Pernicious Anaemia and Vitamin B12 Deficiency (Understanding and Treatment) (PE1408)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of current petitions. PE1408, by Andrea MacArthur, is on the updating of the understanding and treatment of pernicious anaemia and vitamin B12 deficiency. Members have a note by the clerk.
Yes, I do. We were advised at an earlier committee discussion that the report would be available during the summer. Our summer has ended, but we do not have the report as yet. I support the convener’s suggested action. I suggest that we also write to the Scottish Government to ask how quickly it will be able to report on the British committee for standards in haematology’s findings once they are published.
Do members agree to that course of action?
A83 (Improvements) (PE1428)
We move swiftly on to PE1428, by Councillor Douglas Philand, on behalf of Argyll First, on improvements for the A83. Members will recall that the councillor presented information to the committee on the issues. The Scottish Government has since carried out a lot of work. Given that the Scottish Government has clarified the timescale for the works recommended in the A83 study report, I recommend that we close the petition.
Scotland’s National Tree (PE1457)
PE1457, by Alex Hamilton, is on Scotland’s national tree. I welcome the Scottish Government’s announcement today that it is to launch a consultation on having a national tree. That is most welcome, although I am sure that members will have their own views. Do members agree to close the petition, given that the Government action meets the needs of the petitioner?
I suggest that we submit Mr Hamilton’s submissions and the evidence that we have received to the Scottish Government as part of the consultation.
I want to note rather than welcome the Scottish Government’s action.
Does that mean that you are pining for another tree?
That is why the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party changed its logo.
I draw attention to Alex Hamilton’s comments from 11 August, in which he encourages us to make statements to the local and national press. I for one will certainly issue a press release to the local media urging my constituents to engage in the consultation process. I encourage others to do so, too.
Do you have trees in Falkirk?
One or two.
Scottish Living Wage (Recognition Scheme) (PE1467)
PE1467, by Andrew McGowan MSYP, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, is on a Scottish living wage recognition scheme. Members have a note from the clerk and a number of submissions.
I thought that the submission from Peter Kelly at the Poverty Alliance covered the issue of the Living Wage Foundation, on behalf of the Scottish living wage recognition scheme, supporting the idea that we should continue to develop the foundation’s role in encouraging employers to pay the living wage. The question is whether we need to write to someone else before we close the petition. The petition has been worth while and it was interesting to see the Confederation of British Industry Scotland’s response. It is not news to someone such as myself who has been involved in the campaign over a number of years; the same arguments were used about the introduction of the minimum wage. We are now in a position where there is general recognition for the living wage, and I think that we can close the petition and move on.
Just to clarify, Mr Wilson, did the Poverty Alliance speak on behalf of the Scottish living wage foundation?
My reading of it was that it spoke on behalf of a number of organisations, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish churches, the GMB, the Public and Commercial Services Union, Oxfam and the Child Poverty Action Group, saying that they already recognise the scheme and would urge any campaign to support further recognition through the scheme that is currently in place.
I think that it would be worth holding the petition open a little longer. I note the reported comments of the UK Government, which is about to announce incentives to employers to pay the living wage, over and above the national minimum wage. It would be interesting to see what actions the UK coalition Government proposes to take to encourage a higher level of payment before we close the petition, to see whether there is anything in that proposal that we might commend to the Scottish Government.
It has been an outstanding petition, and we should thank Andrew McGowan, who is here again today. However, for the reasons that Jackson Carlaw has given, it is important to keep the petition open for those views.
Mr Carlaw, do you want us to write to the UK Government to clarify that?
That would be useful.
I am not totally convinced on the question of whether the Living Wage Foundation is covered, but I am happy to accept John Wilson’s point about its being covered in the Poverty Alliance paper.
Could we write to the Living Wage Foundation to clarify that point?
We can do that to clarify that it will not be in conflict. As I understand it, Citizens UK runs the accreditation for the living wage through the Living Wage Foundation, but that is just a technical point. It might be useful to get the foundation’s view and to return to the petition at a future meeting. Would members be happy with that?
I thank Andrew McGowan for coming along today.
Young Carers’ Grant (PE1470)
The next petition is PE1470, by Lauren King, who is also a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on a young carers’ grant. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions relating to the petition. Again, this is a good petition. It would make sense to refer it to the Education and Culture Committee, which is considering the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill as we speak. Is that agreed?
Young People’s Hospital Wards (PE1471)
The next petition is PE1471, by Rachael McCully. Rachael is another member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, which is dominating today’s petitions. The petition concerns young people’s hospital wards, and members have a note by the clerk on the submissions. Again, I invite members’ views on the next steps. We are still seeking responses from NHS Borders and NHS Lothian. Do members wish to get a complete answer before we analyse the matter in full? I know that it is a common view of members, and of Chic Brodie in particular, that they are unhappy about delays, but I believe that we should get back all the responses before we make a decision.
I agree. We see three responsible petitions from the Scottish Youth Parliament and I think—without wishing to bore everyone by talking about speedy responses—that it is incumbent on us to deal with them properly. They are not fly-by-night petitions; they are serious petitions, and we should encourage everybody to understand that they are serious, so that we can address them. We should certainly get full responses, and once we have done that I suggest that we seek clarification from the Government and from NHS Education for Scotland on how we can progress.
I agree and again thank the petitioner for coming to the gallery to hear the petition being actioned. It is important to keep the petition open for all the reasons that have been given.
It seems to me from the range of responses that we have received that many of the health boards have told us what they do rather than their particular response to the petition. In some ways, they seek to exercise a flavour—if I can put it that way—of the petitioner’s request rather than necessarily deal with the letter of it, so when we have collected all the information, we will not necessarily have a concise view of the petition, but of how young adults are treated in the system. At that point, it would probably be useful for the Health and Sport Committee to take a look at the petition and consider what it thinks should be done if there is a need to co-ordinate and bring about a national standard.
Are members happy that we continue the petition, and seek the responses that are still outstanding and the additional ones that Chic Brodie mentioned?
Menie Development (Governance and Propriety) (PE1474)
The final current petition is PE1474, by David Milne, on governance and propriety during the Menie development. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members on the next steps for the petition.
It seems that Police Scotland has denied that it was part of some major conspiracy, which I think was suggested to us when we took evidence. I think that it was suggested that it had co-operated with Mr Trump’s organisation in order to apply the law on a discretionary basis. Moreover, that seems to be the flavour of most of the other responses that we have received. For those reasons, I am in favour of closing the petition.
Do members agree?
I agree. We would have needed more than what was said; we would have needed evidence, and there is none. The responses have attended to that, so we should close the petition.
Did David Milne respond to any of the submissions that we received?
Yes, he did. Members have the submission in their papers, but it has not been published.
Right. I seek clarification on whether we should put it on the record that Mr Milne responded, but that there may be issues with some of the content of that response. In the past, certain petitioners have accused the committee of being secretive in our deliberations. Before we close the petition, it would be useful to say that we fully understand that Mr Milne made a submission, but because of issues that have arisen from it, it is not publicly available, although we hope that the majority of the response will become available once some issues have been resolved.
John Wilson makes a perfectly fair point. We can officially record that we have all received the feedback from David Milne, that the committee decided in light of that letter that there were issues around the complete submission, and that it will come out in due course, as John Wilson said.
Previous
New PetitionsNext
Correspondence