Official Report 218KB pdf
The first petitioner is Stephen Borland, on behalf of Y Network Glasgow, who is here to speak to PE311. The subjects of the petition are: the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the exam results crisis; the evaluation of the effect of social inclusion in relation to the lives of Glaswegian young people; the measures that the Parliament will implement to ensure that student finance is fair and open to all; and how the Parliament proposes to tackle the issue of transport safety in the greater Glasgow area.
How does the Scottish Parliament intend to avoid a repeat of the recent SQA exam results crisis in future years? Will the SQA become more accountable to young Glaswegians who use its services? We want to know whether results will be made available—through either schools or colleges—to young people and parents to reassure them that such a crisis will not happen again.
What steps will the Scottish Parliament take to evaluate the effect of social inclusion on the lives of Glaswegian young people? "Social inclusion" is a catchphrase that is being used in Executive policy. How will social inclusion policies affect young people on the streets of Glasgow, and how will the work be evaluated?
What measures will be implemented by Parliament to ensure that student finance is fair and open to all? The young people of Glasgow whom we have spoken to are concerned about the reforms to student finance. They are unsure about current anomalies with regard to people who are already at university. For example, people who are in their second year will still have to pay the fees that they were paying.
In light of the recent Motherwell train incident, what does Parliament intend to do about transport safety in the greater Glasgow area? A lot of young people who we know travel on trains to go to school, work, college or university—we want to know whether they will be safe. That is an issue for us, because we represent young people.
That was a model of an introductory statement to the Public Petitions Committee. It is the first time that it has been done within three minutes and we did not have to tell the petitioners to wind up—thank you. It is now open to members to ask questions. There are four different themes in the petition. Are there any questions?
I will begin. I spoke to the Y Network last Wednesday in Cannonball House and was asked a number of questions. However, as the convener said, I must not make a statement—I must ask questions. I want some clarification. Stephen, you mentioned results being made available to parents and students alike. Did you mean the results of the on-going inquiries, or exam results in future years?
I meant the results of the inquiries.
I thought that. As I said, I cannot make a statement, but I can say, on behalf of the committee, that the on-going inquiries, which are basically completed, will be transparent and open. I am sure that the results will be available for all to see. If they are not, I am sure that members here and in Parliament will make sure that they are made available for all to see.
You put a good set of questions in your petition. I seek information on points 2 and 3 of your petition. After questions, we will discuss what we propose to do with the petition. On evaluating the effects of social inclusion, if the committee decided to pass this petition to a committee or to a minister, would you want anything specific to be said to the minister about what you think those effects are?
It is early days for social inclusion, especially social inclusion partnership boards, of which we have some experience. However, what will social inclusion do for young people? Brilliant schemes are being set up, but are they working? How will social inclusion affect local young people? Will socially excluded young people benefit? That is what we are trying to find out, because these are the young people at whom social inclusion is targeted.
Are you happy with the proposed student fee arrangements?
I think that endowment is a better system than student fees, because it will lead to a reduction in student loans. Because of student loans, by the time I finish my education I will be in debt to the tune of between £11,000 and £13,000. Under an endowment system, the burden of repayments would be reduced for a number of students in Glasgow.
In an ideal world, would you like the Cubie report to be implemented in full?
Yes. The Cubie report contains many good points. It just happens that I am affected by a particular anomaly.
So you would like your anomaly to be sorted out first.
The anomaly affects not only me, but many young people in Glasgow.
The matter is relevant not only to Glasgow, but to the whole Scottish education system.
I will not ask about student finance, as the petitioners have already answered the question about the Cubie report that I planned to ask. You mentioned the need to evaluate the effects of social inclusion policies. Do you think that results should be published through Y Network or youth groups, perhaps every six months? That would indicate exactly what has happened in the partnerships.
That would be a good idea, as long as such reports were written in terms that young people could understand. There would be no point in publishing big reports that young people could not understand, as has happened before. Even when reports have been de-jargonised, they still contain too much jargon for young people.
And for us.
It is not only young people who are mystified by some of the jargon that is used.
I agree with that recommendation. I suggest that we add to it the suggestion by the Y Network that the findings of the inquiry be made publicly available.
Is that agreed?
The second recommendation relates to social inclusion for young people. The recommendation is that we pass the petition to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee for consideration, so that it can respond to the petitioners. I know that that committee is examining the issue of social inclusion partnerships. It will therefore be interested in the petition.
The young people made a valid point. I am not aware of how the effectiveness of the social inclusion strategy is being evaluated. It is important that a procedure for doing that, including benchmarking, be put in place. Such a procedure might already exist. If so, I would like to be made aware of it.
Absolutely. It is the role of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to monitor the Executive's policy on social inclusion. It must ensure that there is benchmarking and evaluation. The process must be comprehensible by the Scottish public. Do we agree to pass the petition to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee?
