Good afternoon and welcome to the third meeting in 2010 of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee. This afternoon’s agenda is very full, with 45 current petitions to consider. Usually we would take oral evidence on a number of new petitions, but we will not do that today because we need to process as many current petitions as possible. I remind members of the public to switch off all electronic devices as they can interfere with the broadcasting system.
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
I understand why the petitioners are disappointed that families of convicted criminals are still profiting from memoirs. Perhaps we should write to the Government and ask it to involve Mr and Mrs Watson in the forthcoming consultation on defamation of homicide victims. I know that they have been very good in providing the Government with information and evidence and their participation in the consultation might be worth while.
I agree with Anne McLaughlin. Given the time and effort that Mr and Mrs Watson have expended on the petition, we should ask the Scottish Government to involve them in the consultation. It would also be handy if the Government could submit to the committee a detailed response on the results of the consultation so that we can see what it has come up with. I also agree with Nigel Don that it is inappropriate for people to make money in this way.
For the sake of clarity, do members wish to close the petition or to pursue further the issues that have been raised?
PE504, by Mr and Mrs James Watson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers, or members of their families, from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of them for publication. A submission from the petitioners has been circulated to members.
I am concerned that family members are still able to benefit from writing up the account of their parents’ lives. I am not sure how we overcome that, but the situation is certainly unsatisfactory.
Okay. That recommendation has been accepted.
As I said, we should follow my colleague Anne McLaughlin’s suggestion.
High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
PE812, by Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines and to introduce urgently effective planning regulations to protect public health.
As members know, a decision has been made on the Beauly to Denny power line and the fact that we finally have a decision is welcome. The section of the line at Stirling—the area about which I am most concerned—will be the subject of mitigation measures, but it is totally unclear from statements by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and from correspondence that fellow MSPs have sent to constituents whether mitigation could include undergrounding or whether that has in effect been ruled out.
Mr Simpson makes two good points, which is not unusual. The mitigation measures in and around the Stirling area need to be made clear. Do they relate to overhead lines, or is there still a possibility of undergrounding that stretch of the proposed line? Clarity on that would be helpful.
I was going to say much the same. I listened to the minister’s statement on the decision and it lacked both detail and clarity. We need to know a lot more, so I back up what Bill Butler suggested.
If there are no other comments or observations, we will keep the petition open to explore the options with the minister and ask him to address the petitioners’ points through the process of the broader decision. I thank Dr Simpson for his time.
Electricity Transmission Lines (Underground Cabling) (PE1087)
This petition is broadly connected to the previous one. PE1087, by Nancy Gardner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate using underground and, where appropriate, undersea cabling for new electricity transmission lines such as that proposed between Beauly and Denny.
Judicial Office-holders (Age of Retirement) (PE1276)
If Bill Butler is at a loss, one could assist him by pointing out that there are already provisions for judicial office-holders to be employed up to the age of 75 under certain circumstances. Given that the issue could come back because retirement age is a discussion point not just with respect to judicial office-holders but in general, perhaps we could safely close the petition and then reopen it at the appropriate point as the debate develops.
Suspending consideration of the petition until the outcome of that debate seems very indefinite. The debate seems very open-ended and has no timescales attached to it. I do not know whether we would be better to close the petition and suggest that a further petition be lodged in the future when that debate comes to some conclusions or whether we should just suspend the petition until such time.
In the interest of keeping the debate open a few minutes longer, I might play devil’s advocate by pointing out that I am coming up for 70 quite soon and I would not be happy if someone said that I may not continue doing what I am doing.
I ask members to bring forward consideration of PE1276, in the name of John Ferguson, on the age of retirement of justices of the peace. The two individuals who made representations to the committee the first time that we considered the petition are here but would like to return to Glasgow soon. I should declare an interest as the key petitioner is chair of my local housing association and is therefore one of my constituents.
I am not quite sure what we should do, although colleagues will obviously have their views. As always, we received a helpful response from the Lord President, which refers to active debate on the issue. Although it takes us a little way forward, it does not definitively address the petitioner’s concerns.
Further to Anne McLaughlin’s point, perhaps we could ask the Lord President whether there is a framework for that debate. If there is such a framework, we could then suspend the petition for a defined period of time. If there is no such framework, we will have a problem because we cannot really suspend a petition for an indefinite period. Otherwise, we might do that with everything.
We will pull those comments together and see whether we can navigate a way through the issue. We will keep the petition open and explore the points that have been raised. I thank members for those helpful suggestions.
I am loth to close the petition because it makes a reasonable suggestion on a matter that concerns many individuals throughout the country. A lot of experience could be lost from the bench, especially in areas where particular individuals really understand the local community. We could suspend the petition until the issues that are raised in the comments of the Lord President and others are explored further. That might be more helpful than closing the petition. However, I seek guidance on that from members and the clerk.
Is the “active debate” to which the Lord President’s letter refers structured in any way, or is it just that people chat about the issue? If the debate has no structure to it, we will have suspended the petition just in the hope that the debate will one day come to some conclusion on which we can comment. Would there be any point in writing back to the Lord President to ask what format that debate is taking, who is involved in the debate and when we are likely to know its outcome? Would that be worth doing?
In our game, we leave that to the electorate.
I say that just to keep the debate open. I would be quite happy for the petition to continue.
Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)
The petition raises an important issue, which Audit Scotland is currently looking at. Therefore, I propose that we postpone consideration of the petition for four months.
Are members happy with that?
I support Robin Harper’s suggestion that we postpone consideration of the petition for four months, but it is also incumbent on us to ask the Scottish Government both what it reads into Audit Scotland’s findings and how it will take forward any recommendations that are contained in the Audit Scotland report to the benefit of the communities involved.
PE1050, by Councillor Ann Watters, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce legislation to provide better protection for common good sites such as Ravenscraig park in Kirkcaldy and to ensure that such assets are retained for their original purposes for future generations. As members will know, we have received a further submission from the petitioner, which is included in our papers today.
We will take those points on board, but we will postpone consideration of the petition until we can consider the Audit Scotland report.
Wind Farm Developments (PE1095)
Sorry, that is my fault. I meant to refer to a member’s bill proposal. The problem is that I am not such an anorak about parliamentary process.
You mean to say that you never read standing orders, convener.
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 for the national and regional parks of Scotland from industrialisation, including wind farms and their associated quarries, roads, cable trenches and sub-stations. In a previous meeting, we had the opportunity of a round-table discussion to explore many of the points that the petitioner has raised. I know that the local constituency member, Kenneth Gibson, is also pursing the issue through a private member’s bill proposal on regional parks.
Convener, is there such a thing as a private member’s bill in this Parliament?
I have been far too busy.
Given that a member’s bill is about as far as a petition could hope to get, I recommend that we can safely close the petition because the issue will be further debated in Parliament.
Okay.
