Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Public Petitions Committee, 02 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008


Contents


Current Petitions


Oil Depots (Public Health) (PE936)

The Convener:

We have a range of current petitions to consider. However, we should keep in mind—in case we are overrun with school students on the way out—the school's guidance on time.

The first current petition is PE936, from Simon Brogan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review, in light of the Buncefield oil depot explosion in December 2005, the public health implications of siting oil depots in residential areas. We have a letter from the Scottish Government on such health implications. I do not think that we have got full information on some elements of the petition. We could perhaps ask for an update on a number of areas—for example, on any action that has been taken and on the public health implications. Are members comfortable about exploring such issues?

Yes, indeed. That is all that we can do in the circumstances because we are still waiting for the major incident investigation board's recommendations to be published.

Does the committee agree to keep the petition alive?

Members indicated agreement.


Information Plaques (PE1012)

The Convener:

PE1012, from Frank Beattie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt a nationally co-ordinated and nationally funded scheme for marking people, events and places—you have to pronounce that accurately in case you get into trouble with the police—by erecting informative plaques at sites of local, regional, national or international importance.

I note that the Scottish Civic Trust is looking at some of the issues and that the petitioner is involved in discussions with Historic Scotland. Committee members have given their views on the petition before. I think that Robin Harper wants to add to those.

Robin Harper:

With all due regard for the petitioner's sensitivities, I think that the issue is very much one for the many organisations that have an interest in such matters and for local authorities. Whom local authorities choose to honour should continue to be a matter devolved to local authorities rather than decided at national level.

The Convener:

I know. The alternative does not bear thinking about.

Do we accept the recommendation to close the petition on the ground that dialogue is on-going with local agencies and with national agencies that have relationships at a local level? Are members happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.


Village and Community Halls (PE1070)

The Convener:

PE1070, from Sandra Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, is on the importance of village and community halls in rural Scotland. The petition identifies ways in which grants and funds could be made available for the refurbishment and modernisation of such halls. The petition also highlights the impact of changes to the water charges relief scheme for rural halls and communities.

Do members have any strong views on what to do with the petition? Some of the issues are in the ether, so we might want to keep the petition open.

It appears that research is being done on the usage and condition of community facilities. It would be sensible to suspend our consideration of the petition until we receive the results of that research.

Another suggestion is that we invite Scottish Government ministers to meet the petitioner to discuss the issues. I am sure that the Government has already made overtures, but we can recommend that.

I would like to think that SCVO is involved in such discussions, but we can certainly remind the Government that it should engage with SCVO on the issue.


Education Maintenance Allowance (PE1079)

The Convener:

PE1079, from Laura Long, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the eligibility conditions for the educational maintenance allowance programme to take account of the number of children in a household who are between the ages of 16 and 19.

I understand that the minister has announced that the Government intends to conduct a review of the EMA. In that review, some elements that are mentioned in the petition will be considered. Obviously, further discussion will still be required.

As with the previous petition, I suggest that we should keep the petition open until the review has reported. Rather than close the petition at present, we should wait to see the results of that review.

The clerks are howling in anguish—

I noticed that.

The Convener:

We make the decisions here. They should remember that.

John Wilson makes a fair point. Government ministers will need to grapple with some difficult resource issues. Obviously, some of us have views on the EMA and how it should operate. I am happy to keep the petition open while the review is undertaken.


Local Museums (PE1083)

The Convener:

PE1083, from John Arthur, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support the creation of local museums, such as the proposed Leith museum.

Malcolm Chisholm is unable to attend our meeting today, but he has previously expressed an interest in the issue as the constituency member for Edinburgh North and Leith. I know that he is keen to keep the petition open and is still willing to support the proposal.

Do members have any strong views? Although it is possible for us to close the petition, do members agree that we should keep it open until we see further developments?

Members indicated agreement.