On student finance, the recommendation is that we ask the Executive again to respond directly to the petitioners on its proposals. We could send the Executive a copy of the Official Report of this meeting to draw its attention to the particular anomaly that was highlighted in evidence and we could ask it to give a direct answer on that. Is that agreed?
On transport safety, the recommendation is that we ask the Executive to consider the petition and to respond directly to the petitioners on the points that are raised.
I believe that transport safety will require railway tracks to be fundamentally redesigned. I think that Railtrack is considering that matter. I would ask the Executive to look carefully at the design of the rails. I am sorry—I am not meant to make a statement, but that is what I am doing.
So, as well as asking the Executive to respond to the petition, we will ask it to comment on the current design of railway tracks.
Yes. The matter relates to corner gauge cracking. There are new types of strains because of the increased weight of engines. I think that a complete redesign of the rail is probably needed.
Is my suggestion agreed to?
As the petition deals with transport safety, is there any point in sending it to the Transport and the Environment Committee as well as to the Executive?
We could send the petition to that committee for its information.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to raise this issue with the committee. I will give three reasons why we have submitted the petition before I discuss the more substantive issues that relate to the impact of the motorway—it will perhaps be better to address those in the questions.
Thank you—you kept well within your time.
If I heard correctly, you said that the issue had not been addressed at the planning stage. I am surprised that there has not been an environmental impact study.
I am sorry—not mentioning that was an error that was caused by trying to get through the material too fast. Five years ago—in 1995—an environmental impact assessment was done. Renfrewshire Council, on behalf of the other interested councils, is in the process of asking for the consent, which has now lapsed, to be renewed without a new environmental impact assessment.
I am on record as supporting the extension of the M74, but this is an independent committee, regardless of the feelings of individuals, and we are here to ask questions that relate to the petition.
One example springs to mind—it might be more useful than statistics. I spoke to a businessman who owns a fairly large property in the middle of the proposed route. For the past 15 years, because of the road, he has not been able to develop his property. He has not been able to get planning permission for food premises and about 30 per cent of his property has lain empty.
Is it because the road question is hanging over people's heads that they have been unable to get planning permission for 15 years?
Yes. I suppose that that is what is called planning blight.
Is the central point of your petition the fact that the environmental impact survey was done in 1995, but you would like a new one to be done now?
I do not think so. The point is more that the impact on the communities of Glasgow—especially the neighbourhoods in south Glasgow that are on the route of the road—has not been addressed. An environmental impact assessment is not primarily intended to answer the wider questions. Motorways have been put through plenty of communities in Glasgow. In Townhead, for instance, the community has been fragmented and disrupted. No development is going on in that area, and it has become a motorway junction. What would happen to the south side? A major urban motorway should not be pushed ahead until questions about what would happen to the area that would be affected were asked. Moreover, the people who would be affected should be asked about their feelings about the scheme.
We feel that the issue has not been properly debated and that it has been considered only as a transport issue. A Scottish Enterprise survey was conducted, but was not fully published—that has been the extent of the debate. We would like a multi-agency and multi-committee approach because enormous social inclusion issues are involved. Health issues will be raised because, to build the motorway, old dumps of arsenic, chromium and lime throughout the south and east of Glasgow will have to be dug up. Obviously, transport and economic development matters are involved too. The chamber or the committees of the Scottish Parliament should debate the matter much more fully.
In your opening statement, you said that the Minister for Transport was in favour of the road, and that more than one council was involved. Apart from Renfrewshire Council, which councils are involved?
The picture is complicated. Renfrewshire Council is seeking to renew the planning permission, acting as a successor to Strathclyde Regional Council, which made the original planning application in 1995. The two lead councils have been South Lanarkshire Council and Glasgow City Council.
Are South Lanarkshire Council, Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council all considering the matter as part of their planning processes?
Glasgow City Council and South Lanarkshire Council are the only planning authorities that are involved, because the motorway goes through their jurisdictions. They promoted the road, but they have stepped back from that role to allow Renfrewshire Council to apply to them for planning permission.
So what is the role of Renfrewshire Council? Is it promoting the road?
Yes.
On behalf of the Executive?
I do not know on whose behalf it is doing that—you would have to ask Renfrewshire Council. The three councils made an outline business case to Sarah Boyack when she was the Minister for Transport and the Environment. Therefore, they acted most recently as a threesome to promote the road.
Is consideration of the road part of the councils' work? Are their planning committees studying it now?
The application has not reached the planning committee stage. Objections are still being gathered and solicited.
So the matter is on-going?
Yes.
Planning permission had been given, but it has lapsed, so the councils must now reconsider the proposal. Is not that likely to lead to public inquiries?