Scottish Prison Population (Catholics) (PE1073)
The next petition, by Tom Minogue, calls for the Scottish Parliament to investigate and establish the reasons for the apparently disproportionate number of Roman Catholics in Scottish prisons. Again, the committee has had a chance to discuss this on a number of occasions and we have had a chance to look at the options that are available to explore some of the points raised by the petitioner. Can I have comments from members on how we would like to deal with it? A representative from the Scottish Parliament information centre, Graham Ross, is with us to respond to any points raised.
I was unable to come to the private session, but I take my colleague Nigel Don’s point that nothing untoward happened at it; I accept that absolutely.
The timescale of the research is also quite important, because we are quite far through the current session of Parliament, and if the current committee is to be able to discuss the results of any research, it would have to be done in quite a short timeframe.
And the timescale?
Having heard from SPICe, I believe that undertaking a focused literature review over three months would be the wise way to proceed, as it will keep the timescale tight. If the review suggested scope for further work, we could come back to the petition at that stage; if it did not suggest that, then we would not.
We are presupposing that the Conveners Group will approve the research work. It is only fair to caution the petitioner and the committee that the committee is making a recommendation, based on SPICe advice, that the research review should be funded. In order not to build up a false expectation on behalf of the petitioners and perhaps be accused of all sorts of things in the future, by e-mail or otherwise, I put it on the record that whether the research goes ahead will depend on the Conveners Group and other factors.
We have talked about the issue and I am conscious that there has been some e-mail correspondence, which might represent the belief that, if we ever talk off the record, we are doing something awful. I think it is worth pointing out that we were not; we were just trying to work out over a cup of coffee what we could do. I am therefore delighted that the SPICe representative is here. We drew the conclusion that we do not want to do anything terribly long-winded. We really just want to research the data that are already available to get some clues about what is happening in the criminal justice system. It might be helpful if the SPICe representative can give us some feedback on what might now be possible. That might help us to make a decision about where we are going.
We also identified that one of the things that ought to come out of the research is whether we need to do more research. If that is the outcome, we would want to commission more research. It might be that we conclude that all the figures that we need are available, but we should keep an open mind about what the initial round of research should be.
So we pass over to Graham Ross, who has the wisdom of Solomon.
I have to say, Bill, that nothing untoward was said or happened at the informal meeting.
If the committee decides on a literature review, we must put together a research proposal, which I will do in conjunction with the clerks and the convener. We can obviously bring that back to the committee, if it wants to approve it. The proposal goes to the Conveners Group for approval, then we get it back, draw up a specification and put it out to tender. Including the completion of all the formalities, we could be looking at a timescale of three to five months. We would probably give researchers three months to do that kind of work, given our previous experience of doing literature reviews. So, once we jump through the hoops in the Parliament, the timetable could be five months.
A timescale of three months might be unnecessarily restrictive. I appeal for SPICe to be given the latitude to be able to come back to us during the first scanning of the available papers to say that it might need a bit more time. The initial calculation is that the timescale will be three to five months, so let us ensure that SPICe can cover the field of available literature effectively.
Before I invite Graham Ross to speak, do any other members wish to raise any points that he can address?
We will recommend a literature review, identify issues that emanate from that and perhaps consider further issues with the Conveners Group. I acknowledge that the expert on standing orders has given us guidance on the matter, and I accept his guidance—it keeps me on the straight and narrow. We will continue the petition and explore the issues raised.
Stewart Committee Report (PE1106)
We need to continue the petition. After all, you and the clerks have received no acknowledgement from the Lord Advocate’s office on the various issues. We could, of course, write again to the Lord Advocate, but perhaps we should also ask the Government whether it has received a response from the Lord Advocate about the report and, if so, what its view on the matter is.
The next petition is PE1106, by Jamie Webster, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review those aspects of the Stewart committee report “Keeping Offenders Out of Court: Further Alternatives to Prosecution” that relate to the rights of victims of crime to obtain information on the handling of the case. We have had the petition in front of us before. Do members have views on how we should deal with this particular issue?
Those points are well made. We will pursue the matter.
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
PE1124, by Louise Robertson on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue Trust, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to introduce provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. Again, we have discussed the petition on a number of occasions.
Community Prisons (PE1150)
PE1150, by David Wemyss on behalf of the Aberdeen prison visiting committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider whether large prisons remote from prisoners’ families offer the best way of rehabilitating offenders or whether the alternative of localised community prisons should be supported strongly to maintain genuinely easy access to family links and other community virtues. The committee has explored the petition extensively with not only evidence taking from Government ministers but a debate in Parliament during which we again had the opportunity to question ministers. Meetings involving members of all parties have also taken place at a more regional level. My feeling is that we have explored the issues as much as we can, but I defer to members who have better knowledge of the subject.
To be fair to the petitioner, I think that he has managed to get an extensive debate going and get some of his concerns addressed. Nevertheless, do members agree to close the petition?
I am sad to say, convener, that you are probably right. Given that we have explored all the options and given the fact that there has not been very much movement, I genuinely cannot see how the committee can take the petition any further. I am not convinced that what is going to happen will be the right decision—in fact, I think that it is probably the wrong decision—but we have raised all the concerns with the minister on more than one occasion and heard his views. Sadly, we should close the petition.
War Veterans (Health Care) (PE1159)
PE1159, from Mrs S Kozak, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to provide NHS Scotland and other relevant organisations and individuals, including veterans of the Gulf war in 1991, with all necessary information and facilities in order that veterans exposed to nerve agents and their preventive medications are assessed, advised and treated appropriately and fatalities are prevented. We have previously discussed a number of issues raised in the petition, but I invite further comment from members on whether we should continue it.
I would like to know what involvement veterans organisations have had in the development of the policy.
We still have three concerns in relation to the petition. I thank members for those points. Do other members have comments?
Perhaps we can also write to ask the Government what the effect has been of the guidance that was issued early in 2008. Has it worked or does it need to be changed—what is the position?
We need to concentrate on what the petition concerns, which is veterans of the 1991 Gulf war. The meetings that were held at the end of last year with NHS board chief executives and chairs were more generally about veterans who return from active service. There are particular health implications for those who served in the 1991 Gulf war. The UK and Scottish Governments have recognised those issues in the long-term treatment of veterans of that conflict. When we write to the Scottish Government and other bodies, I suggest that we mention the 1991 Gulf war, so that the answers cover what those bodies are doing on the issues that the petition raises.
We will continue the petition and explore the points that members have raised, with the focus that John Wilson identified.
Given the huge number of concerns about the continuing care of and support for veterans both in general and with regard to their mental and physical health, we should keep the petition open.
Do any members feel otherwise? I think that it is worth continuing the petition because certain issues still need to be explored.
I understand that, at the end of last year, the chief executives of national health service boards met to discuss the delivery of health services to veterans. It might be worth writing to the Scottish Government to find out what the outcome of that meeting was, whether any changes will be made to services and, if so, when that will happen.
