Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Official Report 472KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

We will consider 10 current petitions today. Members have a note by the clerk on PE1098 and PE1223, which we consider together.

There has been some progress on PE1098, which is about seat belts—I think that there is acceptance on the issue. However, I am concerned about progress on PE1223. I do not think that Mr Beaty is here today, but he has been to virtually every meeting at which the committee has discussed PE1223. He contends that school buses should display school-bus signs only when pupils are on board. It is clearly the case at the moment that empty buses and buses that are not carrying children display such signs, so there really has been no progress on that. We should keep the petition open and push a bit harder.

As Nanette Milne is, I am deeply concerned about how the petitions have been handled. We have two petitions before us. PE1098 is on seat-belt provision and safety for children who travel on buses and coaches. The response from Transport Scotland is not at all encouraging. Although the number of local authorities that require coach operators to fit seat belts on all school transport vehicles has increased, there is still no such requirement in almost two thirds of local authorities. Those authorities have not moved forward on seat-belt safety in school transport. Some local authorities have set aside funds to enable coach operators to fit seat belts in coaches that are used for school transport, but it is clear that we are not moving quickly enough to tackle the problem.

On PE1223, which is on signage and general safety to do with school buses, the Public Petitions Committee in the previous session took evidence from the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the UK Department for Transport, who said that the UK Government would look at transferring powers to the Scottish Government to allow it to progress matters to do with school buses. That has not happened, despite the assurances that we were given that the objective was fairly straightforward. We were assured that there could be discussions between the UK Department for Transport and the Scottish Government to allow the Scottish Government to acquire powers and to introduce further safety measures. I am disappointed that those measures do not seem to be any further forward.

I, too, put on record my thanks to Ron Beaty for his contribution to the debate, and I hope that we can resolve the matter much more quickly.

I am new to the committee, but I know that PE1223 has gained a great deal of publicity over the piece, particularly in the north-east, where Ron Beaty comes from. There have been high-profile cases in that region.

It is disgraceful that some local authorities still do not insist in contract tenders that buses, whether they are for primary or secondary schoolchildren, must have seat belts. Some local authorities seem to make a distinction and think that seat belts should be in place for primary schoolchildren but not necessarily for secondary schoolchildren. Most parents would not want that distinction to be made.

I know that the issue is complicated because the matter is, essentially, reserved. We often find that it can be difficult to get the UK Department for Transport to make real moves on reserved matters that are particular to Scotland, but I cannot envisage that the issue is not relevant in England. There are bound to be, as there are in rural Scotland, significant issues in rural England where bus transport is relied on, so I cannot understand the apparent heel-dragging in resolving the matter.

We must keep the petition open. We should write to the Department for Transport to ask it why exactly it is taking so long to address what is probably quite a small issue for it, but which would, if it were addressed by the department, resolve a difficulty and give many parents a much more satisfactory conclusion.

I absolutely agree with that. We should also put more direct pressure on the minister.

It is clear that colleagues are very concerned about the issue. Obviously, members agree that we should continue in line with the clerk’s report. In particular, we will write to the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, and to Keith Brown. There is, of course, an argument about power being delegated from Westminster to the Scottish Government. Members have made their points strongly and well. Do members agree that we should continue the petitions?

Members indicated agreement.

Has the issue dragged on because it is one of the things that are wrapped up in the Scotland Bill and the discussion about the Scottish Parliament getting more powers?

I do not think that the issue has been caught up in the Scotland Bill changes, but for safety we will check the point that Mr Walker has raised. We will write to the ministers. It is clear that both will deal with such points in their replies. I think that there are a number of mechanisms to resolve the issue, so we will pursue it urgently.

I thank members for their comments.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

Members have a note on PE1105 by the clerk.

I welcome to the meeting Gil Paterson, who wants to make a brief statement about the petition. If members agree, we will start with him; members may then ask questions.

I thank the committee for allowing me to speak.

I know that PE1105 has been with the committee since 2007, and I fully appreciate that members may want to get it off the books.

Things have moved forward in a positive way since the petition was lodged, but the main issues that it raises are on-going. There has been no settlement on finance for the hospice, nor is there a contract for the continuing care beds. However, I am hopeful that there will be an outcome to which all parties can sign up. I thank the committee for assisting the petitioners. It is a positive thing that the petition is still live, because that puts pressure on our moving towards the outcome that we seek.

The committee has correspondence from a supporter of the hospice that spells out some of the difficulties and the matters on which we have not yet reached conclusions. I reiterate that a good outcome is possible, but to assist in that process, I ask the committee to keep the petition open in case the petitioner and I need to come back and speak to you in a different tone.

