Official Report 349KB pdf
Item 3 is current petitions, so we have seen many of these petitions before. I am conscious of the time, and I recognise that we have given substantial time to some of, if not all, these petitions in the past, so let us try to address specific points. I urge members to make tight comments or observations, tempting as it may be to speak for longer.
Protection from Wind Farm Developments (PE1095)
PE1095, by Sybil Simpson, on behalf of the save your regional parks campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to provide greater protection to the national and regional parks of Scotland from industrialisation, including wind farms and their associated quarries, roads, cable trenches and sub-stations. Do members have any comments on how to deal with the petition?
I suppose that we could hold a round-table discussion on the large number of issues raised in the petition. We could invite the petitioner, our colleague Kenneth Gibson MSP and Scottish Government officials to attend. That might be a way of progressing the extensive number of issues in the petition.
Are other members okay with that? We can ask the clerks to come back with suggestions about how to deal with that.
Cancer Treatment (Cetuximab) (PE1108)
We have majored on PE1108 over the past year or so. It was lodged by Tina McGeever, on behalf of Mike Gray, and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider the provision of more appropriate cancer treatment drugs and better accessibility to particular drugs on the national health service and to ensure equity of access across health board areas in that regard. Committee members have a copy of Tina McGeever's response to issues that have been raised since the publication of our report and the announcement of the position taken by the health department and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. How do members wish to take the petition forward, given its position as possibly the key petition that we addressed last year?
I talked to Tina McGeever, and she wished me to say to the committee that she really wanted to attend today but that work commitments precluded that. However, I think that the paper that she provided is very helpful indeed. I state for the record that I think that the Scottish Government has done a significant amount to progress the large number of issues that were raised in the original petition by Tina McGeever, on behalf of the now late Mike Gray.
I suggest that we look at question xiii in our briefing paper, which is one of the questions that we sent to the Government and which reads:
Bill Butler has made a specific proposal. Are members comfortable with it? We will pull together all the questions to which we still want answers following our report. It is worth putting on record that we think that extremely constructive engagement on the petition has taken place with the relevant Scottish Government minister and with Scottish Government officials. We hope to continue that process. Inviting the minister and officials to appear before the committee might produce further benefits. Do members accept that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
Young Offenders (PE1155)
We have considered PE1155 on two previous occasions. On both occasions, the elected member for the relevant parliamentary constituency addressed the committee directly. She is unable to be present today because of other commitments. The petition, which is by Elizabeth Cooper, requests that consideration be given to the proposal that young people between the ages of 10 and 18 who are charged with serious offences should be tried by the criminal justice system rather than the children's hearings system. The issue has been discussed in detail. The petitioner and the constituency member have had opportunities to discuss their concerns with officials, and I understand that those concerns will be taken into consideration by the children's hearings bill team before it proposes any changes to the children's hearings system. On those grounds, I think that we should close the petition, unless members are minded to do otherwise.
War Veterans (Health Care) (PE1159)
PE1159, by Mrs Kozak, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide NHS Scotland and other relevant organisations and individuals with all necessary information relating to veterans who were exposed to nerve agents in the Gulf war of 1991 or any subsequent conflict. It asks that they be advised and treated appropriately, that preventive medications be assessed and that fatalities be prevented.
We could write to the Scottish Government to ask what the outcome was of the veterans programme Scottish steering group meeting that took place in September and what bearing that will have on the petition. We could also ask the Scottish Government whether it will reflect on the outcome of the tribunal to which the petitioner refers and consider whether it requires to provide updated guidance or an alert to each NHS board.
There are also a number of outstanding issues that it would be worth exploring in questions to the Ministry of Defence. We need to assess how far on it is in providing information to veterans on their health and to raise other issues, such as the introduction of the proposed veterans card. I know that the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on supporting veterans in Scotland might wish to address such issues, but I think that we should pursue them with great vigour, given the sacrifice and commitment of those who serve our country.
National Concessionary Travel Scheme (PE1162)
PE1162 is about the national concessionary travel scheme. We have heard from the petitioner, Sally Ann Elfverson. We raised directly with the Government the issue of which categories of people should be considered for free bus transport. In its response, it indicated that there would be no change in relation to people who receive the lower level of disability living allowance. Do members have any comments?
I express my disappointment at the Scottish Government's decision on people who receive the lower level of DLA, but given that it has made that decision, we have no option other than to close the petition.