Befriending Services (PE1167)
PE1167, from Christine McNally, on behalf of Clydesdale Befriending Group and other organisations, calls on the Government to recognise and promote the positive impacts that befriending services for adults with learning disabilities have on its “The same as you?” strategy and to ensure the provision of adequate funding to support befriending opportunities and promote social inclusion.
“The same as you?” will be reviewed in 2010. Perhaps we could ask the Scottish Government how services are funded and who funds them, when the review’s findings will be known and—equally important—whether the petitioners will be involved in the development of the evaluation structure. That would be useful.
Given the letter from Karen Gillon MSP, it might be good—exceptionally—to defer the petition for a couple of weeks, if that is possible. That would give the local member an opportunity to speak to the committee later.
Is everyone happy to do that? The letter raises issues, so I invite comments from members. Nigel Don’s suggestion is helpful, as we want to pull together other things.
We will take on board those points and provide the opportunity for the local member to express a view on the petition.
Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)
PE1169, from Margaret Forbes, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce and enforce measures that ensure that magazines and newspapers that contain sexually graphic covers are not displayed at or below children’s eye-level or adjacent to children’s titles and comics and are screen sleeved before being placed on the shelf. We have discussed the issues that the petition raises in the past. I invite members’ comments on how to proceed with the petition.
The issue takes us back to the Parliament’s legislative competence and whether we can take further action. Like Nigel Don, I have sympathy with the petition, but my understanding is that the industry’s agreement on the display of such material on shelves is with the UK Government. Do we then write to the UK Government to try to reinforce the point that that voluntary agreement is not working? As Nigel Don said, it is clear that it is not working. If we walk into any major newsagent in Britain, we will see materials displayed with which we would be uncomfortable. The issue is whether we have reached the end of our deliberations on the matter because, under the Scotland Act 1998, we do not have competence to make a legislative change.
Two research options are before the committee. The first is for a piece of research on compliance—or non-compliance—with the voluntary guidelines and the second is for research on the public’s perception of the effects of the display of such magazines and whether there is a causal link. I take the point that Nigel Don and John Wilson made about legislative competence. Even if we could carry out one or other of those pieces of research, I am not sure what we would do with the results. However, the issue is worth exploring because, as Nigel Don said, society ignores such a serious issue at its peril.
We are in a dilemma. As John Wilson said, the legislative framework is an issue, but there is also an issue to do with the scale of any research. The first option for research seems to be more realisable. The second one is big and open-ended—it could be an extensive range of things.
A couple of matters lurk in here. First, the issue is important and, as a society, we ignore it at our peril. Underneath that, the second question is how any industry deals with guidelines.
Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)
I am one small step ahead of Bill Butler, as I am aware that the document is in our papers but, because it is four and a bit sides long, I have not read it yet, so I am not sure how we can proceed. Perhaps we could have a five-minute reading break.
We will have a short break at 3 o’clock. We can perhaps revisit the petition after that and continue the discussion, so that members have a chance to digest the late submission.
PE1179, from Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of acquired brain injury, to ensure that people with acquired brain injury and their carers get the services and support they need and that agencies can plan and deliver services more effectively.
It is disappointing that, despite repeated requests from the clerks, the committee has received no formal note of the meeting that has taken place between the petitioner and the Scottish Government.
That has now been tabled.
It has been tabled today.
It is a bit like “Blue Peter”—we have one that we prepared earlier.
You have got me there, convener. I will stop there and have a look for the document in our papers.
Road Bonds (Sewers and Drains) (PE1185)
PE1185, from Andrew Kaye, on behalf of the Coopersknowe residents association, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend relevant legislation to ensure that sewers and drains associated with roads from new developments are included in road bonds and to give local authorities enforcement powers in this regard. Members have had a chance to discuss the petition in detail and raise issues. Are there any comments?
I agree with Bill Butler. The only option for the committee is to close the petition. Having said that, in some ways I am reluctant to do that, because I know that there are real issues out there, as many communities throughout the country have identified problems and identify with the petition. Given the responses that we have received from Scottish Water and the Scottish Government, we should close the petition but advise residents to be vigilant in relation to planning applications and how local authorities enforce them.
Do we agree to close the petition but to highlight John Wilson’s observations to the appropriate representatives in government?
I do not know whether we can do any more on the petition. Both the Scottish Government and Scottish Water have reiterated that current practices are sufficient and provide adequate protection. I see no way for the committee to take the matter further, but I do not know what other colleagues think.
Independent Vehicular Ferry Routes (PE1192)
PE1192, from Donald Ewen Darroch, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to state how it is supporting and promoting independent vehicular ferry routes between the islands and the mainland and how the planning system is playing a constructive role in supporting the economic and social future of such routes.
Bone Marrow Services (PE1204)
PE1204, from Jessie Colson, on behalf of the Richard Colson Severe Aplastic Anemia Fund, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to recognise and promote the life-saving impacts that bone marrow testing and donation can have on people with life-threatening illness and to provide adequate funding to the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to support bone marrow services and encourage more donors.
I think that the Government is going to be chairing a follow-up meeting, in which it will include the petitioner, to see how effectively the proposed measures have been in encouraging more bone marrow donors. There will be an on-going relationship between the petitioner and the Scottish Government. I think that we have done as much as we can.
The letter from the Richard Colson Severe Aplastic Anemia Fund states:
Okay, but the immediate issue is whether we want to keep the petition open or to follow the recommendation to close it?
I would rather keep it open for now, because if there is a simple answer to that fairly straightforward question, we can easily close the petition at the next meeting. It is not meant to be an unhelpful question, and it is not a difficult one to answer. Talking is great, but talking plus resources is better.
As there are no further comments, we will keep the petition open, but we want to ensure that we bring it back as soon as possible so that we can decide what to do with it. Is that agreed?
Athletes (Rural Areas) (PE1219)
PE1219, from Christina Raeburn, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that adequate funding is available to allow young talented athletes in rural areas to travel to competitions at regional and national level, and to provide coaching support and training facilities across Scotland so that no young talented athlete in a rural area is disadvantaged as a result of their location. We have discussed the petition in detail on previous occasions. I invite members’ comments.
Dialogue involving sportscotland and Scottish Government ministers is on-going. Margo MacDonald is here for another petition, but I know that, through her convenership, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on sport has pursued the development of sports hubs, to which the Government has a broader commitment, and the proposals on regional centres and facility development in Scotland. Access for people from extremely remote parts of Scotland will always be an issue, just by dint of geography and the competition pool that exists, but we should try to minimise the disadvantage that the petitioner has highlighted. We hope that the Government will take on board the points that she has made, but I know that many other members are pursuing the issue, through their role as individual MSPs and because they have an interest in the topic. I think that we should close the petition but recognise that access to sporting facilities and competition is an issue that we all have a responsibility to pursue effectively for young people throughout the country.