Kinship Carers (PE1085)

The Convener:

PE1085, from Caroline Garrett on behalf of You Are Not Alone, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide total recognition for kinship carers. I think that every member has been lobbied on the issue by constituents.

John Wilson:

Can we write to the Scottish Government to find out, following recent reports in the press, what budgetary constraints might be faced by local authorities that the Government believes could cause problems for the delivery of its kinship care policies?

The Convener:

I suggest that we write to the UK Government about the tax system and, in particular, about the way in which calculations are made. I am starting to see a higher number of individuals in my constituency who fall within a category in which they could receive grant from the local authority in the next financial year. However, the grant could be irrelevant, because it would then be taken back off them when the Department for Work and Pensions and others make judgments about whether the money should be part of their calculations. I would like to get a view on that. I know that we are waiting to see a broader, more coherent picture from the Scottish Government, as it is working on its early years framework. Are members happy to accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.


Parking Charges (Hospitals) (PE1086 and PE1091)

The Convener:

PE1086 and PE1091 will be considered together as they both relate to car parking charges at national health service premises, about which we have had extensive discussions. We have looked through the papers in great detail, particularly those that relate to PE1086, from Chris Paterson, who is a health board employee. She has asked the committee to close her petition.

The cabinet secretary has indicated that the position for all NHS hospitals is that they do not charge for parking. She has also encouraged hospitals that have private finance initiative or public-private partnership car parking contracts to review parking arrangements. There has been substantial progress on the petitions. Do members have views?

John Wilson:

I support the proposal to close the petitions. In saying so, I hope that the NHS boards that have PFI car parks take on board the views of previous Public Petitions Committees and seek an urgent remedy to the on-going problem of car parking fees.

Robin Harper:

I agree totally with John Wilson. We are entitled to say that petition PE1086 has been remarkably successful, in that as much has been accomplished in getting rid of hospital car parking charges as we could expect. I hope that, following John Wilson's suggestion, the remaining PFI agreements will be modified as soon as possible.

If the petitioner wants it closed—

The Convener:

We are considering two petitions. One of the petitioners wants to close their petition. The other petition, PE1091, was essentially to do with Stobhill, which has received an exemption following the cabinet secretary's intervention. We are talking about one or two other hospital car parks. In my constituency, which is served mainly by Glasgow royal infirmary, there is a particular challenge as the hospital has a PFI arrangement. From memory, there is another example in Dundee, and one other elsewhere. By drawing attention to the situation, we are saying to the health boards concerned that, although they have to make hard choices about their resources, if they thought that they could raise money through car parking contracts to invest in other areas, they will have to reconsider. The situation is worth exploring.

John Wilson:

Given the convener's comments about an earlier petition, we should have regard to the contribution of Paul Martin MSP to the Stobhill debate. His contribution both to the work of the committee and elsewhere was useful in progressing the debate. I am just trying to make sure that you do not get into trouble with him, convener.

I do not know whether he will think that it is great news when I tell him that an SNP member was giving him 100 per cent praise. He will probably get upset.

I think that he will accept it with good grace.

Yes, he will. I appreciate John Wilson's comments because Paul Martin raised the issue in partnership with one or two of his constituents and there has since been a welcome policy shift that several people felt was overdue.


National Proof-of-age Card (PE1090)

PE1090, from John Drummond, on behalf of the Scottish Grocers Federation, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a free national proof-of-age card for all 12 to 26-year-olds. Do members have any views?

Nanette Milne:

This is another petition that we could close happy in the knowledge that progress has been made. The Government is now in active dialogue with people to raise awareness of the Young Scot card, which has been generally accepted as a good way forward. There is a continuing campaign to improve awareness of the card. Perhaps we could close the petition, but write to the Government to ask it to give high-profile backing to the Young Scot card, so that more youngsters take it up.

Okay—we accept that recommendation. I echo the point that Nanette Milne made: there is a real issue about ensuring that the Young Scot card is used much more predominantly throughout Scotland and that young people get their entitlements.