I think that we should accept that suggestion. We will ask the Government to contact the petitioner to provide her with information on what is being done to ensure that those who receive the lower level of DLA are not excluded from work or from socialising because of high travel costs.
Historic Building Listing (PE1176)
PE1176, by Thomas Ewing and Gordon Prestoungrange, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide a right of appeal against decisions by Scottish ministers, following advice from Historic Scotland, not to list an historic building, and to review the criteria for listing.
We are informed that Historic Scotland is starting a project to improve the transparency of its decision making. We also have information that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman looked at the individual case and found no evidence of maladministration or service failure in Historic Scotland's actions. I cannot see what else the committee can do. If colleagues are so minded, we should close the petition.
As there are no other comments on that, we will close the petition.
Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)
PE1179 has been in front of us on at least two occasions, but there are still outstanding issues. The petition is from Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, and is about giving individuals with acquired brain injury proper support, advice and assessment. Members have raised concerns about the issue in the past. I think that there are still some outstanding issues that we might want to explore. Perhaps we should ask the Government to meet the petitioner specifically to discuss those outstanding issues and to report back. Does the committee accept that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
Further Education (Students with Complex Needs) (PE1180)
PE1180, in the name of Tom and Josie Wallace, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in achieving further education placements, and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up. Alex Fergusson is here as constituency member to speak to the petition.
I understand that you have had a busy agenda and I will not keep the committee longer than is absolutely necessary. However, I want to speak to the petition; members will recall that I spoke to it on 19 May, after which the committee wrote to the Government to ask for responses on the various issues that have been raised in the petition. My constituents intended to be here today but they have been unable to come because of various other commitments.
Thank you. Are there any comments or questions from members?
I have previously mentioned a similar case—I meant to draw the committee's attention to the details but I am afraid that I do not have them with me. There are other people in the same position in Scotland. We do not have enough by way of a response. I would feel distinctly uncomfortable if we closed the petition at this stage—I would rather keep it open until we can decide on the best way forward. We perhaps need to get more answers than those we have at the moment, because it is clear that not enough is being done.
The petition brings to a head an issue that we all face as we approach the budget. Although we all periodically say, "Something must be done", we all know that doing something involves spending money. Even the public are beginning to understand that we cannot spend money twice. If we do this, we cannot do that, and if we do that, we cannot do the other. As a Parliament, we need to get our minds around provision for the disadvantaged members of our society. I am talking about not only the example in front of us but the huge number of people who suffer from all manner of sensory deprivation, such as the deaf and the blind. There will not be an easy answer, but it is a subject that we need to address—I hope that we will address it—in our budget debate. I cannot put the challenge back to the Presiding Officer, because he will preside over that debate, but the challenge for us is to ask ourselves what we as a society are doing for our disadvantaged and whether we are going to ensure that they get a fair share of the resources that are available to our public services.
A proposal has been made to keep the petition open. Is anyone otherwise minded? We have had the testimony of the constituency member, and the family was present at a previous meeting. Because the petition concerns a young individual who wants to do the best he can but who has come up against financial and bureaucratic restrictions, and because it involves bodies that lack the capacity to think more imaginatively and move beyond the boundaries that are set down in the legislative framework, it is one of those petitions that we do not want to close the door on.
Mr and Mrs Wallace are the last people who would want the committee to keep the petition open just for the sake of keeping it open. There is no point in doing that. However, if the petition can be kept open with a purpose, there is every point in doing so. Nigel Don may have hit on something when he referred to Dumfries and Galloway, because I do not think that the situation applies only to that area. The responses from councils throughout Scotland seem diverse.
This year an equalities statement has been issued along with the budget. That is what the petition is about. We cannot use the fact that budgets are difficult as an excuse not to protect the most vulnerable in society. We should turn the argument around—equalities should be considered first. We should ensure that we meet the needs of people such as the young person to whose case the petition relates before we do anything else. It is a matter of priorities. This is only one example—there are many more—but it is a test of the Parliament's ability to consider equalities properly. We talk about the importance of mainstreaming, but this is the kind of test case that we should address first.
I suggest that we ask the clerks to go through the evidence that we have gathered so far and to produce a paper for our next meeting that specifically maps out a course of action by keeping the petition open and exploring specific areas to assist the petitioners.