I will not do so. I just suggest that you send a letter to the Minister for Public Health and Sport to say that you have closed the petition but that you urge her not to let the issue go by the board. As the hubs are in position, she could get a monitoring unit to look at whether they are meeting demand.
I do not know whether there is anything more that we can do, given the replies that we have had from sportscotland and its partners. I think that we have gone as far as we can. Sportscotland has said that it will ensure that its partners are fully aware of the guidance on funding and that it will encourage them to promote it more widely in the sporting community. If other members think that there are ways of pursuing the issue, that is fine, but I do not see how we could take it much further.
Without going over old ground on the petition, I think that there is probably not a requirement for a great deal of resources; we just need people to think intelligently. Issues that come up in the context of the development of regional hubs are the quality of competition in an area and whether it is good enough to allow highly talented athletes to get further, and the cost of access for the families of those athletes.
Scottish Courts (McKenzie Friends) (PE1247)
PE1247, from Stewart Mackenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency. We have received a submission from the petitioner, which has been circulated with the additional papers.
Thank you—I am certainly no gentleman.
The petition and the back-up material are self-evident. An opinion poll has been conducted and, although we should take the results with a pinch of salt, there is a consistent level of support—66 per cent—for the idea of McKenzie friends. We have had word from the bench—from on high—that it has always been open to litigants who defend themselves in Scottish courts, but there does not seem to be one view from the bench on the matter. The view that figures in our papers has it that
That’s enough.
If I could expand briefly.
The papers that are before us are interesting, and they demonstrate that certain people have got the wrong end of some sticks. There is clear confusion as to what on earth a McKenzie friend is supposed to be. I thought that the Lord President put it kindly, saying that there are two meanings of the term. Actually, there was only ever one, but some people did not bother to find out what it was before deciding to call it something else. We now have two meanings, and that is not helpful.
I do not disagree with the points that Margo MacDonald, Murdo Fraser and Nigel Don have made. However, I think that we should write to the Scottish Government and to the Lord President of the Court of Session to ask whether they will recommend that McKenzie friends should sit beside, rather than behind, the litigant. Perhaps we can ask them to respond to the petitioner’s concerns about the Court of Session’s lack of awareness of the existence of such a facility. We need to take a belt-and-braces approach.
I will invite comments from committee members, and then you can make another contribution. Are there any views from committee members on the issue?
I wonder whether Murdo Fraser can follow that.
That is your card marked, Robin.
As I should have mentioned earlier, there is also some debate as to whether we want the judge to have the determining voice on the matter. Should it be a right? I am not quite sure about that. I cannot see anything about that aspect in the papers that have come back to us.
I simply wanted to ask—Murdo Fraser might be able to help with this question—whether we can, on our knees, suggest to the Lord President that it would be better to clarify whether there is a presumption that a McKenzie friend can assist in court unless the judge feels that the person is inappropriate or unsuitable. One can imagine some of the friends who McKenzie might bring with him. [Laughter.]
I see that there are no further comments. Given our discussion today, we should continue the petition. There are a number of areas in which we seek clarity and precision. We should seek responses on specific issues such as the awareness and understanding of the court system with regard to the capacity to have a McKenzie friend.
I would bend a knee to Margo MacDonald, but not to the Lord President, with due respect.
That is a good start.
Hear, hear, convener.
That is the best parliamentary contribution that I have heard from you this year.
I will briefly expand on that. Margo MacDonald has referred to the Which? survey. To be precise, I think that 85 per cent of Scots who were surveyed said that it would be useful to have a scheme whereby those who could not afford or find a lawyer could have a knowledgeable friend sitting beside them—that shows the level of support for the McKenzie friend.
Can I ask—
I class myself as a friend of Margo; I do not know how that qualifies me.
Vitamin D Supplements (Guidance) (PE1259)
I suggest to committee members that we bring forward consideration of PE1259, from Ryan McLaughlin, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to produce new guidelines on vitamin D supplementation for children and pregnant women and to run an awareness campaign to ensure that people know what level of vitamin D supplements they should be taking.
Bill Butler is the constituency member, but I am part of the same clan as the McLaughlin family, who are sitting in the public gallery. I agree with everything that Bill Butler said. The petition is a complete success story for the committee. As Bill Butler said, the petition made sensible suggestions and the Government listened. The way in which Ryan McLaughlin conducted the campaign, the support that he received from the clerks to the committee and the coverage that he managed to get are an indication of how much can be done with one petition. I congratulate everyone who has been involved with the petition.
When I think of Jack McLaughlin, Anne McLaughlin and Ryan McLaughlin, I see that the McLaughlin family motto is not “shy and retiring”.
We should close the petition, on the basis that the petitioner, Ryan McLaughlin, has indicated that he is content for it to be closed, as a great deal of progress has been made on the issue. That progress has been made because Ryan and the McLaughlin family have persuaded the Government, which has listened to the sensible suggestions that are contained in the petition and has agreed to a co-ordinated programme of action with NHS Health Scotland to produce guidance on vitamin D, to educate women on its importance, to consider different messages for different groups of people and to ensure that health professionals give correct and consistent advice to pregnant women and new mothers in relation to vitamin D.
Court Reporters (PE1257)
I agree with Bill Butler and Nigel Don that we need to continue the petition. Importantly, the petitioner has raised the issue of how court reports can be amended to reflect accurately the views that have been expressed. We should seek to establish what procedure is available to anyone who thinks that they have been misrepresented and that the report does not accurately reflect the issues that have been discussed or the case as presented. We should also seek to resolve the issue that Bill Butler raised in relation to the Gill report. I ask the committee to support my view that we need to clarify how an inaccurate report can be amended.
When we visited Govanhill—
In that case, I have nothing to say.
We will continue the petition and pursue the issues that members have raised.
PE1257, from Mark Hutchison, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take measures to ensure that solicitors acting as court reporters who knowingly supply false information to a sheriff are not immune from prosecution and that their reports are amended to correct any inaccuracies before the court makes a decision. The committee has considered the petition previously. I invite members to indicate what they wish to do with the petition.
Improbably, I confess that I have considerable sympathy for the petitioner’s point of view. His last letter suggests that the petition is born of unsatisfactory personal experience. The question is, how do we address the rare occasions when people act in a way in which they should not? All the replies that I have read have glossed over that issue and assumed that a court reporter will automatically act in the best interests of everyone concerned and could not be maliciously motivated. I do not believe that court reporters are often so motivated, but that may happen occasionally, because we are all human. Clearly, the petitioner thinks that it has happened, but no one seems to want to address that issue.
That is the next petition.
I agree with Nigel Don. In a letter dated 27 November 2009, the Government referred to paragraphs 109 to 112 of the Gill report—the Scottish civil courts review. We could ask the Government what bearing that has on the petition and how the outcome of the review will address specifically the points that the petitioner has made. I am rather at a loss to see that, so we could get the Government to clarify the matter. I agree with Nigel Don that we should continue the petition.
