Mosquito Devices (PE1367)
There are 10 current petitions for our consideration. The first is PE1367 by Andrew Deans, who is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on banning Mosquito devices. Member have the note by the clerk and the submissions.
I am not sure whether we should call the minister to the committee or write to her for an explanation. We need to see an end to the issue; it has been going on for far too long. We heard from the previous minister, who was in favour of what the petitioner said against the Mosquito system, but the Government has done nothing concrete. Would it be better to get the minister to come to give evidence even though we have already done that, or would it be better to start with a letter asking for an update? That is what I am concerned about. Should we get the minister here right away or should we give her the opportunity to reply by letter first?
I am sure that other members will have views. Normally, I would be relaxed about writing to the minister in the normal way, but purely because there has been some debate and delays, having the minister at the committee would bring the issue to a head and we could establish a way forward. There was some suggestion of taking action under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. We need to find an exact resolution to the issue.
The debate has been going on for some time now. We have held evidence sessions and, rather than write to the relevant minister, we have to ask her to come and give evidence. Like the petitioner, I am frustrated with the time that it has taken for us to get a definitive response to the question. It would be useful to have the minister in front of us so that we can decide whether to proceed or to close the petition having achieved a satisfactory outcome.
I also understand the petitioner’s frustration. Calling the minister to give evidence would highlight the committee’s concern at the delay in bringing the petition to a conclusion. A letter would prolong that delay and asking the minister to appear might show our frustration as well.
If we wish to continue the petition—it is clear that the committee wishes to do so—the only logical step that is available to us is to call the minister to give evidence. We have received consistent replies from the Scottish Government, and it appears that everybody is of the same mind on the devices. The questions are what is the best way to deal with them, and whether a ban would be the most effective way to do so.
I understand that we have had correspondence with the UK Government on the matter, but a refresh might be quite useful before our next meeting.
Bonds of Caution (PE1412)
The second current petition is PE1412, by Bill McDowell, on bonds of caution. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 3, and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
From reading the replies that we have received, it seems that everyone agrees that something has to be done and that everyone very much agrees with what the petitioner is asking for, but so far it has not happened through primary and secondary legislation.
Do members agree to Sandra White’s recommendation?
We agree to continue the petition and to write to the Scottish Government to get an update. We will write to the relevant minister.
Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855 (PE1415)
The third current petition is PE1415, by John Steele, on updating the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 4, and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
I think that we have all found the petition interesting. It seems to be quite au fait on updating the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855. There is a burial and cremation review group, which might be news to some people. There are two recommendations or suggestions: to continue the petition and seek further information, or to close it, basically because the burial and cremation review group will look at the matter. If we continued it, we could write to the Government to ask whether it will include
It is technically possible to close the petition, and to say that one of the grounds for closing it is that we are writing to the Scottish Government to ask that the issue it raises be included in the work of the review group.
I agree with Sandra White that we could close the petition and write to the Scottish Government to make a specific recommendation to the review group to take on board the issues that the petitioner raises and also to involve the petitioner in some way in the review group. That would mean that we have closed the petition but have made the review group consult the petitioner, and that the petitioner’s views would be with the review group.
Can I clarify what, if any, time bar there is on a similar or identical petition being lodged if this one were to be closed?
The time bar is a year.
In that case, I would be more content to leave the petition open until we have the Scottish Government’s response, because leaving it for a year might not be to the satisfaction of the petitioner if he does not get the response that he seeks. Other options might be available to the committee, were that to be the case.
Other members may wish to add further points. However, one way forward is to say that the committee is minded to close the petition but that we will refer it to the Scottish Government and await its response. If the Scottish Government says that it will take the petition on board for the review, we can close it at our meeting after we receive the information. That gives us a little bit of control over the next steps.
I am content with that approach.
Are members content with that approach?
I agree that Mark McDonald’s solution is the ideal one.
Are members happy with the form of words that I previously identified?
Telecommunications Masts (PE1416)
PE1416 by Eileen Baxendale is on the review of health issues and planning guidance in respect of telecommunications masts. Members have a note by the clerk, paper PPC/S4/12/12/5, and submissions. I invite comments from members.
We have no option but to close the petition under the recommendation in paragraph 22(4) of the note by the clerk, on the ground that
As no other members wish to contribute, are members satisfied that we close the petition under rule 15.7?