Community Prisons (PE1150)

The Convener:

The next petition is PE1150, from David Wemyss, on behalf of Aberdeen prison visiting committee, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider whether large prisons that are remote from prisoners' families offer the best way of rehabilitating offenders or whether, as an alternative, localised community prisons should be supported much more strongly to maintain genuinely easy access to family links and other community virtues. Are there any strong views?

Nanette Milne:

As a member for North East Scotland, I have been involved in the will to submit the petition. There are several issues. I have no problem with the proposed new prison at Peterhead, but to say that it is community facing is not correct. Peterhead is 30-odd miles from Aberdeen. There is no railway and, although there is a bus service, it is not brilliant. Many of the people who will go to the new prison will be based in the city of Aberdeen, which will cause all sorts of practical problems. Also, many of the prisoners will come from the more deprived communities in Aberdeen. Getting to and from Peterhead will put a strain on families. It is well known that family visits are key to rehabilitating prisoners in the community at the end of their sentence.

Another issue is that the police have said that there is a risk of prisoners escaping while they are being transported to and from the new prison. Above all, the police are actively contemplating providing new remand facilities in the city, because the proposals are inadequate. There are all sorts of issues. I am interested in the minister's reasoning in deciding to go ahead with a new prison in Peterhead and to close facilities in Aberdeen. I accept that Craiginches prison does not appear to be fit for purpose, but perhaps the reason is that it is so overcrowded. We should ask the cabinet secretary to come to a meeting and give us an insight into his reasoning. The members of the visiting committee, who are knowledgeable people and see the situation on the ground, feel strongly about the issue.

Robin Harper:

I have strong views, convener. I declare an interest as a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform. We should invite the cabinet secretary to discuss the broader policy about community prisons and reforming the prison service in a big way. I would like to draw the cabinet secretary's attention to a small but important observation by Kathleen Marshall, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, who said that the issue is not about prisoners' prerogatives but about children's rights to visit their fathers—we are talking mainly about fathers although, in the case of Cornton Vale, it is mothers. The issue is about children's rights and about a more enlightened justice system that focuses on returning prisoners to society in a better state than when they were incarcerated.

As there are no other comments, we will accept Nanette Milne's recommendation. Given the nature of the petition, we need to consider the broader implications of the difficult decision and how it relates to the broader national strategy.


Public and Voluntary Sector Services (Cuts) (PE1158)

The Convener:

The next petition is PE1158, from Kevin Hutchens, on behalf of Aberdeen Trades Union Council, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review whether it is making adequate and sufficient funding available for the provision of public and voluntary sector services. The petition has been in front of us before, and we have taken oral evidence on it.

Nanette Milne:

The petition definitely raises issues, but I am not sure how to take it forward. The Government considers that it is making adequate and sufficient funding available to local authorities for the provision of public and voluntary sector services, but what has come to my ears from my local council and other councils is that it is not.

Members may be aware that I recently secured a members' business debate on Community Service Volunteers, which is losing its core funding and is being asked to go through councils for funding to train volunteers. It will be incredibly difficult for it to deal with 32 local authorities, which are saying that they do not have sufficient funding.

I worry about the future of the voluntary sector. The country would be in serious trouble without it, because it provides a huge number of services that we have come to rely on.

Perhaps other members have ideas about how to progress the petition. I am not sure exactly how we should do that, but I certainly would not like to close it at this point.

John Wilson:

Nanette Milne is right. The jury is still out on how voluntary sector organisations are faring under the concordat agreements. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it does not have any remit to advise local authorities on how to spend their money, but it was involved in negotiating the concordat, so it is incumbent on it to show that local authorities are delivering to voluntary sector organisations in their areas the budgets that we would expect. As Nanette Milne suggests, real fear exists. The voluntary sector provides a range of services that cannot be provided by others. For many voluntary sector organisations, if core funding is removed, they will not be able to deliver the services that we expect to be delivered in many communities.