Holiday and Party Flats (Regulation) (PE1249)
I draw the committee’s attention to points arising out of the meeting on 26 August between the Government, the City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian and Borders Police, at which it was agreed that there would be
You are just exhausted by going from one party to another all night.
I do not say this light-heartedly but it strikes me that, as it is the landlords who allow the activity that is making life intolerable for people living in the vicinity of these flats, it might be worth finding out whether the legislation would extend to imposing ASBOs on the landlords themselves and, if not, why not.
PE1249, from Mr Stanley Player, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a statutory duty on landlords offering short-term holiday and party flat leases to register the property as such and to comply with all necessary houses in multiple occupation, noise, safety and environmental regulations. We have received a letter from Sarah Boyack, who expressed an interest in and support for the petition when we last considered it. Margo MacDonald has also been supportive of the points that petitioner makes. I invite her to comment on the petition, before we decide what to do.
The problem that I am here to discuss, which is raised in a petition that the committee will deal with later, involves houses in multiple occupation. However, I observe at this point that, in parts of St Andrews, where I live, it sometimes seems as if parties in these flats go on all term long, not just two or three nights.
I agree with Margo MacDonald that we should continue this petition. There are issues that need to be explored further. Perhaps we could write to the Scottish Government to ask what issues and problems around so-called party flats are raised by local agencies such as council departments and the police. Do those agencies believe that they have sufficient powers to respond quickly and fully to instances of antisocial behaviour when they occur? Do they think that there needs to be a change in the law to help to prevent such unacceptable disturbances? Do they have concerns about how the flats are advertised? Do they have difficulties in identifying landlords and ensuring that they fulfil their responsibilities? Does the Government know how those issues are being addressed? I think that, as yet, they are not being specifically addressed—certainly not to anyone’s satisfaction.
The committee should refer the letter that we have received from Sarah Boyack to the Government and ask it to respond to the issues that she raises. She discusses a number of important issues that relate to points that Ted Brocklebank made about HMOs. Clearly, landlords are using what they see as loopholes in the current legislation, and it is incumbent on the Government to address those loopholes. The Government should also address the reluctance of councils and other authorities to take the appropriate action against the landlords who let these flats. I know that the standard excuse is that it might just be one party weekend that has caused the problems, but, clearly, the landlords let the flats on the basis that they are used as party flats, and action should be taken against them in those circumstances, as they are, effectively, condoning the actions of the people who rent the flats.
Do we agree to keep the petition open and explore the points that have been raised by members?
Planning (Playing Fields and Open Spaces) (PE1250 and PE1293)
PE1250 and PE1293 are grouped together. PE1250, from Mel Spence, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider measures, under Scottish planning policy 11, to ensure that robust sanctions are in place to prevent local authorities from proceeding with development on land that is currently used as playing fields or open spaces.
Do we agree to close both petitions, but accept that there might be an issue in future if matters remain unresolved?
The consolidated Scottish planning policy that is due to be published will contain a presumption against development on open spaces that are valued or functional, or are capable of being functional or of being brought back into use. Therefore, I do not think that there is much that we can do in relation to PE1293 and we should close it.
If, by any chance, the consolidated planning policy does not contain a presumption against such development, we should invite the petitioners to re-present their petitions.
Sports Facilities (Primary Schools) (PE1256)
PE1256, by Jack Ferrie, on behalf of the 2007-08 primary 7 class in St Machan’s primary school, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to provide additional targeted funding to ensure that all primary schools have access to appropriate all-weather sports facilities to encourage an active, healthy lifestyle from an early age.
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 views on the petition? I can sense Margo MacDonald reacting to this petition.
Might we also try to establish the facts about criminal convictions among serving police officers? I do not know to what extent information on individual officers or aggregated information is available. There might be understandable reasons why the information is unavailable, but it would be interesting to know a bit about the data.
It might be interesting to know whether the discretion to which the petitioner referred is ever used.
I was going to make the same point. The issue is not the quantity. We do not want a huge tome that lists all minor offences; we need a broad-brush picture of the nature of offences. We might want to know about some offences that serving police officers have committed, but we do not want to trawl through every minor parking offence or whatever that police officers are registered as having committed.
I urge caution on how far we can take our inquiries into criminal offences by police officers. As I understand it, the chief constable is the employer of police officers in their area and it is for the chief constable to make a decision. Did we contact the Scottish Police Federation on the issue? The convener is indicating that we did. Did we get a response?
It is a good idea to look into the issue. We could write to the Scottish Government to ask about its timetable for the review of the Police (Conduct) (Scotland) Regulations 1996. We could ask whether consideration will be given to the concern that the petitioner has expressed. That would be a sensible approach.
I ask the clerk to respond.
We got a response from the SPF. I am sorry, but I cannot remember its content. I think that after the committee first considered the petition, in May 2009, we wrote to the SPF and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
It would be quite a good idea to look into the issue.
Okay. Do members agree to keep the petition open and try to get a response from the Scottish Government?
The critical issues are the nature and scale of the offence and whether, if such discretion has been used, it has benefited individuals whom the vast majority of the public would think should not continue to serve as police officers. We are not talking about the more minor offences, which might be considered in a more rounded way; the reality is that police officers who have been convicted of some offences should not continue to serve, given the trust that the public are expected to place in them.
Yes, and that reinforces my point about establishing the facts. There might be policemen who have committed minor road traffic offences, for example, and we might understand where those offences had come from—we also understand that some such offences are not minor. However, if a police officer has been convicted of a significant offence, representatives of the public are entitled to ask why they are still serving. There might be a good answer, but we would like to know it. That is why information about the nature of offences would be more useful than information on the total number of convictions. We need to know what the offences are.
We need to be careful about how we take the matter forward, but I agree with Bill Butler that we should keep the petition open and seek guidance from the Government on how it will take forward the 1996 regulations and what advice it will give chief constables.
We will keep the petition open and explore the areas of concern that members identified.
Medical Negligence (Pre-NHS Treatment) (PE1253)
PE1253, which was lodged by James McNeill, calls on the Parliament to compel the Scottish Government to establish a discretionary compensation scheme, to provide redress to persons who suffered injury due to negligent medical treatment prior to the establishment of the national health service. I invite members’ views on the petition.
We should perhaps write to the Government to ask whether it agrees that, when the NHS was formed, it took on the responsibilities of the medical service that existed before its establishment. We could also ask the Government whether it thinks there is a moral case for establishing a discretionary compensation scheme as proposed and, indeed, whether such a scheme should be set up. I hae ma doots, as they say, but I think that we should ask those questions.
It might also be worth exploring with the Scotland Patients Association whether, in its experience, the issue still pops up because individuals are still raising it.
Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1254)
I think that we should keep the petition open, but I invite other members to express their views.
We will continue the petition and pursue the points that members have identified.