I thank the local member for coming along and presenting the case. Members will have read the paperwork, but I will flag up a couple of issues. First, we have considered the petition on 13 occasions, and secondly, there is a contrast between the general nature of the petition and the issue regarding that particular hospice. That does not detract from Mr Paterson’s comments, but members should be aware of those things.

I hear what Gil Paterson, as the local member, is saying to the committee. However, there is a difficulty. Although the committee was generous in broadening the scope of the petition and considering it on a national basis, it appears from the correspondence that the petitioner disagrees with that approach and wants us to be extremely local in our deliberations.

That means that the petition would probably fall outside the committee’s remit and abilities, in that we would be considering a particular local circumstance rather than a wider national issue. I would be concerned if the petitioner wanted us to take a narrow view of the issue, because we are probably not able to do that.

Although I hear what Mark McDonald has to say, I emphasise the petition’s importance in assisting the wider debate. He is right to say that the focus has narrowed, but it is a supporter of the campaign and not the petitioner who wants to localise the issue. The petitioner has not responded.

I have a couple of concerns about how we will move forward, and I would like the committee to keep the petition open on the following basis. We have received a letter from the health and healthcare improvement directorate that says that the report “Living and Dying Well: Building on Progress” was published in January 2011, and goes on to say that the review group report has been published and that there are on-going discussions with the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care and representatives of hospices.

The difficulty is that the letter that we have from a supporter of the campaign mentions that meetings have been held without representatives of the hospice sector being present. I would like the committee to continue the petition and to write to the Government to ask it to answer the specific points in the letter. We should ask whether discussions are taking place and how they are progressing, with reference to the letter’s allegation that meetings are taking place to discuss future provision without the hospice sector being represented. If we are considering how the sector can deliver a meaningful service, that has to be done in conjunction and discussion with the hospices so that we get right all the factors in delivery of the service.

15:15

I was not on the Public Petitions Committee when the petition first came before it, but I have listened to Nanette Milne, John Wilson and others who were.

I come at the matter from a different angle. My involvement has been in the clash between St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and Blawarthill hospital. The letter mentions an agreement between the local health board and a nursing home. I know that the nursing home in question is a Four Seasons Health Care nursing home—those homes are being sold off all over the place. I am concerned that we are talking about something that is different to normal all-encompassing palliative care. St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and Blawarthill hospital offered similar care and now that the Four Seasons Health Care nursing home has gone into receivership, an awful lot is going on that we do not know about yet, especially if there are going to be beds in Blawarthill or St Margaret’s. I do not want the petition to be continued forever, but I would like clarification on what was being discussed about nursing homes. We need to see an end to the issue. We need to find out whether St Margaret’s is going to be viable because of what the health board is going to give it towards its costs. We also need to know how Four Seasons Health Care’s going into receivership will affect the situation. That is why I would like the petition to continue.

Perhaps Gil Paterson could at our next meeting update us on the Four Seasons situation so that we can make up our minds then.

My concern is the business of discussions and decisions being made without consultation of those who should have been consulted; I believe that allegations have been made about that. Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens in local government, where I have been working, and I would certainly like questions to be asked about what has been going on. I would like the petition to be continued for at least one more meeting.

We are treading a fine line between what we are competent to do for a petition on a local issue and for one that has national relevance. We have continued the petition for quite a long time despite our knowing that. Gil Paterson gives the impression that there might be a solution in the relatively near future; can you put a timescale on that?

This is very much a local issue about how the system impacts on a given facility. The issues should not be confused. Mark McDonald is quite right that one part of the matter is funding for hospice units throughout Scotland. However, the other aspect is that beds were being removed from St Margaret’s: although that threat has been lifted, no long-term contract has been put in place. For that reason alone it would be an advantage if the petition were kept open.

There has been dialogue, but it has been very slow. I have been at meetings and in direct conversation with the health board on the matter. I do not want to put my neck on the line, but with a little bit of foresight and common sense, we could come to a satisfactory conclusion. The matter has been on-going since 2007—the committee will understand that the only thing that has changed in that time is the lifting of the threat of removal of beds from St Margaret’s—so I cannot give the committee a timescale.

I make a plea to the committee that if the committee looked at the matter in a month or at the next meeting, that might be a bit too early. We might need a bit more manoeuvrability.

Thank you, Mr Paterson.

I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but there are a couple of issues. First, the petition refers to the Scotland-wide position and, as an example, refers to St Margaret’s hospice. Secondly, there was a change in the petitioner. There is nothing wrong with that, but we must bear it in mind. Jean Mitchell is the advocate who has now taken over the petition.

There are obviously differing views on the committee. My feeling is that the committee must draw a line at some stage, having considered the petition 13 times. Having said that, I know that members who want to continue the petition feel that we should at least have a timescale.

I also think that we should continue the petition. We need to keep a watching brief over what is happening.