The decision on that is up to the Scottish ministers and the councils. I do not want to comment on the legal avenues that are open to the councils, but there is a possibility that the matter could be notified to the Scottish ministers. That is because the councils have a financial interest, because they own land along the route.
Thank you very much. We will now consider your petition. Obviously, you are free to stay and listen to the committee's discussion.
You said that we should ask whether the Executive has consulted. If it has not, could we also ask whether and how it proposes to consult?
Okay, we can ask that.
We must also establish that it would be the Executive that would consult, rather than the local authorities. Would it be in order to copy the correspondence to the council leaders so that they can comment if they want to? It may be their duty to consult.
Shall we write to the Executive but copy the correspondence to the three councils involved, asking them to comment if they wish to?
Yes, that would cover everything.
I am surprised that we are still at the planning stage. From the announcement that was made, I had the impression that things were much further progressed.
The Executive and the three authorities will have a chance to respond to the committee. We can then consider the petition further in the context of the replies that we receive from all those bodies. Is that agreed?
Additional material on that petition was handed in at the beginning of the meeting, but it was too late to circulate copies to members. However, that additional material will be circulated to all committee members before we consider the petition again.
I am speaking on behalf of Mr Scott, who is unable to attend today.
I am sorry for that interruption. I should have reminded everybody to switch off mobile phones and pagers. Please continue, Mr Keith.
The wardens have strong legal powers and unsuitable people may be tempted to obtain warrant cards. Given the isolated nature of fishing and the strong penalties for obstructing a warden, being a warden provides an ideal opportunity for those people to get access to vulnerable children or women who may be fishing alone.
Thank you. You referred to the wardens as the equivalent of a private army or vigilantes but their powers are legal powers given to them by Parliament.
Yes. They are powers under the 1976 act passed by the previous Labour Government.
What would be the implications if the Parliament were to decide to meet the petitioners' demands and cancel the warrant cards of all wardens?
Women and children would be safe.
But what would be the implication for the monitoring of fishing in Scotland? Would it not break down completely?
The wardens are not there to protect fish; they are merely there to protect the property rights of owners.
What kind of bodies nominate wardens?
They are voluntary organisations: landowners, fishery owners, angling clubs and so on. The former Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, John Home Robertson, confirmed in a letter to Roseanna Cunningham that the Scottish Criminal Record Office is not asked about convictions and that there is no central vetting procedure for wardens.
It seems a bit drastic to ask the Scottish Parliament to take away all warrant cards. Can you cite any examples of incidents you believe—
I can give you an example from the Tay last week—
Do not mention any names, because we are not covered by legal immunity.
We are—you are not.
That is a pity, as I would have given the names to you.
You mentioned that there are 1,000 wardens. If a woman and a child are out fishing or walking by the riverbank, is there a need for wardens for protection?
I have often found wardens to be aggressive—they are often Rambo-types. Because they have been given police powers, if you say "Boo" to them, you go to prison for three months. They do not even undergo a SCRO check, but if you do not give your name, date of birth and so on, you can go to prison for three months and have your fishing tackle confiscated. That is unacceptable. We would not allow it on drug-ridden housing estates; why should we allow it in the countryside?
If wardens had to go through a SCRO check and be interviewed by the police, would that be acceptable?
No. Wardens should be employed by the state, like the police. Policing powers should not be given to landowners or to their vigilante, volunteer armies. We pay the police force a lot of money to police our rivers—that is what they are there for.
As there are no further questions, I thank Mr Keith for attending. We will move on to consider the petition.
New evaluation procedures are being put in place for voluntary workers and young children. Perhaps it would be worth waiting to see whether those procedures are appropriate.
Do you want us to ask the Executive to provide us with the information that it holds on whether wardens have been prosecuted?
Yes.
I do not think that, in the short time available, the petitioner demonstrated any risk to women and children, and I am not willing to pursue that matter, due to the lack of evidence. However, if warrants with powers are being handed out, checks should be carried out, as that would protect everyone.
It would be helpful if we could get the Scottish Executive to confirm the position, as it knows a great deal more than we do about the context in which the wardens operate, the legal powers that they hold and whether checks are carried out on them.
I agree entirely, convener.
Are members agreed?
Petition PE302 is from Mr David Brown, on behalf of the Greater Glasgow Private Hire Association. Mr James Pert will briefly address the committee in support of the petitioners. The petition urges Glasgow City Council to take steps to give private hire cars the same rights of access to Glasgow's bus lanes and restricted roads as are enjoyed by hackney taxis. Mr Pert, you have three minutes.
We began the campaign to get access to bus lanes in 1995. In October 1995, Strathclyde Regional Council agreed to give us access to its millennium plan, which consisted of a series of bus lanes and bus gates in the city centre, subject to our finding a suitable means of identification agreeable to the trade, the police and the council. That decision was endorsed in May 1996 by Glasgow City Council, which succeeded Strathclyde Regional Council. It took until August 1999 for the council to agree on identification for private hire vehicles and a further eight months to issue the new plates, which had been agreed.