PE1254, from Mark Laidlaw, urges 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, we have had a chance to discuss the petition on previous occasions, so I invite members to comment on how we should now deal with it.
I very much support the idea of keeping the petition open.
Such flexibility seems to be allowed in England and Wales. We should perhaps find out whether there is evidence that such arrangements cause a conflict of interest. In other words, an evidential base is always a good basis on which to proceed, convener.
Social Rented Housing (Standards) (PE1189)
We have already dealt with PE1259, so the next petition is PE1189.
No, I did not have my hand up to speak. I defer to Bill Butler in that regard.
If you think that, convener, it is up to you to—
I was merely pointing out that another member had his hand up.
I invite Bill Butler to comment.
As you indicated earlier, convener, I was part of the committee visit to Govanhill. It is clear from what we saw and heard there that the area has a number of problems, as the petitioners highlighted in their presentation to the committee. However, it was useful to see at first hand the current situation in Govanhill. Given present circumstances, it is clear that the problems will not go away quickly. My only difficulty with having a summit-type event is how quickly it could be organised. The Local Government and Communities Committee is about to start its evidence-taking sessions on the Government’s Housing (Scotland) Bill. There has been some discussion in the Local Government and Communities Committee about this petition and the issues it raises.
I would like to agree with Nigel Don—oh, sorry, that was the other petition. However, what he said as I was reading the detail of that petition is relevant to this petition. What I was going to say is that when we went out to Govanhill—obviously, as a Glasgow MSP and having worked in Govanhill I am aware of the area, although it has changed considerably in the years since I worked there—it became clear that there are multiple problems, but before and since then I have had representations from people in other areas who are scared that their problems will escalate in the way that Govanhill’s problems have escalated.
Okay. I thought that I was running this, but—[Laughter.]
The standing orders indicate that the convener has the right to determine who speaks.
In the committee, anyway.
John Wilson was also on the visit; do you want to comment?
Thank you, convener. I defer to your judgment on all things—
—during the committee, of course.
Okay. Are there any other comments or observations?
Given that, in the informal responses that we have had, Alex Neil and Glasgow City Council have been keen to discuss the issues, I think that we can pursue the option of a summit. We hope that it will synchronise with the investigations by the Local Government and Communities Committee, which John Wilson rightly referred to. We will endeavour to sort it out as soon as possible and to concentrate the minds of some of the protagonists.
Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)
We should continue the petition and invite the Government to comment on the petitioner’s latest submissions, of 21 January and 5 February. I suggest to colleagues that we comment on the length of time it took to hold the meeting to which the convener referred and then to get the note of the meeting to the committee. That is not very helpful, to put it mildly. One could even argue that our consideration has been hampered somewhat.
That is a helpful suggestion. We want to continue the petition and explore the issues that are raised in the petitioner’s additional submissions.
I agree that we should continue the petition, but I caution against criticism of the time it took to hold a meeting and to receive a note of it. We have considered other petitions today on which the response times have been much longer. In this case, I congratulate the Government on the time it took to get us the note of the meeting that was held in January. Members will recall that we have been critical of the Government’s response times on other occasions, but it has sharpened up the response time in relation to the note and arranging a meeting.
I am more than willing to go along with that if it progresses this serious issue.
We will continue the petition. We will explore the options and, I hope, get a satisfactory reaction or response to assist the petitioner. I hope that the petitioner, who is in the public gallery, will be pleased that she has stuck around and that the petition has been continued. The fundamental point is that she wants issues to be dealt with more effectively at local level. I hope that we can continue to apply pressure on her behalf.
We return to PE1179, which we dealt with earlier. The petitioner has been patient all afternoon but she has a return rail journey to make so, as we have had more time to look at the supplementary notes, we will deal with the petition now. I ask members who have come to the committee for the houses in multiple occupation issues to bear with us.
Houses in Multiple Occupation (Regulation) (PE1261 and PE1281)
I was not inviting you to speak first, Margo.
I was going to make it easier for you, convener. Although I sympathise with the petition from Kelvinside, I can speak to the Sustainable Communities (Scotland) one a bit better.
Ted Brocklebank has been patient.
I thank the committee for considering the two petitions, which are important and are becoming ever-more important as housing issues change. I, too, have constituents present to hear about developments with the petitions. We are working closely on the issue with Hillhead community council and other community councils that have an interest in my constituency.
I will take up where Pauline McNeill left off, on the occupancy density in any given area being increased by HMO licences. There should be a presumption against licensing flats, as that increases the density of occupancy and affects the amenity of neighbouring properties, especially when they are listed buildings. That suggests that the notions of planning and HMO licensing are indivisible. If an area is going to be planned, the maintenance, sustainability and the comfort of an area for the people who live there cannot be split up.
Members who are expressing support for the petition have had substantial opportunities to speak, which indicates the breadth of support for it. Members from our two largest cities, north-east Scotland and Fife have spoken.
I will invite committee members to comment first, Margo.
Okay. We want to continue the petition. I am conscious that we have a lot on the agenda. We want to pursue the issues that have been raised. Given the breadth of interest in this matter, there will be much debate as the bill goes through the committee and eventually to the chamber. I invite members of the public who are present and those who are watching the meeting or reading about it in subsequent days to lobby elected members to see whether we can strengthen the bill. I will invite two final comments, from Margo MacDonald and Pauline McNeill.
Are you suggesting that we refer the petitions to the spokespeople in each party?
What about the independent party? Would we send them to you?
That will be confusing.
It would be extremely helpful if the committee divided off the issue of the 2006 act and pushed for progress. My impression is that you would be pushing at an open door. I think that Alex Neil wants to get on with it. I sense some resistance from other quarters, but I could be wrong about that. Could you press him for a timetable? He told me that he would get on with it as quickly as possible. If we do not have what we are asking for by the end of this year, that would be a problem.
I thank members for their contributions on the petitions. Members may wish to continue pursuing the issues, and the committee can do so.
I am grateful to you, convener, for letting me speak in support of both petitions, which, as the committee will be aware, have been supported by about 40 community councils and other organisations from all over Scotland. Representatives of some of those organisations are present this afternoon.
I echo Ted Brocklebank’s comments. There is a lack of coherence between planning and licensing legislation, and licensing authorities act without reference to planning concerns or planning policy. These people do not talk to each other. Whereas planning authorities make policies to protect the amenity of an area and regulate building and development, no such powers exist to control the granting of HMO licences.
A number of points have been identified. Margo, do you want to focus on any additional points?
I apologise for not being present for the very beginning of the discussion. We could certainly pursue the implementation of the 2006 act. I agree with John Wilson that there are things that we could do while we are waiting for the new bill to go through the Parliament.
We could acquaint the appropriate members of all parties with the contents of the petitions and send them a note asking them to look into the matter and consider it in conjunction with the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We should draw it to their attention—you know how much stuff we have to deal with and it might otherwise be lost.
