Public Petitions Committee, 04 Oct 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Official Report 198KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Limited Companies (Court Representation) (PE863)

The first current petition is PE863, by Bill Alexander, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to allow limited companies to be given either the right to apply for legal aid or the right to represent themselves in court.

At its meeting on 18 February, the committee agreed to write to the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and to invite the views of the petitioner on responses that had been received. A response has been received from the petitioner and circulated, as well as an update on the legal position.

Do members have any suggestions about how we can take the petition forward?

Shall we refer it to the Justice 2 Committee, as it is actively considering this issue as part of its consideration of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill? I think that our colleagues on that committee would be happy to consider this petition.

Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (PE930)

Our next petition is PE930, by Lucy Johnson McDowall, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to bring all aspects of local authority administration under the remit of the public services ombudsman, without exception or exemption, and for the ethics and professionalism of local authority officials to be included in the remits of the ombudsman or the Standards Commission for Scotland.

At its meeting on 22 February, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, Audit Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Unison, the GMB and the Scottish Executive. I think that we should ask the petitioner for her views on the responses that have been received from those bodies. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Supporting People Funding (PE932)

Our next petition is from Stella Macdonald, on behalf of the Citizen's Rights Action Group, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the supporting people funding arrangements to ensure that vulnerable adults are in receipt of the responsive services that are required to keep them healthy.

At its meeting on 22 February, the committee agreed to write to Community Care Providers Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Shelter Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and the Scottish Executive. Responses have now been received and circulated.

I suggest that we seek the petitioners' views on the responses and give their feedback further consideration. I am sure that Stella Macdonald and Margaret Duncan, who are in the public gallery this morning, will be wondering why we are going to write to them instead of simply telling them face to face. However, it is simply the way we do things.

Do members agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (PE934)

The next petition is petition PE934, by Dr J W Hinton, on behalf of the metered parking organisation, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 to ensure that local authority consultation on traffic orders is full, meaningful and democratic.

At its meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed to write to COSLA, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received and circulated. In addition, members have received correspondence from the petitioners that provides an update on the situation in Glasgow.

I believe that, yet again, we have received no word from COSLA.

At the end of the first page of its response, the Scottish Executive says that it would be interested in any new evidence or findings that emerge. The petitioners should find that encouraging, as I understand that they have quite a lot of new evidence and some interesting findings. I suggest that we seek their views on the responses.

I should say that we received a rather minimal and not very detailed response from COSLA.

I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.

It did not ignore us, but it did not give us a lot of information to work with. We should seek the petitioners' views on the responses anyway. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Secondary Schools (Lockers) (PE825)

The next petition is petition PE825, by Alana Watson, on behalf of Rosshall academy students council and higher modern studies section, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that every Scottish secondary school provides lockers for pupils. Those pupils have to carry heavy bags through the school day, which can lead to back problems.

At its meeting on 8 March, the Public Petitions Committee agreed to invite the Scottish Executive's views on the petitioners' response. The response has now been received and circulated. Members will note the Executive's position that decisions on aspects of school buildings and facilities are

"best left to local decision making processes"

and that it sees

"no benefit to be gained from the provision of guidance or direction from the Executive on the provision of school lockers."

I disagree. I understand that the Executive might not wish to prescribe the facilities in any given school but, given that so much guidance on schools is required, and given that, under various contracts, school buildings have to be designed in accordance with the local authority's wishes and in consultation with parents, teachers and others, I cannot believe that we do not need some guidance on basic school facilities. I wonder whether the Education Committee should consider the need for such guidance to provide young people with some assurance that local authorities are dealing with the issue. For goodness' sake, we are trying to prevent them from getting back problems.

Like you, convener, I am outraged by the Executive's deplorable response. It cannot simply tell the students of Rosshall academy that this issue is not important; indeed, it has been acknowledged that the weight of pupils' school bags is causing serious problems. I agree that we should refer the petition to the Education Committee. Someone somewhere should really dig their heels in on this matter, because if young people cannot take appropriate care of their spines when they are growing up they are just storing up back problems for the future.

Part of the problem is the present system in schools, which involves young people roving around to get to their different classes. If that system is necessary, a way must be found of allowing pupils to store some of their books.

I agree with everything that has been said. It is a false economy to ignore the issue now. The pupils of Rosshall academy have handed the Executive a brilliant opportunity. If we were to agree with the Executive's response, as well as putting those pupils' growing spines at risk, we might put their interest in democracy at a peep. I agree with the suggestion to pass on the petition to the Education Committee so that it can consider the issue further.

I definitely think that some guidance is required to ensure that local authorities insist that such provision is made available.

It is a health and safety issue.

Exactly. The health and safety of pupils is at stake. It beggars belief that such an issue can be left to the people who draw up contracts. Given that we have so much regulation in other areas, it is nonsensical not to have any here.

The Minister for Education and Young People has responded by saying that it is for local authorities to decide what is best.

That might be the case, but in other areas local authorities are given guidelines under which they must operate. I cannot believe that the Executive wants to leave it up to local authorities to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a school should have lockers. There will obviously be variations, depending on which company an authority deals with to build the school and which other facilities are provided. We demand other things of local authorities, so I do not see why we cannot demand that they provide lockers for our young people.

Local authorities will not make such provision off their own bats, but if the Executive provides guidance that recognises that damage can be done to young people's spines as a result of carrying around heavy bags, they will take cognisance of the issue and respond to it in their future plans. They will not do anything unless guidance is issued.

That is my view.

It is necessary for there to be a uniform approach. It would not be right for kids in some areas to have dodgy backs, because parents would start to send their kids to schools where they would not get dodgy backs. We need uniform provision throughout Scotland.

I wonder how a local authority would respond to a placing request that was submitted on the basis that the preferred school had lockers for the kids but the alternative did not. We might be saving local authorities from themselves.

We will send the petition to the Education Committee so that it can give the issue serious consideration.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Oil Depots (Public Health) (PE936)

Petition PE936, which was submitted by Simon Brogan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the public health implications of siting oil depots in residential areas in the light of the Buncefield oil depot explosion in December last year.

At its meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed to write to the UK Petroleum Industry Association, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Health Protection Scotland, the Health and Safety Executive, COSLA, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received and circulated. Members will note that Lord Newton's investigation into the Buncefield explosion and fire of December 2005 is continuing. Are there any comments?

Perhaps it would be best to wait for the report on the Buncefield major incident investigation. Once that has been completed, we can invite more comments from the people concerned. Thereafter, we can seek the views of the petitioner on all the responses.

Are members happy for us to await the production of that report?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Public Health Services (Consultation) (PE938)

Our final petition this morning is petition PE938, by Dr Patrick McNally, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that clear, transparent and meaningful public consultation takes place when changes are proposed to public health services.

At its meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish health council, the Scottish Consumer Council, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received. What do members suggest?

Shall we seek the petitioner's views?

Yes, it would be useful to get his perspective on the responses. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 11:29.