I read some of your correspondence this morning; you must have written to all MSPs on the matter. I want to ask about the identification of vehicles travelling in bus lanes. How can private hire vehicles be identified if there is no standard vehicle?
The police have always been concerned about that issue and that concern has been echoed by councils up and down the UK. They expected an enforcement problem because other private motorists who drive similar vehicles would follow private hire cars into the bus lanes. We argued that that would not happen if the identification were strong enough. Eventually we agreed on an identification scheme involving bright yellow plates on the front, back and sides of the private hire vehicle. Data showed that, using such identification, the follow-my-leader effect did not materialise.
Are you saying that the experiment demonstrates that people do not follow private hire cars into the bus lanes?
The results show that the abuse figures fell during the experiment.
Are standards imposed in relation to the type of vehicles that can be used for private hire?
Yes. It varies between different licensing authorities, as do the conditions for hackney carriages. In Glasgow, a private hire vehicle must have an engine capacity of 1600cc, four doors and adequate luggage capacity; the vehicle must also be 40 inches across the back. That opens the door for the use of most family vehicles.
How many private hire cars are there in Glasgow?
About 2,000.
You mentioned the identification of private hire vehicles using large, bright yellow plates that would be easily seen. When driving around Glasgow, I have often wondered whether I could go through the bus gate into Hope Street.
The current situation means that if we are dropping off a disabled person in a bus lane, we will incur a penalty, as has already happened.
The police report mentions the fact that accidents may arise from other cars following private hire cars. As I said, I have often been tempted to do that, but I never have. Do you have evidence of any such accidents?
The only accident that happened during the experiment involved a private car and a bus. The police are concerned about an increase in near-side lane accident figures, simply through having a greater volume of traffic in the bus lanes. However, that did not materialise during the experiment.
Have you heard of any other vehicles apart from taxis being allowed to use the bus lanes?
Taxis, buses and emergency vehicles are allowed to use bus lanes. To us it seems illogical to allow taxis but not private hire vehicles to use bus lanes—we do the same job.
Are motorcycles allowed access to bus lanes?
Motorcycles do not have access, but cyclists do. Cyclists are among the people who object to our getting access to bus lanes. Their objection is based on the idea that more traffic will mean that they are at greater risk.
In your opening remarks, you said that Strathclyde Regional Council approved access to bus lanes by private hire cars, and that in 1996 that decision was endorsed by Glasgow City Council.
That was subject to the identification issue being resolved.
Once you had resolved that issue, the council withdrew its approval.
Yes, it changed its policy. It moved the goalposts.
Under the experimental traffic order, does the council intend to do anything about that?
Land services in Glasgow City Council will produce a report on the monitoring data, which have been gathered independently. That is being done now. Most members have received the report that I wrote on the results of the monitoring. Land services were due to meet this month—tomorrow, in fact—but that meeting has been cancelled because of the strikes.
Is Glasgow the only local authority that has this policy, or is it common to all councils in Scotland?
No council in Scotland permits private hire vehicles to use bus lanes and bus gates. We are petitioning Parliament to recognise us as part of the public transport network, so that in future we can be considered for access to bus lanes and bus gates. It is not logical to allow hackneys, but not private hire vehicles, to use them. That is the basis of our argument.
You said that there were 2,000 private hire cars in Glasgow. Have you any idea how prevalent private hire cars are in other big cities in Scotland?
I do not have figures for that.
There will be a substantial number of private hire cars in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee.
About 220,000 people are employed as private hire drivers in the UK. In Glasgow in 1999, private hire drivers carried about 15 million passengers. There is a massive demand for the service. We provide a service to the people.
The only difference between private hire vehicles and hackneys is that you cannot pick up people on the street.
That is the only difference. We carry disabled people, school kids and the vulnerable. We can get SCRO approval for our drivers. Like hackneys, we provide the links and go to the places that buses and trains do not go to. That is why hackneys get access to bus lanes. For the same reason, so should we.
Thank you very much. The committee will now consider your petition.
I am not opposed to the recommendation. However, given that it has been highlighted that the problem affects not just Glasgow, but other cities, perhaps the petition should be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
The petition is from Greater Glasgow Private Hire Association and relates to the situation in Glasgow. However, we could copy it to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information.
John Scott has said that we should await the council's response. I had assumed that the meeting on 5 December would go ahead, but we have now been told that it will not. Given that we will not now have a response from that meeting, I would like the petition to be copied to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
As there are no objections to that, we will copy the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information. However, in the first instance we will write to Glasgow City Council. Is that agreed?
