Deep Vein Thrombosis (PE1056)
We have 17 current petitions to consider. The first is PE1056 by Gordon, Jane and Steven McPherson on deep vein thrombosis. There is some additional information on the petition. The committee previously agreed to suspend consideration of the petition until revised guidelines were available. Those are now available and members should have that information. Can I have members’ views on how to deal with the petition in the light of the additional information?
Can we have a minute or two to read it, convener?
I respectfully suggest that we suspend consideration of the petition until a later date to give us a chance to read the paperwork that has been submitted.
I am happy to bring the petition back to our next meeting, if the committee agrees.
Perhaps we should apologise to Trish Godman.
Yes. Thank you for waiting, Trish.
Transport Strategies (PE1115)
PE1115, by Caroline Moore on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway-station Again, is on national and regional transport strategies. Again, additional information has been provided to the committee. I seek members’ views on how we might deal with the petition.
If I have read it correctly, the petitioner has stated that they would like the petition to be continued and, in particular,
What views do other members have? The issues are related to the petition but do not directly fall within its scope.
Instead of keeping the petition open to allow the petitioners to be involved in the plans for the Ryder cup, could we not close it and simply write to the Scottish Government, suggesting that Transport Scotland consult and involve the petitioners? Do we have to keep the petition open to do that?
I seek guidance from the clerk on what would be the most appropriate course of action under the rules.
The committee has certainly, in closing other petitions, decided to write to the Government or whatever organisation to indicate that it would like the petitioner to be kept fully involved in subsequent discussions. That is an acceptable course of action.
It is a sensible suggestion, given that, strictly speaking, the issues raised do not fall within the scope of the petition.
Given that Dr Richard Simpson has an interest in this petition and, indeed, has previously spoken to it in committee, I wonder whether—with your indulgence, convener—it would be possible to hear from him. I am not sure whether he has turned up to talk about this petition.
I have just noticed Dr Simpson’s arrival. Are you here to discuss PE1115?
Yes.
I invite you to make a few brief comments.
I must apologise, convener—I did not have much warning of this. The main point is that the Ryder cup is coming up and I have been trying to elicit from the Government its position on what, in the current financial circumstances, seem to me to be the two rational alternatives. The first is the significant refurbishment of Gleneagles station, which, at the moment, has a number of serious road access problems. Moreover, disabled access to the station is utterly appalling. You have to phone Perth station in advance to ensure that the ramp is brought down. Admittedly, there might not be all that many disabled people among the X thousand who will come to the Ryder cup, but there will be some, and in effect excluding them would not be a sensible move. A lot of money will have to be spent on the station and road access and as yet the Government has no costings for that work.
The committee has decided to close the petition, but in doing so to ask the Government whether the petitioner could be involved in future discussions. Given your interest in the subject, it might be helpful to ask the Government whether you can be involved in those discussions as well. I am aware that there has been movement in terms of improving Gleneagles station and we are conscious that we have a limited timeline within which to take forward petitions.
Convener, I am sorry, but I was not aware that we had agreed that. There was the beginning of a discussion about another approach but, as far as I am aware, we had not agreed to close the petition. Having heard what Dr Simpson has said, I think that we should leave it open, at least for a brief period. Given the further information that is sought by Dr Simpson and others on the costing and timetable for the refurbishment of Gleneagles station and the situation with regard to Blackford, I am minded to suggest to colleagues that we leave the petition open. The timescale being what it is, we should set a specific time limit of, maybe, one or two meetings. Given the time constraints, we might have to close the petition if we do not get responses that are detailed enough from the Government, but I think that we should have one more shy, convener, if I may say so.
I am in the hands of the committee. Are there other views or are members happy to do that, given the time constraints?
I do not feel as strongly about the matter as Bill Butler does. When do we reach the position where that is it? We cannot keep every petition open, because we are heading towards dissolution quickly. I do not see what the problem would be with closing the petition and writing to the Government to ask whether it will involve the petitioner in the plans for the Ryder cup and send the timetabling information to Dr Richard Simpson. I do not see why we cannot do both.
We would have to give a specific time limit were we to do what Bill Butler has suggested. What was your suggestion? What time limit would be realistic for getting information back?
I have not suggested one, convener, but as you ask, I will suggest to you and other colleagues that we set a time limit of perhaps one month. That is about all we can do. If the information does not come back, we can take up our colleague Anne McLaughlin’s suggestion. We will have no option, then, but to close the petition, although we can say that the points are still there and they still need to be responded to. It will not be in a formal committee setting, but the Government can still respond to the petitioners and to Dr Simpson informally. I suggest a period of one month.
Are there any other views? There is silence. I am conscious that we had decided to close the petition—well, I thought we had decided that—in advance of your coming, Richard, but I am in a lenient mood. Given your continuing concerns, let us write to the Government in the terms that were mentioned and come back to the matter. However, I note that we have a serious time constraint.
Thank you.