I suggest that we write to the Government again. As other members have said, the response that we received from a civil servant in relation to the matter was not helpful in many respects, but it was helpful in one respect. The response compares what the Scottish Government is doing with what the Welsh Assembly is trying to deliver. It would be difficult for any college to deliver the level of service that we are seeking in this instance, but it is incumbent on us to ask the Scottish Government whether it would be preferable to consider establishing within our current college establishments a centre of excellence for the delivery of education to students such as Thomas. We are not saying that every college in every area should provide that level of service, but one or two colleges could select themselves for delivery of education to those with additional support needs.
In the previous session, the Equal Opportunities Committee held an inquiry into disability. Access to education was one of the issues that the committee considered. It might be useful for us to revisit the recommendations from that inquiry.
I should have declared an interest as the vice-convener of the cross-party group on learning disability, which is chaired by Jackie Baillie. Would it be possible for us to look at the revised version of "Partnership Matters: A Guide to Local Authorities, NHS Boards and Voluntary Organisations on Supporting Students with Additional Needs in Further Education" when that appears?
Does the committee agree to take on board members' comments and Alex Fergusson's suggestion? A paper will be produced for our next meeting, at which we will pursue the issues that have been raised.
Members indicated agreement.
Road Bonds (Sewers and Drains) (PE1185)
PE1185, by Andrew Kaye, on behalf of the Coopersknowe residents association, relates to the amendment of relevant legislation to ensure that any road bonds that are drawn up for new developments give local authorities enforcement powers in that regard. The petition has been in the system for a considerable period. I invite members' comments.
I am beginning to feel as if I am a usurping committee member.
We will be the judge of that—do not worry.
I know, but I am sure that you have a better word than "usurping".
I think that there is a gap in the law. The residents could approach the local council under health and safety and other regulations, and get it to pursue the companies concerned.
The petition has been with us for some time and, bearing in mind how far we have taken it, our concern is that we do not know whether the Public Petitions Committee has any greater powers to influence its direction of travel. I seek guidance from members about whether to keep the petition open.
The committee should investigate the law.
We have been trying to do that, and we have had some comments back from Scottish Water and the Scottish Government.
I do not know whether there is any way forward for the committee. I think that we have exhausted what the committee can do. Our information is that the issue has become focused on one particular development, and that the petition is not about a national or general issue. If that is the case—I think it is—I do not think that there is a locus for the committee to take it further, unfortunately. The matter might go forward in other ways but, unless some other committee member can come up with an ingenious way forward, which we are always open to, I honestly do not see any way forward.
I appreciate that what you say is probably right, but for the folk who have petitioned, this is the Scottish Parliament, and we will have let them down. Everybody else has let them down, and now the Scottish Parliament is letting them down. Perhaps that is not fair, but the committee's decision could still be interpreted in that way. All I am suggesting is that somebody should be leaned on to see what legal highways and byways can be investigated. I would have thought that the local authority had some sort of duty of care towards the folk living on the development.
Why do we not try one more time? We could write to the Scottish Government to ask whether there is any other legal recourse. I suspect that we will get a "No", but if colleagues are so minded, I think that we can ask the question again—although we might get the same answer.
Convener, may I—
I had better defer to members of the committee.
I am disappointed by the responses of both Scottish Water and Waterwatch Scotland. Coopersknowe is not the only development in Scotland that has been affected by a developer not delivering what was scheduled and planned for, and what was supposed to be installed. If we are going to keep the petition open, we should write to Waterwatch Scotland and ask how many complaints it has received from residents or others about contractors failing to deliver the planned installation of sewerage or other services that were supposed to be provided as part of a development.
It might also be worth checking whether building control or another organisation has responsibility for inspecting the work that has been carried out.
That is a wee victory for members. I think that we—
Is there any route by which we could investigate the planning at the beginning? When developers get planning consent, is something put in place for other facilities on a development? The petitioners have been pursuing a bond, but some other kind of security could be put in place. I am not simply talking about sewerage and water; services such as laying roads, finishing play parks or planting trees could be involved. In the present climate, developers might not complete such work, and people will be left living on a partly completed development.
We have asked a number of questions, and we have had some responses. We will pull them all together, taking on board members' positive suggestions. We will have one final climb up the hill and we will see what happens. Okay?
Members indicated agreement.
There is no need to look at me like that when I use that metaphor, Margo.