Petition PE309 is from Mrs Maire Whitehead and relates to the Victoria infirmary. As usual, the petitioner will address the committee briefly in support of the petition. You have three minutes, Mrs Whitehead.
I will do my best. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the committee, however briefly. I will keep as much as possible to the subject raised by the petition, of which I assume all members have a copy.
No, your timing was absolutely excellent. We should have all our meetings in Glasgow—people speak more briefly here than they do in Edinburgh.
Thank you for your presentation, Maire. You talked about Greater Glasgow Health Board. How many public meetings and consultations have taken place with the health board, its chief executive Mr Spry, officials, groups such as yours and residents of Castlemilk and of other areas that will be affected?
To its credit, Greater Glasgow Health Board has hosted a large number of meetings. At every one that I or any members of the Friends of the Victoria Infirmary committee attended, it was made clear to Mr Spry and to the rest of the board that the vast majority of the public are totally opposed to its recommendation that a new hospital for the south side should be located at the site of the Southern general. For the benefit of those members who are less familiar with the geography of Glasgow, I should add that the Southern general is situated at the extreme north-west of the catchment area. It is handier for people from Renfrew or even Jordanhill than for some of the folk that it serves.
Thank you for your full answer on consultation. Your petition states:
We know that the site of the Southern general has had capital investment of more than £66 million in the past decade or so—I could not tell you exactly how many years. It seems unlikely that, in the deepest recesses of their hearts, members of Greater Glasgow Health Board would be happy to walk away from that sort of investment. I asked Mr Spry that at a well-attended public meeting—several hundred folk were there. He said that, if it seemed the best option, the board would happily walk away from that kind of investment, but I must say that we had our doubts.
Is that what you are basing the investigation on?
Yes. It was really a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Is not the problem that there is no consensus among people in the south side catchment area on where the new build should be?
I would not say that every person totally agrees that it should be on the one site. If you live across the road from the present site of the Southern general, you would obviously prefer it to stay there. However, as I tried to say in our submission, I have not yet met anyone from the south side catchment area who disagrees that the hospital should be centrally situated. There is consensus on that point. The difference of opinion is over the site.
I am not saying whether I agree or disagree, but I put it to you that the people of the west of Glasgow, who will lose the Western infirmary, are being told that the Southern general would serve their catchment area. The Southern general might also serve people through the Clyde tunnel, not just people on the south side.
I know. People on that side of the city are concerned about how they would get to the site if the tunnel is blocked or if the Kingston bridge has gone to pigs and whistles, as it frequently has. That is a major concern.
Can I stop you there? I am not quite clear about what you want us to look at. Are you saying that it is hard for anyone to make a decision about the best option without seeing what the building would look like and how much it would cost? Is that what you want?
That is exactly what we want. We want the health board to look open-mindedly at the site that we believe is available in the central location, part of which happens to be where the Victoria infirmary is now, and provide us with some idea of the sort of hospital that could be provided on that site.
You said that grounds were available, including up to 35 acres of playing fields. How close to the existing Victoria site are those pieces of ground? As I understood it, the whole reason for the Victoria site being unsuitable for the south side hospital redevelopment was that there was not enough ground to build an integrated hospital complex.
That is what the health board has always said. However, there were plans at one time to build some sort of emergency admissions area on the site of the old Queen's Park secondary school, which is part of the ground that we are talking about. The Queen's Park secondary school ground is separated from Queen's Park recreation ground by a road that is no wider than the distance between you and me in this room—pretty close. It is certainly a lot closer than walking from one end of the Southern general site to the other; you need a bus to make that journey.
How much more land would that school ground make available?
I am not sure how much additional land it would make available, but the total amount would be 35 or 36 acres.
You said that there were 15,000 names on this petition and that there were another 9,000 names that you had forgotten to include in the total. We have already received a petition from the Friends of the Victoria Infirmary on this issue. Are other petitions in the pipeline?
Not that I am aware of. However, other protest groups may have petitions too.
I understand that there are protest groups other than the Friends of the Victoria Infirmary.
The Friends of the Victoria Infirmary has been going for a couple of decades, because efforts were made to close the hospital once before. We are not Johnnys-come-lately to the campaign; we have been around a while. Friends of the Victoria Infirmary sounds an awfully twee name, but we have stuck with it.
We referred the previous petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, which decided to note the petition but to take no further action.
My information is that the Health and Community Care Committee felt that we were still waiting for the consultation process. We are now almost at the end of that process, so I do not know what is happening. I have also heard—I can only repeat what I have heard; I cannot vouch for its veracity—that the Health and Community Care Committee is reluctant to take on an issue such as this. The committee feels that it is a local issue and that taking action on it would open the floodgates and allow people from the catchment areas of every other health board in the land to go to the committee.