I note from the background information that St Margaret’s is the biggest hospice in Scotland. Its not having been involved in discussions about the future of hospices is, therefore, concerning. I support continuing the petition, bearing in mind Gil Paterson’s points and the other points about when that would be—

I am sorry for cutting you off, Mr Bibby.

Do members agree that we will write to the Scottish Government on the so-called secret meetings and that, when we get a response, we need to grapple with the issue and make a decision about closing or continuing the petition? Is that an acceptable compromise?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for coming along. We appreciate that.

---

Blood Donation (PE1135)

The next petition is PE1135, on the reviewing of guidelines to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood. Members have a note by the clerk. Although I will, of course, invite contributions from members, I note that the Government has changed its policy, so it is currently accepting blood from healthy gay and bisexual men. I believe that there is an argument for closing the petition on the basis that the petitioners have achieved their objective, but I would welcome the views of other members.

Clearly, the expert advice has changed. A lot of work has been done on the issue over the past few years. The Government is bound to take expert advice and I do not think that we can disagree with it. Given that the situation has changed as a result of that advice, the petition has no future with us. It has achieved its ends and we should close it.

There are mixed feelings in the gay community about whether the new guidelines go far enough. The question is whether it is the committee’s role to adjudicate on that. Given that the guidelines have changed, we should probably close the petition. Those who are not satisfied might wish to petition us again in the future. That could be done separately rather than as a continuation of the current petition, given that its objectives have, on the face of it, been achieved.

That is a reasonable point. My understanding is that the petitioners asked for, and got, a review and that the review changed the policy.

Do members agree that we should close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis of the clerk’s report, which is that the existing guidelines in respect of the exclusion criteria for blood donors have now been reviewed and the criteria revised to allow men, whose last sexual contact with another man was more than 12 months ago, to be blood donors subject to meeting other donor selection criteria?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)

Our next petition is PE1169, on the display of sexually graphic magazines and newspapers. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite contributions from members.

I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee when the issue arose. We held an inquiry about magazines being on the proper shelf, so that kids could not reach them. I note the amount of work that has been done on the issue, but the practice continues. I do not think that we can continue the petition, because we are not going anywhere with it. The Equal Opportunities Committee could have a full inquiry on the issue, so it would probably be best to refer the petition to that committee.

I agree with Sandra White, in that it would do the petition more justice to forward it to the Equal Opportunities Committee, which might want to take a broader look at the issues and perhaps instigate an investigation. Given our workload, we probably cannot do justice to the petition in the way that the Equal Opportunities Committee could. I support the referral of the petition to that committee.

I am sympathetic to the petition, but I wonder whether the Equal Opportunities Committee has the powers to deal with the issue. Is it a devolved matter on which we can properly take a view, convener?

It is valid for us to discuss the petition with the Equal Opportunities Committee. We will refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee and, if there are any issues surrounding that, I will feed back to the committee at our next meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Independent Vehicular Ferry Routes (PE1192)

The next petition is PE1192, on the promotion of independent vehicular ferry routes. Members have a note from the clerk on the petition. Members will recall that we heard oral evidence from the petitioner Neil Kay on a separate petition and that we agreed to refer the issue to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which has responsibility for transport. It makes sense to be consistent and to refer this petition to that committee, too. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Geodiversity Duty (PE1277)

The next petition is PE1277, which is on geodiversity duty. Members have a note from the clerk, and I invite comments on the petition.

From the petitioner’s letter, it seems that he has not achieved everything that he wanted to, but I believe that the petition has achieved its ends. The Scottish Natural Heritage joint study with the British Geological Survey concluded that the geodiversity duty should not be regarded as essential. That is the point of disagreement, but the petitioner is obviously very pleased with the progress that has been made despite that. I think that we should close the petition.

I agree. There is nothing to be gained by keeping the petition open. It is not for us to adjudicate in a potential dispute—albeit a minor one—between the petitioner and the organisations involved. We should close the petition.

Do members agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

We are closing the petition under rule 15.7.2, in terms of the clerk’s note in the action sheet.

---

Youth Football (PE1319)

The next petition is PE1319, on improving youth football. Again, members have a note from the clerk and a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition. Members will be aware that the predecessor Public Petitions Committee had a big interest in this area and took extensive oral evidence on it. There is, of course, nothing to prevent this committee from having another look at the area. I invite comments from members.

As somebody who was a youth football coach before being elected as an MSP, I am particularly interested in this issue and I think that the committee would benefit from holding a wider investigation. We could call for evidence from groups and organisations. An organisation that does not seem to be mentioned in the information on the petition but from which I think that we should seek evidence is the Scottish Professional Footballers Association—it is the union for footballers in Scotland. We should definitely seek its views and invite it to the committee to give evidence.