Athletes (Rural Areas) (PE1219)
PE1219, from Christina Raeburn, is on the issue of adequate funding to allow young talented athletes in rural areas to travel to sporting competitions at regional and national levels, and on the provision of coaching support. As we are aware, the Health and Sport Committee, which is convened by Christine Grahame, has inquired into the subject and written a very substantial report entitled "Pathways into sport and physical activity", which addresses some of the issues that are raised in the petition.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Courts (McKenzie Friends) (PE1247)
PE1247, from Stewart Mackenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency.
The petitioner is asking about a system of support for litigants in courts that has been running successfully in England for a long time. I do not care where the good idea comes from—I will pinch it. The McKenzie friend system seems to offer a greater level of support, and a feeling of security, for many people going into court to plead for themselves. They can often be bamboozled by the things that go on. The McKenzie friend does not plead directly for them; the McKenzie friend quietly offers advice and might hand over the relevant papers at the relevant time—it is back-up work that they do.
I understand that Murdo Fraser is interested in the issue. I invite him to comment before we hear from committee members.
Thank you, convener. Mr Mackenzie is a constituent of mine, and I am happy to support his petition.
I will take suggestions from across anyone's border.
Given the political affiliations around the table, the committee has been incredibly consensual in the past number of years. We may want that to continue in the next few moments.
Murdo Fraser should rewind and start again.
I should have left the pin in my hand grenade.
The distinction has been made between a person who is with somebody as a friend and a person who has a right of audience—I wanted to ensure that we covered that.
For information, I should have said that a precedent has perhaps been established in the Scottish Land Court.
I agree with everything that has been said. Committee members have a note that contains quotes from Lord Gill's review. Lord Gill is careful with the phraseology that he employs, but he does not seem to be agin the proposal; indeed, he seems to be for it, and even for a person being able to address the court on behalf of a party litigant in certain circumstances. We should follow Nigel Don's suggestions and write to the Government to ask whether it will come on board as well.
There is one other thing. I think that Lord Gill suggested that it should be up to the sheriff to determine whether a McKenzie friend should be allowed to be alongside the litigant. However, I think that in England a person has a right to be there. Perhaps that needs to be squared up.
I detect from the issues that have been raised that there is broad support for exploring the option. We will take on board the suggestions of members who have spoken in support of the petition and committee members who have expressed views on how to progress it, pull those suggestions together, keep the petition open and explore the specific issues that have been raised about the terminology relating to participation in court and the role that individuals can play.
Holiday and Party Flats (Regulation) (PE1249)
This has been a long meeting, and members have been waiting to discuss PE1249. Margo MacDonald and Sarah Boyack in particular have expressed interest in speaking to it.
She is the party girl.
Yes, but ably supported by my good colleague. I will not go down the route that Murdo Fraser took with Margo MacDonald earlier.
I notice that the people concerned are in Lothian and Strathclyde. Everybody else said that such flats were not a problem in their area. I began to wonder whether, instead of looking at the matter from a national point of view, we should consider having regulations, guidance or byelaws—are you allowed to have byelaws now?—that are particular to the cities concerned, which are Glasgow and Edinburgh. I do not know whether there is a device that measures noise levels, but using legislation relating to noise is the way to catch such people. If all these party flats were required to be fitted with such a device and it then went off—[Interruption.] I am serious. The cops would know that they could and should go to the flat and then they could have them under legislation. It is only a thought. Everybody has tried to find a way round the problem, which, although there are safety issues, is about behaviour more than anything.
Judging by Sarah Boyack's description, people do not need an alarm to tell them that too much noise is coming from a party flat. I ask Sarah Boyack whether there is any evidence that the spread of such party flats is connected to the growth of the stag-party culture, in which people travel to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dublin or other parts of the country.
They come here.
I have seen pictures taken by constituents of small buses arriving with lots of people piling out dressed up and ready for the weekend. Not all the flats used are holiday lets so we do not want to go down that route, but it is clear that a category of flats is let to people who come for the weekend and they are coming to party. Whether it is stag or party weekends, that is the market. If you look on the internet, you will find advertised lots of those flats in Edinburgh.
Even in the new developments.
Yes, we have had issues in the Western Harbour as well as in the city centre.
Did Margo MacDonald say that Dublin has sorted the problem and if so, how? Is there something that we can learn from Dublin?
Dublin just said that it did not want a growth of the stag and hen party. Now Prague is saying the same thing. The European cities to which there are cheap flights are all saying the same thing; they are all trying to meet the challenge in their own way. The market in Edinburgh is wide open just now, because there is tremendous pressure on property that is built but not let.