The formal answer to that is to the minister and through the minister to the Parliament. That is the formal answer; I am not commenting on it, I am just saying that that is what it is.
It is a big question.
It is indeed.
This question relates to what John Scott said about the Queen's Park area. You said that Glasgow City Council was more than happy to give the land over to the health board.
Yes, we were informed of that.
To your knowledge, does Mr Spry—or does the health board—consider the land to be a realistic prospect?
I have not really looked into that. In the first response to the consultation paper, the health board said that using the land would entail getting planning permission, speaking to sportscotland and doing various other things. I interpreted its response as meaning that, because getting the land would entail all those things, it would not do anything about it.
Thank you for your contribution. We will now consider what to do with your petition.
It would be reasonable to ask Greater Glasgow Health Board for the reasons behind its decisions. It might give that information more readily to us than it would to the petitioners. If it has a site of choice that is not the Victoria, I presume that it can justify that. No one on this committee is in a position to judge the best site. Pauline McNeill is right: depending on where they live, people will favour the Victoria infirmary, Cowglen hospital or the Southern general hospital. If the health board has good reasons for favouring one site over another, we should be made aware of those reasons and so should the petitioners.
Are you suggesting that we contact Greater Glasgow Health Board and ask for its reasons for choosing a particular site?
Yes.
We could comment on the point that is made in the petition about the lack of detailed plans.
I do not think that the health board would necessarily draw up detailed plans if, for some good reason, it had ruled out one site or another.
The workings of the health boards have concerned me for a number of months, even years. I have attended many meetings on the reorganisation of the health service in Glasgow—Pauline McNeill, too, has been busy on that issue. It is of great concern to me and folk in Glasgow that the right plans should be followed, whether the Victoria infirmary, the Western infirmary or Glasgow royal infirmary is involved. There has been consultation, but I would not say that it has been proper consultation.
The problem with that proposal is that we have already received petitions on this matter, which have been considered by the Health and Community Care Committee.
I did not ask that the petition should be passed to the Health and Community Care Committee. We have exhausted that process.
In the case of Stobhill, we asked for a postponement of the process until the Parliament could consider the petition. The Parliament has already considered petitions on this issue.
We were fortunate in that Mr Spry could not attend a meeting, so we could postpone it and have a moratorium.
You are drawing comparisons with the case of Stobhill, but the difference is that Parliament did not have time to consider the petition in that case. That was why there was a confrontation with Greater Glasgow Health Board. In this case, the Parliament has considered a similar petition and has decided not to act until the end of the consultation period is reached on 8 December.
I do not support what Sandra White suggested. Technically, the petition is inadmissible, as the Scottish Parliament cannot require Greater Glasgow Health Board to do anything. In fact, we do not have the authority to do much on this petition. The petition makes an important point, which I accept whole-heartedly: how can the community evaluate the options that are open to it if it does not have information on the costs of the alternatives to the option that the health board has chosen? I think that the committee should put some points to the health board. We can then decide on appropriate action. I do not think that much will be achieved by writing to the minister, as we will be told that we are in the middle of a consultation process. Writing to the minister would delay things.
Would it be submitted to the health board?
Yes. I can tell Sandra White right now that, if we passed the petition to the minister, she would write back to say that the decision was a matter for Greater Glasgow Health Board.
I know that technically the matter is for Greater Glasgow Health Board to decide, but it is time that something was done about health boards and their powers. That is a different subject, on which someone else might submit a petition.
We will ask for reasons why the health board prefers the Southern general site and for information on the lack of costed details and alternatives. We could also say that the petition should be considered as part of the consultation process by Greater Glasgow Health Board. That would mean that it would have to consider the petition and reply to us. We could act further once we have that information.
What you are saying is right, convener. If there are demonstrably good reasons for the decision, the sooner they are in the public domain the better. The petitioners would accept that. If there are no good reasons, that is a matter of concern.
Either way, the issue will come back to the committee.
On time scales, if the health board comes to a decision on 8 December—
We are talking about a consultation process; the board will not come to a decision. I understand that the chance to take part in the consultation ends on 8 December, but the decision will not be made then.
I will not be a dissenting voice; I will go along with what the committee says. However, I know the health board, and usually the end of a consultation period means that people are told within a couple of weeks what will happen.
If the board wishes to close the Southern general hospital, or any hospital, it is legally obliged to hold a further three-month consultation on the closure.
I know that the board would do that, but realistically, life tells you—
Our positions are not that far apart.
No, they are not.
I do not believe that the matter ends on 8 December, because I have relevant constituency issues, which I will not talk about today.
We all have issues.
It would be helpful for us, and the petitioner—
I will not be the dissenter; I will go along with the committee.