I realise that Scottish football tends to be viewed through an old firm prism, but I wonder whether we should hear from a broader cross-section of Scottish clubs, including non-Scottish Premier League clubs which, after all, have their own youth programmes and youth club operations. Indeed, at a dinner the other week, I was speaking to a man who runs Ayr United’s under-19 team.

15:30

Perhaps I should declare an interest as a trustee of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club. However, I will not say anything about its youth strategy.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress gave evidence to the previous committee on this petition and certainly we need to examine a number of employment issues. Indeed, there have been a number of test cases in that respect with Mr Rooney et al. It is a very interesting area. Is there anyone else we should invite?

Perhaps I am casting the net very wide now, but I love football and am a great supporter of Partick Thistle—and, when I lived in the area, St Mirren. I know that a number of clubs including St Mirren have a community club and I wonder whether there are any differences between the two in this respect.

How do clubs such as FC Barcelona treat their young players? Is it outwith the scope of the committee to write to other European clubs?

The clerk has just reminded me that the previous committee wrote to the royal Dutch football association, although I am not sure that we received a response. It is a good point, though.

Further to Sandra White’s comments, I know that an SFA fact-finding mission visited IFK Gothenburg in Sweden to look at its system; indeed, the club with which I was involved sent a representative. I certainly think that it would be of benefit to look more widely at what is happening in Europe.

I would like to cast the net wider because the employment issues that the convener highlighted are very important. After all, we are talking about the future of young kids who have been—if you will pardon the pun—caught in this net. I think that we should write to Barcelona and other such clubs—

I am sorry, but the clerk has just reminded me that the normal procedure is to write to everyone suggested and then decide which groups should give oral evidence after we have received their written responses. However, that is more of a procedural point and does not cut across members’ suggestions.

I am interested in getting closer to the actual consumers of this activity—in other words, the boys in question and their parents—and hearing their views. After all, a lot of this is driven by the boys—and, indeed, a number of girls these days—who want to get involved with clubs.

The girls are better than the boys.

I am sure they are. Perhaps we should seek responses from parent-teacher associations, school councils or anyone else who can represent youngsters’ views. As I say, the youngsters want to do this and perhaps when parents sign contracts on behalf of their children they do not quite know what they are doing.

That is an important point. We could write to the Scottish Youth Parliament, which is pretty well clued up on these things.

Although it has already provided written evidence, RealGrassroots has, as members know, submitted additional material. It is certainly worth flagging that up.

We should remember that, as well as the SFA, there are the Scottish Youth Football Association and the Scottish Schools Football Association. It would be worth writing to those organisations because, although the SFA has an oversight role, they deal with the school teams and local youth clubs whose players go on to professional clubs. They can reply on behalf of individual clubs and set out some of the parental and player views that Bill Walker seeks.

That is helpful. Are members happy with the course of action that has been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

It has been suggested that we continue with the petition; write to all the agencies and organisations that members and clerks have identified; and, once we get those responses, select individuals to provide oral evidence. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Institutional Child Abuse (Victims’ Forum and Compensation) (PE1351)

PE1351 is on the establishment of a time for all to be heard forum. Members have received the clerk’s note and I invite their suggestions.

Although the petition has been on-going for quite a while in various guises, it is nevertheless very important and relates to an issue that I and others care very deeply about. It needs to be continued, because the responses that the committee and the petitioner have received are not sufficient and do not go far enough to meet the petitioners’ aims. For a start, we need to find out exactly what is happening with the time bar that the then minister Fergus Ewing was working on. There are also concerns over whether we are going to adopt the Irish model.

As Sandra White has pointed out, some of us have been following this petition with a great deal of interest. Given that the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report on an acknowledgement and accountability framework addresses some of the issues that we are trying to deal with, we should ask Professor Alan Miller and the SHRC for views on the petition and the way in which the inquiry into the findings of the Shaw report on childhood abuse in homes has taken the issue forward.

Are you suggesting, as per the clerk’s recommendation, that we have an oral evidence session with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and then with ministers?

Yes. I support that suggestion.

I agree with that course of action. The SHRC offered to give oral evidence in the previous session, but that offer was not taken up. Given the complexity and number of issues that are raised in the petition, it would be helpful for the commission to give that evidence and the committee to have the chance to ask the appropriate questions.

Do members agree to continue the petition and to have an oral evidence session with the SHRC and ministers?

Members indicated agreement.

The clerks will organise that. I thank members for their comments.

---

Wild Land (Protection) (PE1383)

PE1383 is on better protection for wild land. Members have received the clerk’s note and I invite their comments.

We should keep the petition open and write to SNH to find out how it is getting on with mapping wild land and whether it has a timetable for publishing that work. As I recall, the previous committee was quite keen to continue the petition until we learned the outcome of all that.

Do members agree to continue the petition and seek further information from SNH?

Members indicated agreement.