Public Petitions Committee, 06 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 6, 2006

Official Report 217KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Dalkeith Northern Bypass (PE900)<br />Dalkeith Bypass (PE928)

The first two current petitions are connected. Petition PE900, which is by Jade Allison on behalf of the save Dalkeith park campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the proposal for the Dalkeith northern bypass is comprehensively and properly assessed with data from 2005 and that the results are published and consulted on before any contract is let. Petition PE928, which is by Margot Russell on behalf of Dalkeith and Danderhall Labour Party, calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the Scottish Executive's proposal to build the Dalkeith bypass.

At its meeting on 7 December 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, Midlothian Council, TRANSform Scotland, Friends of the Earth, the Woodland Trust Scotland and Whitecraig community council. Responses were received. In addition to the papers that were circulated to members last week, a response has now been received from Friends of the Earth. Do members have views on that correspondence?

The reality is that the work is now in place. There is no point in pursuing PE900, so we should close it.

I am a bit concerned that the work is going ahead when so many questions have been asked about the road. I see that Mark Ballard is here; I do not know whether he can enlighten us.

I do not know either, because he has not told us why he is here. Are you here to speak about the petitions?

Yes. Having read the responses from the Scottish Executive and Midlothian Council, I am a bit concerned that they do not seem to address the questions that petition PE900 raises, which are not about the advantages and disadvantages of the A68 northern bypass, but about the procedures that were followed. Concerns are expressed about the lack of public inquiries and the fact that, although environmental assessments were done, they were done after the minister had said that he would support development of the road.

The petition makes the point that, instead of informing the ministerial decision on whether to approve the road, the environmental assessments were undertaken after the road was agreed on, to mitigate the road's environmental impact. Those points are still outstanding and do not appear to have been substantially addressed by the responses from the Executive and Midlothian Council, which focus on the perceived advantages of the A68 northern bypass.

Having spoken briefly to the petitioners, I know that they are concerned that their points have not been fully addressed in the responses from the Executive and the council.

Do members have any comments on those points? I wonder whether it is a fait accompli and whether we can do anything purposeful.

I know that the works are going ahead, but given what Mark Ballard has said we should seek the views of the petitioners to establish how they feel about what has happened, about the procedures and about the responses. Their petition is for the greater good of the environment in the long term. We should seek their views on the issues that Mark Ballard has raised.

The petition was initially dealt with under the old system, when we did not contact petitioners, so we do not have the petitioners' perspective. You are right to suggest that the petition was heard before we automatically contacted petitioners.

If we link petitions PE900 and PE928, it would be worth getting the perspective of both sets of petitioners. The argument is that the timing of the environmental report is the key consideration. I note from the Executive's response that following production of the environment mitigation report it identified mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project. I am much more interested in the outcome than the timing. If appropriate mitigation measures have been taken following the report, environmental concerns should have been satisfied. The issue is not the process but the outcome. I agree that we should send the responses to the petitioners, but it is the outcome that matters.

We will seek the views of the petitioners and consider that point when we see their responses. At that point, Mark Ballard will have the opportunity to comment.

---

Singing Tuition (PE860)

Our next petition is PE860, by Marilyn de Blieck, on behalf of Ayrshire Voices, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop a coherent national policy in relation to the teaching of singing and in particular to ensure adequate provision of vocal tuition for young people throughout Scotland.

At its meeting on 18 January, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Arts Council; the youth music initiative reference group; the Voice of Chief Officers for Cultural, Community and Leisure Services—VOCAL; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the Scottish Executive; East Ayrshire Council; North Ayrshire Council; and South Ayrshire Council. We agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses received. The response from the petitioner has now been received and circulated to members. Do members have any comments on the responses?

The responses are all very positive. The fact that the Executive is putting in a further £20 million must be worth while. The sum is probably not enough, but it never is. The petition has been worth while as it has drawn attention to the matter and done a lot of good by airing the issues and drawing attention to the benefits of singing. There is probably not much more that we can do with the petition, but it has been successful.

Do members agree with those comments or should we raise any other issues? Are we happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Urban Regeneration (PE911)

The next petition is PE911, by Paul Nolan, on behalf of Craigmillar community council, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the Scottish Executive's support for market-led urban regeneration projects and the operation of privatised urban regeneration companies and, in particular, to consider the mechanisms through which local communities can influence and hold such companies to account.