Tail Docking (PE1196 and PE1230)
The next two petitions will be taken together as they are both on tail docking. They are PE1196, by Michael Brander, and PE1230, by Dr Colin Shedden, on behalf of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association.
I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioners, as you probably know. We now know from the Government that it is seeking further research on the issue before it decides whether to look at or change the current policy. We do not know when that will happen.
Is that suggestion acceptable to the rest of the committee?
The petitions are closed, but we will write to the Government about involving the petitioners in the research that it proposes to carry out.
Planning (Protection of National Scenic Areas) (PE1295)
PE1295, by Flora Dickson, is on the planning system and the protection of national scenic areas. Members have some additional information about the Scottish Natural Heritage survey of all the national scenic areas in Scotland. Guidance was due to be published in the autumn, but it is now likely that it will be published in January. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
The petitioner—with whom I do not agree, as I think that crematoria are places of natural beauty—has asked a number of questions in her most recent response. It would be worth our while to write to the Government to ask for its response, because by the time the Government gets back to us the guidance should have been published and we can look at it properly.
Is that accepted by the committee?
We will continue with the petition.
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE1310)
PE1310, by Jean Gerrard, is on amending the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
I am not sure that we can take the petition any further. The Government has given a very detailed response to the large number of questions that the petitioner put to the committee, which sets out the procedures under the 2003 act in relation to compulsory treatment orders. I think that we have taken the matter as far as we can, and I propose that we close the petition.
Does the committee agree with that?
It is agreed that we will close the petition in light of the actions that have been taken.
Medal Awards (PE1312)
PE1312, by William Leitch, is on an investigation into the 1949 Yangtze campaign medal awards system. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
I think that we are coming close to the end of the road on this petition, but it is important that we take the issue as far as we can, despite the lack of information that we have received from the Ministry of Defence and the Government in general.
Is it agreed that we will continue with the petition?
Fluoride (PE1358)
PE1358, by Lilian Gunn, is on the use of sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
It seems from the information that has been provided that the petitioner is satisfied with what has been said and has stated that she is content not to proceed further with the petition, therefore we should close it on that basis.
Is that agreed?
Initial Teacher Education (Guidelines) (PE1360)
PE1360, by Jonathan Robertson, is on the lack of modern language training in initial teacher training programmes for primary school teachers. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
There is no way in which we can proceed with the petition. We have done all that we can. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has told us that it has no plans to examine the issues that are raised in the petition as part of its work programme for the remainder of this diet. Therefore, we have no option but to close the petition.
Is that the view of the committee?
Indeed, convener, but the petitioner could be advised that there is nothing to prevent him from raising the issue in the next session of Parliament.
Legislative Process (Judicial Involvement) (PE1361)
PE1361, by Tom Muirhead, is on the involvement of the Scottish judiciary in the legislative process. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
We should accept the recommendation to close the petition.
We do not have much option but to close it. We have asked the appropriate authorities and they have given us answers. Clearly, the petitioner does not agree with that, but he is mistaken—that is not my opinion, but the opinion of the highest in the land. The position of a judge who is dealing with an individual whom he has met on a golf course is plainly different from the general perception of what he is doing in advising us at our request on how we should develop the law. It is entirely clear that if somebody wants to progress the issue through the courts, that is where they should go.
Do members agree that we should close the petition?
Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 (Post-legislative Scrutiny) (PE1362)
PE1362, by Brian McKerrow Jnr, is on post-legislative scrutiny of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. I suggest that we continue the petition, as there are some more questions that need to be asked on it. Do members agree?
I want to go a little beyond that, because the issue is important. I want to suggest a few things that we might do. At the outset, I say that I have slight difficulties with the petition. We have addressed the issue of whether the 2006 act is compliant with the European convention on human rights and we have probably gone about as far as we can on that. However, it would be good to get an academic view on what further work we could do on family law, in particular on paternal rights and responsibilities. We could say that we have answered the question that is before us and leave it at that, or we could say that there is a real underlying issue and ask for more advice on what we might encourage future Governments to do. That is the line that I would like to take.
It is a helpful suggestion that we get an academic opinion on the issue. The clerks can give us advice on that.
I recall that the petitioner previously suggested Professor Norrie at the University of Strathclyde and Professor Sutherland at the University of Stirling, who is also a professor in Oregon. Those are a couple of suggestions that I can offer.
I would be happy if we took the opportunity to get advice on the record as to how we might develop the law, because I am not convinced that we have taken it as far as it will go. If the petition is a vehicle for that investigation, that would be helpful.
Are those suggestions agreed by the committee?
Gypsy/Traveller Encampments (Guidance) (PE1364)
PE1364, by Phyllis McBain, is on clarifying guidelines on Gypsy Traveller encampments. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
This is very close to home. The petitioner is still with us; she is waiting patiently, as many have today. The petition and the process have been very useful so far.