Is it agreed that we write to Greater Glasgow Health Board, asking it to consider the petition as part of its consultation process and to respond to our questions, providing reasons for its choice of the Southern general hospital as the site for the new hospital? Is it also agreed that we comment on the point that was made in the petition about the lack of detailed costed alternatives to the Southern general hospital and ask why they were not made available?
I have just been passed a note from the petitioner informing me that Greater Glasgow Health Board's decision will be given on 19 December, not 8 December. We meet on 19 December. The last time that we had such a tight time scale with Greater Glasgow Health Board, it got its fingers badly burned, so perhaps it will not arrive at a decision until it has responded to us.
A copy of the text of what needs to be said is available, so it can be taken as read. In the interests of brevity, I will concentrate on one or two of the main points.
A copy of your submission will be made available to members.
Your petition calls for the revocation of the permitted development rights for all mobile phone base stations in sensitive areas. What do you mean by "sensitive areas"? Does that refer to residential areas or do you mean something more than that?
The Transport and the Environment Committee report identified sensitive areas. Those areas include what are called "other areas", such as residential areas, hospitals and schools. The planning guidance note that will accompany the legislation makes no reference to residential areas, householders or even people. That is a shortcoming.
You will be aware that councils take different views on the erection of mobile phone masts. Have you petitioned Glasgow City Council on its approach?
One of the problems is that much of the development takes place under the general development order of permitted development, which effectively precludes the council planning authorities from dealing with such matters. The Scottish Executive policy is based on moving the threshold, so that masts at least will require full planning consideration. There is some dubiety about whether aerials on the rooftops of buildings will get the same treatment. We believe that the erection of such structures in residential areas should get the same treatment and be subject to the full planning process.
How much difference is there between the draft national planning policy guidelines on radio telecommunications and the findings of the Transport and the Environment Committee?
The main difference is that the committee was able to be specific and could define what it meant by sensitive areas, whereas the NPPG has a 16-page guidance note, which talks generally about wetlands, moorlands, open areas, sites of special scientific interest and so on. However, there is no mention of residential areas, which is where I suspect the main problems have occurred.
You said that you wanted our support in alerting the minister to the problems. Would you prefer the committee to approach the minister rather than the Transport and the Environment Committee, which is producing its own report and would be concerned about the matter?
The issue is open to consultation until 21 February. The matter is practical but the submission refers to my working experience. A convenient excuse at the end of the consultation process would be to say that it is too late for fresh ideas. I saw such a practice used when I was involved with the then Scottish Office and the department that dealt with transport in England. It would be appropriate to make representations now, so that whoever advises the ministerial team can start thinking effectively about the matter at the beginning, rather than the end, of the process.
Are you suggesting that by the time the Transport and the Environment Committee got round to discussing the petition, it would be too late to take action?
Yes. The committee must go straight to the minister, because practical considerations are involved. The root of the policy statement seems to be that the neighbour notification process will assist public debate. That will not work for a telecommunications site, because only the neighbours in contiguous property or within 4 m of the boundary of the application site are notified under the existing procedure. That is nonsense when one is considering facilities that have a catchment of 150 m to 250 m. The sooner the practical suggestions are brought to people's notice, the sooner they may be heeded.
Are you saying that, ideally, you would like legislation to specify that steps must be taken before the erection of any mast?
The Stewart group suggested that any mast that had permitted development status should be reviewed. I do not think that we want things to go that far. We say simply that any mast that would be categorised as sensitive and that will continue to exist—because the permitted development status is the key—should be reviewed. There must be several that cause real problems for people.
Do you have any idea how many masts are being erected at the moment? I think that a lot are going up now. What is the scale of the problem?
I do not know the number. The issue is how close a mast is to somebody's house or garden—that is a personal issue. However, it is a potential problem and there is injustice in the situation. I have not dwelt on compensation, but we must bear it in mind that we are dealing with statutory code operators. If they fail to secure an agreement for a site, they can—and do—go to the courts to obtain a measure that is similar to compulsory powers. If the property of neighbours is diminished as a result of a development on a site, there should be provision for payment for injurious affection, as exists for other statutory undertakers. That would all be part of a balanced policy. People could take issue with nothing that is in the paper that has been produced in terms of practice or implementation.
Thank you very much. The committee will now consider the petition.
I have a feeling that the Transport and the Environment Committee has already made its recommendations to the minister. It is now up to him to put the necessary laws in place. The Stewart inquiry reached firm conclusions, as did the Transport and the Environment Committee. Dare one say that this is a wake-up call to the minister: "Please get on with the job that you have been asked to do."
I accept that, but the Transport and the Environment Committee would be interested to see this petition, because it highlights the gap between what it recommended and what has been included. It is up to that committee to decide what it wants to do about that.
That is the last of the petitions for which there are witnesses. We now move to the petitions for which the petitioners are not present.