DVLA Local Office Closures (PE1425)
PE1425, by Maureen Harkness, is on the adverse impact of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency local office closures. We have submissions and a note by the clerk. We took evidence from Maureen Harkness. Just for the record, I note that she and some of her colleagues met me in my constituency office to talk about the impact of the Inverness office closure, which I am clearly concerned about, as other members will be about the office closures in their areas. I ask members for comments.
This is an important petition that touches on a subject that will affect all our constituencies and many people around Scotland. The evidence session brought out to me that, rather than the issue being only about job losses and office closures, it is about a form of criminality. We had not thought about that.
I agree. Another vital aspect is the concept of spreading public sector jobs around Scotland. Successive Scottish Governments have looked at that important issue and we should ensure that the UK Government does not forget how important public sector jobs are to the Scottish economy and avoids the centralisation of jobs.
I would go further, and suggest that we write back to the Department for Transport and the responsible minister, be that Mike Penning or somebody else—after the coalition reshuffle, who knows?—to ask for a firm timetable for decision making because Mike Penning’s letter states only that the consultation results are being analysed and that
I declare an interest in that I was in the motor industry for 25 years.
As usual, I disagree with Jackson Carlaw’s interpretation of what we are trying to achieve. Although in his previous life he may have found difficulties with local DVLA offices, there is clearly a move by the UK Government to turn the DVLA into an electronic format. As well as the issue of the five access points, we have figures that show that anything between 30 to 40 per cent of the Scottish population does not have access to the internet. If everything is to be done electronically, the difficulty is how those without access to the internet or a computer do that. For many people, it is about going along to their local DVLA office. However inconvenient that may be, for some people that is a better option.
Members have seen the various dates for closure in the committee papers. The updated information that we have is that the DVLA will centralise enforcement operations by March 2013 and close 39 offices by the end of 2013.
My major concern is that Glasgow will lose 67 jobs. Although I appreciate Jackson Carlaw’s experience of visiting the DVLA offices, we have to take on board the fact that more than 30 per cent of people do not have access to computing systems and that it is sometimes better to go and get some advice from the office itself.
I could not help but hear Jackson Carlaw say, “Go to the post office,” when Anne McTaggart was speaking. If post offices in communities the length and breadth of Scotland were not being closed, that might indeed be an option for people.
That was going to be my point, too.
If my memory serves me correctly, I was not here on 30 March when the committee heard evidence on the petition, so I do not know whether the committee discussed the fact that the UK Government is reviewing the issuing of road tax applications from some post offices and is talking about restricting that further.
That is a useful point. Members will be aware that not all post offices currently have the full range of services. Normally, what were called Crown post offices had that right, which means that the local village post office probably never had the right to deal with road tax. However, that is not in any sense to argue for the closure; I am merely making the point that greater diversification of services in post offices is important.
I do not wish to extend the debate, but I make the point that, even though not all post offices can provide the service, more than five of them can do so, which is the number of DVLA facilities that we are talking about. We should not simply state that, because DVLA branches existed throughout the United Kingdom to meet a need at a particular time, they should be retained in perpetuity if things move on. Given my experience and that of customers and people whom I know who have reregistered vehicles, if there was a modern way of doing that, whether it be online or at a local post office—which we want to support—that would seem to me to be a perfectly sensible way forward.
I am sure that the committee would agree with Jackson Carlaw’s final point. It is certainly important to get an understanding of what our post offices do.
I seek clarification, convener. At the previous meeting, did the committee agree to write to the Scottish Motor Trade Association on the issue?
My understanding is that we did not.
I suggest that we write to that association to ask for its views on the issue. Although Mr Carlaw makes the point that visiting a local DVLA office was not helpful and he feels that the UK Government’s planned move to an electronic system might be beneficial, it would be useful to find out the views of the Scottish Motor Trade Association. In particular, we should ask whether the transfer of ownership when cars are bought is being done at the speed that the motor trade would like. It can take up to a couple of weeks just to get a new road tax disc issued by the DVLA. The change of ownership of motor vehicles sometimes has to be done quickly, particularly given the turnover in the motor trade. I would appreciate it if we wrote to the SMTA to ask for its views on the issues for its members.
Are members happy with that approach?
It is clear that we do not have a complete consensus on the way forward. I am conscious that it is not necessarily fair for members who have not had the benefit of hearing the evidence to consider the next steps but, in time, all of us will see all the evidence as the petition moves through the system. It appears that we have a consensus on action point 1, which is that we write to the Scottish Government, and on the suggestion that we invite the relevant UK minister to attend. We can also take up Jackson Carlaw’s point by asking for an audit of post offices in Scotland and of what they can and cannot do. In effect, we want a breakdown of key post offices that carry out DVLA functions. We will also write to the Scottish Motor Trade Association, as John Wilson suggested.