At the committee's meeting on 18 January, we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum, Communities Scotland, the Scottish community planning organisation, the City of Edinburgh Council, Promoting and Regenerating Craigmillar—PARC—and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received. I welcome comments from members.

I suggest that we send the responses, which are comprehensive, to the petitioner for comment.

Okay. We look forward to receiving their comments.

---

High Voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)

The next petition is PE812, by Caroline Paterson, on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards that are associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.

At the committee's meeting on 8 February, we agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care's latest correspondence and to write to the deputy minister to ask him to keep the committee updated on developments. A response has been received and circulated to members.

The petitioners have been asked to join the stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields—SAGE—which is considering the matter. We should perhaps await the outcome of the report of that group before we consider the petition further. We will keep the petition open until we receive the SAGE report. It is worth noting that the petitioners are actively involved in the discussions.

---

NHS Dental Services (PE920)<br />NHS Dentistry (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE922)

We will take the next two petitions together. PE920, by Helen Smith, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to commit further resources to the provision of national health service dentistry, in particular for the recruitment of NHS salaried dentists to provide emergency and comprehensive care and for the provision of dedicated NHS dentistry facilities. Petition PE922, by Peter Thomson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider implementing a different model from the current plan to ensure that NHS dentistry is available in remote and rural areas in the medium to long term.

At the committee's meeting on 30 January, we agreed to link consideration of the petitions and to write to the British Dental Association, Fife NHS Board, the Glasgow dental school, the Dundee dental school and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received. Do members agree to send them to the petitioners?

Members indicated agreement.

We look forward to receiving their comments.

---

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (PE885)

The next petition is PE885, by Mark McCabe, which requests that the Scottish Parliament amend Scots criminal law relating to sex offences, in line with the rest of the United Kingdom and Ireland, so that there is a statutory offence of male rape. The petitioner also wants the law to be changed so that there are no offences that may be committed exclusively by gay men and that all sex offences apply equally to everyone, whether man or woman, gay or straight.

At the committee's meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the correspondence that we had received.

The matter is another success story for the committee. Mark McCabe comments that he is pleased with the Scottish Law Commission's proposals. Obviously, no further action needs to be taken.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Traffic Calming (PE840)

Our next petition is PE840, by Judith McCrorie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on traffic calming measures, such as road humps and road cushions, to ensure that the impact on disabled users and the elderly is addressed adequately.

At the committee's meeting on 30 January, we agreed to invite the petitioner's views on the responses that we received from Road Safety Scotland, the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, the Disability Rights Commission, Capability Scotland, the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Ambulance Service, the Chief Fire Officers Association Scotland and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. The responses have been received.

I welcome all the responses—especially the one from the Disability Rights Commission. The new legislation that comes into force in December will have a big impact on all these issues, and the public at large should take note of that. The legislation will impact not only on road humps but on roads authorities and on this building. However, I am not sure that any further action is required on the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Out-of-hours Medical Services<br />(Rural Communities) (PE776)<br />NHS 24 Services (Rural Areas) (PE814)

---

NHS Services (Rural Areas) (PE826)

Next we have three connected petitions. Petition PE776 is by John Macpherson on behalf of Braemar community council. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the merits of proposed new arrangements for out-of-hours medical services in remote rural communities such as Braemar. Petition PE814 is by John MacPherson on behalf of Killin community council. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications for rural areas of the introduction of NHS 24 services, particularly in relation to ambulance cover and time scales in getting medical assistance to patients in those areas. Finally, petition PE826 is by Mr W D R Chalmers. It urges the Scottish Executive to ensure that NHS services in rural areas such as Mid and Upper Nithsdale are adequate, equitable and acceptable, as required by the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004, particularly in relation to out-of-hours services.

At its meeting on 22 February, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Members might recall that an issue arose about part of the Scottish Ambulance Service's earlier submission being kept private. That issue has now been resolved and the responses received have been circulated to members.

The service is improving and the suggestion is that no further action is required on these petitions.

We should welcome the Scottish Ambulance Service's willingness to provide the further information that was requested. We should thank the service for that.

Okay—will we close the petitions?

Members indicated agreement.