The next two petitions are on the better regulation of houses in multiple occupation. Each petition suggests a range of measures. PE1261 is by David Middleton, on behalf of Sustainable Communities (Scotland), and PE1281 is by Graham White, on behalf of North Kelvin Residents Group.
I stayed only because you are still here, convener. No, I am—
Members have given a detailed outline of the many, varied and serious problems that occur across Scotland in respect of HMO licences and what needs to be done to bring the situation under some kind of control. I suspect that there will be amendments that take up those issues as the Housing (Scotland) Bill proceeds down its parliamentary road.
Convener—
We should continue the petitions. There are issues that the committee can still drive forward, even if some of them are taken up in the debate around the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Pauline McNeill raised the issue of when we can expect implementation of the 2006 act. There is also the issue of the proposed private housing bill. The committee can quite rightly continue to question those points while following the progress of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
John Wilson and Nanette Milne made much better suggestions than I did. I withdraw my suggestion.
Aye. They will know whether to put them out or deal with them themselves.
Yes. I will have a discussion with myself.
Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1263)
PE1263 is by Evelyn Mundell, on behalf of Ben Mundell, calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to accept that individual dairy farmers have human rights, which have been breached by the operating rules of the ring-fencing mechanism that is attached to the management of milk quotas—which should have been set out in accordance with objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment among farmers and to avoid market and competition distortion. An e-mail on the matter has been sent by Jamie McGrigor.
We should continue consideration of the petition. The human rights aspect is significant. There are issues around the possibility of farmers losing their livelihoods. Are they to be compensated in any way? A number of matters arise from the petition. The points that the petitioner makes are important, and we should pursue the matter and explore it further.
There are a number of points on which we need further clarification. We will pull them together and we will try to get a response from the Scottish Government. Is that okay?
Geodiversity Duty (PE1277)
Over the past 90 seconds, certainly—it has been a steep learning curve.
I would be happy for the petition to be suspended or continued until such time as we get the results of the investigation that is being carried out into an evidence base for setting up a geodiversity framework.
Robin Harper has said exactly what I was going to say. I will not take up time by repeating what he said.
Yes—I would like to speak to the petition if that is okay, convener.
I thank Kenny Gibson for his input on the petition.
We have already dealt with PE1276, so we will move on to PE1277. I am sorry about the to-ing and fro-ing as far as the agenda is concerned, and I appreciate that members are trying to catch up.
He is here as a new expert on geodiversity.
The question is whether we continue to explore issues that remain to be considered, given the time lapse before the completion of the research that is being undertaken. I propose that we keep the petition open and ask the Government a series of questions. We can ask the clerks to bring the petition back to us at an appropriate time, which will depend on the timetable for the research. Are members okay with that?
National Youth Volunteering Policy (PE1278)
I was struck by something that the petitioner said in her response. She said:
In order to address the many anomalies, one of which Anne McLaughlin has referred to, I think that we should keep the petition open until a national youth volunteering policy has been implemented that covers all those organisations that provide and encourage volunteering for young people.
PE1278, which was lodged by Kimby Tosh on behalf of Project Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate how it supports national youth volunteering opportunities that deliver skills development for all young people in Scotland and to develop and implement a national youth volunteering policy for Scotland.
Members will recall Kimby Tosh’s impressive presentation on behalf of Project Scotland when we considered the petition not long ago. During that meeting, we talked about how structured, paid volunteering opportunities are as rare as hens’ teeth. Members will know that support for a national youth volunteering strategy was expressed in all the responses that we received on the petition. It is acknowledged that an element of financial support will be required if we are to ensure that opportunities are inclusive and open to all. It is unfortunate that local authorities confirm that no funding is available locally to support young people who are volunteering.
I am in total agreement with 98 per cent of that, and I loved the leverage at the end. It would be sensible to explore that option.
I agree entirely with Robin Harper and I do not disagree—in other words, I agree—with Anne McLaughlin’s suggestion. There is an issue with the £55 that is always factored in when such projects are considered. I hope that the Westminster Government can look at that.
With that remarkable outbreak of unity and support among members, is it accepted that we want to keep the petition open and explore the issues that Bill Butler has identified?
Physical Disability (National Reports) (PE1279)
PE1279, from John Womersley, on behalf of Disability Concern Glasgow, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to establish processes to ensure that health boards and local authorities fully implement the changes that are recommended in national reports that are aimed at improving the wellbeing of people with a physical disability. All members will be familiar with the issue from their case loads.
We will keep the petition open.
Among the other issues that we should consider are the measures that Audit Scotland has taken. We should look at the communications that we have received, pull them together and compare what was suggested should happen with the concerns that still exist, as outlined by the petitioner. Where we identify that there are issues to explore, we will raise them with the health department and health ministers. Is that agreed?
The petitioner has given us details of cases in which recommendations have not been implemented. Is there any merit in asking the Government whether it will respond to the petitioner or meet him to discuss some of those details?
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
Do committee members have any comments or observations?
First, these are desperately sad things to talk about, so we must just recognise that there is no way that one can discuss them in a dispassionate way.
Could you ask the Scottish Government what its timetable is for responding to Cullen? A bit of certainty would be good for the family.
PE1280, from Dr Kenneth Faulds and Julie Love, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the same level of protection to the families of people from Scotland who die abroad as is currently given to people from England by amending the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to require the holding of a fatal accident inquiry when a person from Scotland dies abroad.
I will try to break a habit by being as brief as possible—I know that the committee has had a long afternoon—but let me start by thanking the convener for allowing me to speak. I welcome Julie Love and her family, who are in the public gallery. Their presence is testament to the importance of the issue that Julie Love has raised about the sad death of her son Colin. She will continue to campaign on the issue and is here this afternoon to support the continuation of the petition.
Although I agree with Nigel Don that there are restrictions on what the British or Scottish Governments can do in relation to fatal accidents abroad, I am aware that, as Bob Doris has mentioned, the FCO has a duty to provide information about the circumstances that people who are leaving Britain might find themselves in and the conditions that might arise in the country that they are visiting. Clearly, the Government has a role to play in collecting and publicising information about, for example, different customs and transport issues that might be encountered. Such information, which could include information about the different standards of signposting in relation to swimming in dangerous waters, could be posted on the FCO’s website.
Okay, we will do that as well.
As Nigel Don said, a fatal accident inquiry might have difficulty in getting the information that it requires from other countries, which might be reluctant to provide it. However, at the moment, families find it almost impossible to get that information. Quite often, all they need to know is what happened, but they are not being afforded that information at the moment. Although a fatal accident inquiry does not guarantee that they will find out what happened, it gives them a far better chance. As John Wilson said, anything that is found out in the course of the fatal accident inquiry can be made part of the information that is given to people from this country who go abroad.
We will follow the recommendation that we suspend consideration of the petition. However, I think that Bob Doris has raised a few issues that we can raise with the FCO. We can pursue them and consider any responses as part of the full picture.