I suggest that we write to COSLA again, to ask it what research it is undertaking to ensure that voluntary sector organisations are not being put at risk as a result of decisions by its members. Not only local organisations depend on local authorities for much of their core funding—national organisations also depend on them. It takes only one local authority to step out of line for the whole edifice to fall apart and a range of local services to disappear overnight—and those services may not be replaced because no one else seems to have the capacity or ability to replace them.

The Convener:

I think that there is good agreement in the committee on the matter. The unspoken bit of the local government agreement is that we do not know its implications. It would be best to keep the petition open and make the inquiries that John Wilson and Nanette Milne have suggested. Let us see whether we can interrogate the matter a bit further.

Can we also write to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which is the voluntary sector umbrella organisation, and to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers?

Okay.

We could ask the SCVO to hammer away at added value. For every pound that is invested in the SCVO, we probably get £10 to £15-worth—or more—of value back in delivered services.

I thank members for their contributions.


National Concessionary Travel Scheme (PE1162)

The Convener:

The next petition is PE1162, from Sally Ann Elfverson, on behalf of the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the national concessionary travel scheme to ensure that people who are in receipt of the lower rates of the mobility and care components of disability living allowance are eligible for a national entitlement card.

I understand that a review of the concessionary travel scheme is under way. I therefore suggest that we suspend consideration of the petition until the review is complete. Meanwhile, we can submit copies of the written submissions to the Scottish Government so that they can be considered as part of the review.

John Wilson:

I was not a member of the committee when this petition was originally considered. The petition calls for people on the lower rates of the mobility and care components of the disability living allowance to be eligible for a national entitlement card, but wider issues arise, to do with who is entitled to concessionary travel cards. There used to be something known as the companion card; I am not sure whether the petitioner referred to it in earlier submissions. Someone on a lower rate could apply for a companion card if they needed someone to escort them on public transport. I understand that that card has now been taken away, so people will no longer be able to get a card for an escort, let alone a card for themselves. If that point has not been raised in submissions, it might be worth throwing it into the hat for the review.

The Convener:

The clerk has just told me that he does not know whether that point was raised in the original submission. We will check. I agree that issues arise. Each local authority had a different interpretation of concessionary schemes, and companions may have received a raw deal. If the point has been raised as part of the petition, we will be happy to take it on board. It might be something that we can follow up anyway.


Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Act 2008 (PE1166)

The Convener:

The next petition is PE1166, from Elaine Ramsay, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Act 2008 because of the unfair financial burden it places on all graduates, particularly those who continued with postgraduate study after April 2007 to seek vocational training.

Robin Harper:

It is difficult for me to comment because I am a former rector of two Scottish universities, but retrospective legislation is always thought to be difficult and inadvisable, shall we say. The Government has explained clearly why it is not in a position to do anything. I therefore do not think that we have any option but to close the petition. If there were a way of taking it forward, I would be only too glad to pursue it.

I appreciate that you are making that suggestion reluctantly, but I agree that, from the information that we have received, it would be appropriate to close the petition.

Members indicated agreement.


Billy Liddell (PE1172)

The Convener:

The last current petition on our agenda today is PE1172, from Bill McCulloch, on behalf of the Billy Liddell memorial campaign. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider what support and assistance can be provided to local authorities to erect lasting memorials to local sporting legends.

During our earlier discussion on blue plaques, we felt it appropriate that certain decisions be taken at local level. However, Billy Liddell was recently honoured in the Scottish Football Association hall of fame, and I think that that was partly as a result of the petition. When the petition came before the Public Petitions Committee, it highlighted the importance of the application for a place in the hall of fame. We should also note that Fife Council has set out a mechanism that might assist the petitioner to achieve the aim of recognising Billy Liddell in his home area. On those grounds, I think that we can close the petition.