How could we get that message across?
I am keen to explore what it would be possible to do in the housing legislation that I am aware will be introduced in the next few months. Margo MacDonald has asked whether the council could use byelaws, but the council's view is that it does not currently have the powers to address the issue. I would like someone to look at what is doable legally and at whether the next housing bill would be a vehicle to address this issue.
I want to pull all this together.
It is worth exploring the putative housing legislation, as Sarah Boyack suggested. We should also write to the Scottish Government to ask what specific measures it is taking to resolve the issue. I believe that there was a meeting in August. We should ask what powers are open to the Scottish Government to compel landlords to ensure that people using their party flats do not engage in antisocial behaviour. If there are powers that need to be amended, why not amend the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to give local authorities the appropriate powers to apply and enforce antisocial behaviour notices in these circumstances? If we just sit back and wait, this problem ain't going to be solved. Perhaps we can find out whether international examples can inform our discussion about this serious problem.
Okay. We will pursue all those points. Perhaps that will assist Government officials' consideration of the matter. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Prisoners (Microchip Implants) (PE1251)
PE1251, from Raymond Bell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue a clear statement that it will not introduce, for tracking, surveillance or identification purposes, microchip implanting of prisoners in Scotland.
Members indicated agreement.
Bill Butler has to leave now. Thank you for your contribution this afternoon, Bill.
Police Officers (Convictions) (PE1252)
PE1252, from Angus Grant, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all legislation and guidelines that give chief constables discretion to retain police officers despite any convictions that they have. Do members have any questions about the petition?
As I read the petition, it struck me that the petitioner does not understand something that some councillors in Aberdeenshire do not understand either—the connection might not be obvious at this stage—which is that when someone has a power to consider something and a statutory authority to do so, they have to make their decision on the basis of the evidence that is in front of them; they cannot decide beforehand any other basis on which they are going to operate. The law of the land comes in books that have administrative law in them. Put simply, you cannot fetter your discretion. That means that it simply is not legally acceptable for people to decide beforehand on what grounds they are going to dismiss a police officer, or any other public servant.
The suggestion is that we continue the petition to explore issues to do with gathering information on convictions and the ways in which chief constables and police boards deal with those. Half the concern of the petition is about a procedure to prevent or minimise such occurrences in future. Do members agree that we should keep the petition open and explore the issue of the number of members of the police force who have been reinstated to the force in the past five years and several other issues relating to the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and come back to it in the near future.
Medical Negligence (Pre-NHS Treatment) (PE1253)
PE1253, from James McNeill, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to establish a discretionary compensation scheme to provide redress to persons who suffered injury as a result of negligent medical treatment prior to the establishment of the NHS. There are several outstanding issues on which we have not received full responses. I suggest that we continue the petition and explore those issues.
I will certainly never be promoted after saying this but, frankly, the Government's response is a bit grim, terse and unbending. One point that the Government makes is that
We will take on board that comment. We wish to explore issues relating to compensation schemes with various other bodies, such as the Scotland Patients Association. We also have questions for Government officials. I concur with Christine Grahame that the initial Government response was terse and perhaps not too revealing—those are the best euphemisms that I can find. We should keep the petition open and pursue those issues. The clerks will bring back the petition in due course.
Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1254)
Christine Grahame has also expressed an interest in PE1254, from Mark Laidlaw, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend section 51 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow flexibility so that an employee of a fire and rescue authority can also be employed as a special constable.
Again, the Government is taking a solid position. I might be wrong, but I think that the petition was lodged under the previous Administration. There are interesting responses from the Fire Officers Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. ACPOS is considering a memorandum of understanding. The Fire Officers Association takes the view that the bar is not necessary. As I understand it, the bar works both ways—a constable cannot be a retained firefighter and a firefighter cannot be a special constable. It is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water. There must be ways round it.
Several other points that we need to explore further have arisen in the responses, so we will keep the petition open. There are issues to do with practicalities, such as the scenario that Christine Grahame identified, or issues to do with whether discretion might be applied locally. There might be reasons why the police and fire authorities in certain areas have to recruit from the same pool of individuals to do different jobs, because of the demography there. There is also a general issue of experience and flexibility. We will pursue those issues and take on board the points that Christine Grahame has raised.
Previous
New Petitions