Petition PE288 is also from Mr Harvey. It concerns roll-on-roll-off ferries and calls on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Ministry of Defence to explain why its contract to build four such ferries was awarded to a German shipbuilder. It is suggested that we note the petition and take no further action, although we could pass the petition to the relevant UK Government minister. However, as with the previous petition, Mr Harvey must understand that he must pursue other avenues before coming to the Public Petitions Committee.
I agree with your suggestion, convener. The matter has been debated in Parliament by members anyway.
Is that agreed?
The next petition, PE289, is also from Mr Harvey. It concerns British Army uniforms and calls on the Scottish Parliament to seek an explanation from the Ministry of Defence of why it awarded a contract for manufacture of the uniforms to a German firm. The contract was subsequently withdrawn because of poor workmanship. Like the previous two petitions, it is suggested that we note the petition and take no further action.
The next petition is—again—from Mr Harvey. Petition PE290 concerns amphibious vehicles on the Clyde and calls on the Scottish Parliament to ban such vehicles from transporting passengers, especially children, on that or any other river in Scotland.
The next petition is also from Mr Harvey. Petition PE296, on the Cairngorm funicular railway, calls on the Scottish Parliament to recommend suspension of construction of the railway until the completion of the inquiry into the Austrian ski train accident that occurred on 11 November. Like the previous petitions, it is suggested that we agree to note the petition and take no further action.
Petition PE298 is from Mrs Avril McKen. In light of the proposal to relocate the Forres ambulance unit to Elgin, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to recommend that the unit should remain at Leanchoil hospital, Forres, and that it should be upgraded to a 24-hour service. The petitioner is concerned that, because of delayed response times, the decision to move the unit to Elgin will endanger lives, especially during extreme weather conditions.
I do not live in the area, so I do not know a great deal about the distances between Forres, Elgin and so on. Once again, we are dealing with a petition relating to a health board.
Perhaps we should have a petition on health boards.
I am considering that seriously. I might not be able to produce one, but somebody else might want to take up the cudgels. The trust's reply should be copied to the petitioner, but I do not want the committee simply to note it. Who would we ask for additional views? Perhaps the clerks could give us some guidance.
We could ask the MSPs who have indicated that they support the petition.
We should copy the trust's response to the petitioners and ask them whether they agree that the claimed improvement in service will take place. If so, the petition will have been successful. The petitioners—not we—are the best people to judge that. If they tell us that they do not agree with Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust's assessment of the situation and that they are still unhappy, we will have to write to the trust.
That sounds like common sense to me. We will pass the trust's response to the petitioners and ask them to comment on the trust's claims of improved service. Well done, John. Is that agreed?
The next petition is PE299, from Tricia Donegan, on dangerous driving. It calls on Parliament to investigate whether the additional driver offences of failure to possess the correct licence, MOT or insurance documentation should be taken into consideration at court hearings concerning fatalities that are caused by dangerous driving.
The petitioner makes a very valid point. If people knowingly break the law by driving, without not only one document, but all the required documents, that should make their situation more difficult when they come before the courts after commission of another crime. The petitioner is right to say that the courts should respond differently in such circumstances. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee might want to consider instigating legislation, or the Lord Advocate might be able to instruct procurators fiscal to give greater weight to drivers' failure to produce the correct documentation. However, I doubt that he has the powers to instruct courts or procurators fiscal to take that into account.
Pauline McNeill is a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
I have seen the petition previously and I am concerned that the petitioner is attempting to get the committee to consider an issue that it has already addressed. We do not consider individual cases unless they deal with an issue of a general nature. Before we refer the petition anywhere, I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether road traffic legislation contains any provision that the courts can use in aggravated situations. I refer to cases in which not only is there drunk driving, but the driver does not have a valid MOT certificate, for example. The fact that the court did not make use of such provision in the case that is cited does not mean that it is not available.
Are you suggesting that we should write to the Lord Advocate without bothering to copy that letter to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for information?
I do not think that that would be necessary at the moment.
So, we should write to the Lord Advocate to ask whether there are provisions under road traffic legislation to deal with other aggravations.
I assumed that no such provisions existed, but if they do, then that is a fair suggestion.
Do members agree?
The next petition is PE305 from Mrs Dorothy McIlwraith, on behalf of the county federations of the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes. The petition calls on Parliament to ensure that proposed changes to the current benefits payment system will not lead to the closure of rural post offices.
The final petition is from Mr Dougal Carnegie on behalf of the Scottish traditional music lobbying group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to provide the necessary support and funding to promote traditional arts and culture in Scotland through their inclusion in the mainstream educational curriculum and the establishment of regional arts centres throughout Scotland.
I agree. Is it in order to send it to the proposed cross-party group on traditional arts, for members' information?
We could certainly do that.
Next
Current Petitions