Overseas Aid (Cessation) (PE1282)
I thought that Bill Butler was saying that he was one of the most generous givers.
No—I said that the nation is.
I completely agree. I understand that the petitioner is concerned, as we all are, about problems in Scotland, but to say that we should apply those funds to the “more pressing demands” of Scotland after we have seen the footage of the earthquake in Haiti is just unbelievable. Within two weeks of the earthquake, more than 50 per cent of Scottish adults had donated money to the appeal. Haiti is just one example, but that indicates that the people of Scotland see themselves as global citizens with responsibility for other people. I do not think that many people in the world, never mind in this country, would agree with the petition, and we should therefore close it.
PE1282, from Ronald Hunter, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to cease overseas aid and donations immediately and to apply those funds to the more pressing demands of Scotland. I invite comments on how we wish to deal with the petition.
Committee members agree to close the petition.
I am in full agreement with the Scottish Government’s opinion that the withdrawal of aid would have a devastating effect on some of the poorest people on the planet.
Postcodes (PE1283)
PE1283, by Douglas A L Watt on behalf of Morvern community council, seeks support in addressing concerns about postal addresses as designated by the Post Office. Significantly, since our last discussion on the matter, there has been a welcome change of mind by the Post Office, so the petition has resulted in success. I suggest that we close the petition—we can with confidence send a letter to Morvern community council in the knowledge that it will arrive in reasonable time, now that the area has an appropriate postal address.
NHS 24 (Free Calls from Mobile Phones) (PE1285)
I agree with what you say, convener, but that will probably take longer than the current session of Parliament. We could put a marker down and say that, on completion of the trial of the three-digit number for NHS non-emergency health care services in England, the Government—of whatever political complexion—will update the committee on the outcomes of the trial and its implications for Scotland.
We will continue the petition and deal with those points.
PE1285, by Caroline Mockford, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to arrange for all calls from mobile phones to NHS 24 to be free of charge to users.
Tobacco Products (Display) (PE1286)
PE1286, by Kate Salmon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill by removing the proposals that relate to the ban on the display of tobacco in shops. The petition has been overtaken by the parliamentary decisions that were made last week. I suggest that we close it on the ground that the Parliament has made its views known on those elements of the bill.
Patient Medical Records (PE1287)
We should continue it, at least on the basis of saying that any amendments, changes or revisions made in patients’ written notes are also transferred to their electronic notes. That is a reasonable suggestion.
Looking at the responses that we have had to the petition, is there anything that the Government can pick up on to see whether improvements could be made to the guidance that is issued to health boards on the keeping of notes?
We want to continue the petition and we will explore with the Government the points about written notes and electronic notes as well as the issue that Nanette Milne identifies.
PE1287, by Elaine Pomeransky, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the rights and options of patients once they have accessed their medical records and seen what has been written about them, why and by whom; the guidance given to health professionals on what sort of information and details they should insert into a patient’s medical records in terms of the need for the information, the language used and the appropriateness of any comments that could be considered libellous; and how it ensures that there is a process in place that provides a right for the patient to have a comment removed from their record.
Disclosure Scotland (PE1289)
PE1289, by David McNally, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the legislation governing Disclosure Scotland processes to ensure that teachers who work for more than one local authority do not have to apply for a disclosure certificate from each authority.
That is correct. The protecting vulnerable groups scheme is being introduced towards the end of the year, so we would be as well to wait and see what comes from that.
Stillbirths and Neonatal Deaths (PE1291)
The petitioner raises particular issues about the workforce—nursing capacity, maternity staffing and so forth—and about whether there are any gaps in undergraduate training that could be rectified. It might be useful for the Government to give some thought to those matters.
The next petition, by Tara MacDowel on behalf of Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity, calls for the Parliament to urge the Government to take a number of actions to address the concerns raised by individuals who have experienced the stillbirth or neonatal death of a child. The petition has been in front of us before.
The letter from NHS Quality Improvement Scotland implies that more data will routinely be collected from 2011. Can we ask why it is waiting so long to do that? If the information is there and the physician has it in their mind, as it were, and it is just a matter of writing it on the right piece of paper or ticking the right boxes, it is not immediately obvious why it should take a year to put the boxes on the right bit of paper.
Do we wish to explore those issues, but postpone consideration of the petition for four months?
Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 (Fair Trade Products) (PE1290 and PE1292)
I would like to continue the petition. We have had detailed explanations from the Government about the 2007 act. The Government says that there is an exception that allows schools flexibility for pupils to do what they have been banned from doing, but that point needs a bit more explanation. Clearly, Dyce academy did not pick up on the exceptions to the 2007 act; I wonder whether there is confusion about its interpretation.
I agree entirely with what Robin Harper and other colleagues have said and that we must have clarity on the issue. For instance, would the upcoming Fairtrade fortnight be an exception? It seems to me that the position is a bit too ad hoc, because it is not well known even that there are exceptions. We need the Government to shine light on the issue very quickly.
You will take the fun out of it—stop it.
Nonetheless, it is not totally bad for one, and eating it once a week will not be a particular problem.
Exactly.
I will take Nanette’s opinion on the matter, simply because she is a qualified doctor—
It would be useful to indicate to the Government that it would be very helpful if it indicated that there is, indeed, a presumption in favour of schools being able to sell fair trade goods on a regular basis and what the exceptions to other rules are that make them inapplicable in the case of selling fair trade goods in schools. We need clarity on that, because I do not think that there was any thought that the 2007 act would get in the way of fair trade development in schools.
I do not disagree with my colleagues but, putting on my other hat as the convener of the cross-party group on obesity and given that I am the husband of a nutritionist, I want to point out to colleagues what they may not know, which is that chocolate is 30 per cent fat, of which 20 per cent is saturated, and 60 per cent sugar. In other words, it does not—
Unfortunately, although I have not yet met anybody who does not like chocolate, it is not a routine part of a balanced diet. That is part of the Government’s and the nation’s problem. We must get our minds around the idea that chocolate, although it is wonderful, is not, in any significant quantity, very good for us.
And not because you like any particular confectionery.
The next two petitions are linked. PE1290 calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow schools to sell fair trade confectionery, and PE1292, on behalf of Dyce academy fair trade group, also raises the issue of fair trade products—we heard directly from the young people. The petitions reflect on the issue that we discussed in relation to PE1282 and show the global concerns of people in Scotland, particularly youngsters. There are issues that we might wish to continue to explore.
The Government’s response also referred to “limited occasions” when school managers could use their judgment to decide whether they could sell fair trade confectionery. It would be interesting to get clarity on what those “limited occasions” are and how often they could take place. There is no point in the Government giving us that information, if it does not tell us how schools can get round the rules.
And because I like confectionery.
Do we wish to continue the petition and explore the issues that have been raised, while acknowledging the relation of consumption to issues around a broader awareness of one’s health and general wellbeing?
Previous
Attendance