos management legislation and have a plan in place. I certainly think that all of them should have done so.

I suggest that we keep the petition open as we seek responses on two points. First, we should write to Glasgow City Council, seeking its views on members' comments about the petitioner's concerns. Secondly, I am not sure whether the responsibility for this issue is the same at both Scottish and UK levels, but we should write to whoever in Government has such responsibility about the possibility of formulating an action plan that is centred on the various statutes and the actions identified by the HSE and asking whether there have been any recent breaches of those statutes by local authorities.

Given that the HSE has raised certain questions in its letter to education authorities, we should ask the organisation whether it has come across any adverse reporting by local authorities. Although its presumption is that action plans should be in place, its letter of 8 October seems to be asking authorities whether they have action plans in place and, if not, what they intend to do about it. It might be worth while finding out what responses the HSE has had from local authorities and whether every authority has put in place plans to deal with the issue. After all, people usually find that they have asbestos only when they drill a hole in a wall to hang up a picture.

Of course, that brings us back to Robin Harper's comment that the plans for these buildings should surely have been kept. The fact is that the plans for many schools that were built 40 or 50 years ago were destroyed by successor administrations, which means that nowadays no one knows what the buildings are made of. That poses real difficulties because, as you said, convener, we are talking not just about school buildings. As the wonder material of the 1950s and 1960s, asbestos was used extensively in houses and office blocks. There are wider issues to take on board, but we certainly need to concentrate on the problem of asbestos in schools that the petition has highlighted.

I look to the clerk to assimilate our contributions constructively. We will keep the petition open while we explore the process issues that members have raised. The petition will come back to the committee in due course.

---

Changing Places Toilets (PE1270)

Our final petition is PE1270, by Linda Burke, on behalf of the Profound and Multiple Impairment Service and the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland. Essentially, the petition urges the Government to request that local authorities use British standard 8300:2009 to ensure that at least one public toilet built to the changing places standard is provided in the centre of every town with a population greater than 15,000 and in every new larger and publicly accessible building and complex. Again, we had an opportunity to discuss the petition in detail at a previous meeting. I invite comments from members on how we might pursue the petition.

I would like to continue the petition, which is on an issue that is important not only for those with disabilities but for people with a range of needs. I suggest that we contact a range of organisations about the issue. I understand from reading the accompanying papers—as I said, I am new to the committee—that the petition has been lodged following a survey that showed that toilets built to the changing places standard are relatively rare. I suppose that we need to get information about current provision, what attitude local authorities take to the petition's proposal and what the implications would be of making such toilets more widely available.

My reading of the petition—which feels like a long time ago now—was to the effect that everyone was saying, "This is not necessarily my problem." Legally, that might well be true, but I cannot help feeling that if the Scottish Government wanted an appropriate standard of toilet in every main place—however that might be defined—it could have a quiet word in the ear of the appropriate local authorities to say, "Hey guys, please could you find a way of doing this that takes your local circumstances and planning opportunities into account?" The cost to a local authority of ensuring that there is one such toilet in the middle of every large town and city would not be huge. Surely no one needs the authority to say that. The Government could just have a quiet word.

The information before us repeats the point that only three of the 32 local authorities even bothered replying to the petitioners to confirm that an equality impact assessment had been carried out to see whether changing places toilets were needed. That level of response is, I suggest, almost inexcusable. The local authorities should be held to account for that by the Government. If the Government will not hold them to account, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities should do so. My feeling is that we should write to both the Government and COSLA to tell them that that is not good enough. The issue must be pursued.

I was going to suggest that we take up the issue with COSLA, as Robin Harper has mentioned.

We will keep the petition open as it raises a number of issues. I think that our response should be quite strong about the need for an equality impact assessment. I believe in subsidiarity and in devolving decision making, but local authorities also have a responsibility, I believe, to deliver what is set out in the concordat.

Convener, I suggest that we also write to the British Council of Shopping Centres to find out how that organisation advises its members on the operation of existing malls and shopping centres. Although we can also write to local authorities about town centres, I am aware that a number of Scotland's town centres and major shopping centres are owned not by local authorities but by other bodies. Therefore, it would be useful to get the views of the British Council of Shopping Centres.

I do not wish to disagree with my colleagues, but surely we do not need an impact assessment. For example, the legislation to say that we would have wheelchair access to public buildings was not dependent on how many wheelchairs there would be; it was introduced simply because there should be a facility. One person would be enough; indeed, the possibility of one person would be enough. If we are not providing facilities to allow some people to get into our cities and town centres to enjoy the services there, it does not matter whether there is one or 20 people—the presence of the facility is the issue. Even if it was argued that nobody who lives in a town needs such a facility, by not putting it there we prevent somebody who needs the facility from visiting the place. I am therefore not sure that I follow the logic of the need for an assessment. The point is that the facilities are needed.

It is an equalities issue, so it might be worth contacting the Equal Opportunities Committee.

Rather than send the petition to that committee now, it would be useful for us to keep it until we exhaust some of the points that members have made and see whether we can get a better response and awareness. As Nigel Don said, we need a more proactive attitude to provision, rather than a reactive one. Do members agree to keep the petition open and pursue those matters?

Members indicated agreement.