When we write to the UK Government, could we ask for a copy of an executive summary of the equality impact assessment and cost benefit analysis?
Yes, that is a good point.
National Donor Breast Milk Bank (PE1426)
The sixth current petition for consideration is PE1426, by Donna Scott, on a national donor breast milk bank. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I know that several members have an interest in the issue, but particularly Mark McDonald.
That is correct, convener. Donna Scott is a constituent of mine. I have worked closely with her and others on the issue. I am encouraged by the responses from the national health service, although not necessarily by the number of them. I am also encouraged by the fact that there was a meeting on 15 August, which represents progress. The committee needs to investigate the outcome of that meeting and the next steps that the various NHS boards have identified.
Are members happy to go ahead on the basis of Mark McDonald’s recommendation?
Access to Justice (Non-corporate Multiparty Actions) (PE1427)
PE1427 by Rob Kirkwood on behalf of the Leith Links residents association is on access to justice for non-corporate multiparty groups. Members have received a note from the clerk and the submissions, and I invite contributions from members.
I have not had a constituency case like the one that prompted the petition, but I have had constituency cases involving groups who have been put off taking things forward because of the costs involved. The petition is very interesting.
Thank you for that. Do members agree with that recommendation?
A83 (Improvements) (PE1428)
PE1428, by Councillor Douglas Philand on behalf of Argyll First, is on improvements to the A83. Members will have received the note from the clerk and the submissions, and I also remind the committee that we had an excellent evidence session with three members of the new administration in Argyll and Bute Council.
I concur with those remarks. For those who use the road only occasionally, it might best be described as quaint. Although that might be nice on a day out, it is extremely frustrating and difficult—not to say dangerous—for individuals and businesses that use the road regularly.
I concur entirely with the convener and Jackson Carlaw. The evidence session was very good and it was put across that not just the economy but local people and tourism are suffering. I remember saying that the island of Davaar up at Campbeltown should get more publicity, but people cannot reach it. The Drimsynie estate and all that are also affected.
I agree with all the points that have been made. It was slow going when I went along the Rest and Be Thankful a week last Saturday. As the briefing paper says, the problems persist, as we have seen in recent weeks.
Angus MacDonald makes a good point.
We received extremely useful information from Transport Scotland about the economic impact of the landslides and road closures that have taken place at the Rest and Be Thankful, but could we write to ask it to update the figures? The figures that it gave us for the economic cost of alternative routing and transport seem rather low. Some of the figures are four years out of date, and we know that petrol and diesel prices have risen by more than 30 per cent in that time.
The current time delays because of the traffic lights around the repairs also add to the cost. They will not last for ever, but traffic light delay is a big issue for the haulage business. Time is obviously money.
Education (Accessibility) (PE1429)
The ninth current petition is PE1429, by Wajahat Nassar, on making Scottish education more accessible. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I invite contributions from members.
The Scottish Government’s reply is clear that the availability of scholarships for students to study in Scottish universities relates to the various regions that have been highlighted in terms of economic impact. It makes it plain that the work with the four priority countries contributes to the international framework and economic strategy and that there are no plans to broaden that out, although the situation will be kept under review. I therefore think that we have no option but to close the petition considering the reply that we have had from the Scottish Government.
I might or might not agree with the Government’s strategy, but it has set it out and its actions are entirely consistent with it, so I support Sandra White’s recommendation.
Is that agreeable?
It is therefore agreed unanimously that we close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has explained its current strategy.
Childminding Businesses (Regulation) (PE1430)
The final current petition is PE1430, by Ewan Cameron, on the regulation of childminding businesses. Members have a note from the clerk and submissions. Can I have members’ contributions?
We received full contributions from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the local authorities that we wrote to. Every one of them seems to say that there is no need for further legislation. In fact, COSLA’s submission says that further legislation might add to the cost of childminding, that there is no anomaly between what the petitioner says and what happens, and that childminders are well regulated and do a good job.
Do other members agree with Sandra White’s recommendation?
The committee therefore agrees to close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis of the submissions that we have received that show that current legislation and regulations ensure the quality of service to children. The committee also agrees that no new legislation is required.
Previous
New Petition