I suggest that we also ask the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities how many sites there were 20 years ago, how many sites there were 10 years ago and how many sites there are at present. I know that a number of sites have been closed down by local authorities, which receive substantial grants for creating sites for travelling people, and the land has been returned to the local authority for disposal. It would be interesting to find out what has been the policy in practice of both the Scottish Government and local authorities in relation to enabling sites for travelling people in Scotland to be created or removed.
Do we agree to continue the petition? I invite Mike Rumbles to make a point. I am sorry, Mike—I forgot about you.
I think that I can be helpful by addressing some of the points that have been raised. I have been the constituency MSP for the area since we started back in 1999, so I can tell you that for almost the past 12 years there have been no sites in Kincardineshire. Aberdeenshire Council is working to produce sites. The key to finding a long-term solution is to produce sites that are authorised, because, at the moment, the problem is that people come in and use unauthorised sites as there are no authorised sites for them. When the police are called, they cannot move people on to an authorised site, because there is not one.
Thank you. That is helpful. The committee will take that into consideration. Thanks very much for coming, Mike. I am sorry that I forgot about you.
Can you tell us what you think we have agreed? My instinct is to suggest that we go back to all the folk who have already contributed, because they all have an interest. We should not ask them to rewrite what they have given us but ask them about how we handle the situation where we do not have enough sites.
There are also specific questions to ask local authorities about what is happening to the number of sites—the questions that John Wilson suggested.
On the back of Mike Rumbles’s specific question to the Scottish Government, I think that that is the right approach, but the Government and others need to address issues relating to Gypsy Travellers that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised. Nigel Don is right: we need to go back to all or most of the respondents to ask them what they think about the responses that we have received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the treatment of Gypsy Travellers and how we can address concerns that it has identified.
Can we ensure that all the contributors respond to the petitioner’s points in her comprehensive and well-thought-through response to them? I am sure that they will have received them. The conversation between the participants could usefully carry on.
Thanks for that.
Kinship Care (Children’s Needs) (PE1365)
PE1365, by Martin Johnstone, on behalf of the Poverty Truth Commission, is on the needs of kinship care children. We have additional information on the petition. How do members want to proceed?
We should keep the petition going, as a meeting involving the Minister for Children and Early Years and the petitioner is due to take place this month. It will be interesting for us to find out the outcome of that meeting.
Is that agreed?
General Teaching Council for Scotland (Church Appointments) (PE1366)
PE1366, by James Forbes, is on the abolition of church appointments to the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
I think that we have taken the matter as far as we can. The Scottish Government has told us that it does not have any plans to remove the seats that are reserved for the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church on the General Teaching Council for Scotland and that it believes that both should retain their seats. In addition, it recently consulted on the GTCS’s future functions and constitution. A specific question on faith group representation was not asked, but nothing emerged from the consultation that indicated that the position would change. I do not think that there is any other body with which the committee can usefully pursue the petition further.
Is that agreed?
I am sorry, but I must disagree with Bill Butler. I think that the petition should be continued. It is clear that the Government indicated in its response that there was consultation, but it did not ask a specific question about the representation of faith groups. It would be pertinent for the committee to go back to the Government and ask why it felt that it was unnecessary to ask during the consultation for opinions on faith groups being represented on the GTCS. There is an issue, which I raised at the previous meeting, about the representation of faith groups on that body and who decides what faith groups should be represented on it, given that the Scottish Inter Faith Council is operating, and it covers more than two faith groups—it covers a range of them. Would it be appropriate for the Scottish Inter Faith Council to make representations on who should be represented on the body rather than continue with the practice, which has gone on for a number of years, of having two faith groups represented on it? There is a wider debate about what we should do and about how faith groups are represented in Scotland. Falling back on the historical position would undermine the progressive move that is taking place in relation to faith groups in Scotland.
The points that John Wilson has made go further than what the petitioner has called for. The petition calls for the Government to remove the Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic Church representatives from the GTCS. The response was that the Government is not going to do that and that it has no intention of doing that, as Bill Butler has said. As I have said, the points that John Wilson has raised go much further than what the petitioner has called for, and it would not be appropriate for the committee to open up the matter and consider a wider area. It is for a member of the public to submit a petition on another issue if they want to do so.
I do not think that anything precludes the committee from being constructive in its response. John Wilson’s suggestion is very constructive. I am persuaded that we could at least ask the Government whether it has given any thought to asking the Scottish Inter Faith Council to respond to the issue.
All colleagues have made pertinent points. To tell you the truth, I had not thought of the two points that John Wilson made. It may be that we can interpret the petition in the way in which Cathie Craigie has, although we do not know whether the petitioner wants more faiths or no faiths on the GTCS. However, as Robin Harper says, that does not preclude us from asking the two questions that John Wilson posed. It may be that once we get a response from the Government, there will be nothing else that we can do.
We can also get a response from the petitioner.
Mosquito Devices (PE1367)
PE1367, by Andrew Deans MSYP, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, is on banning Mosquito devices. I seek members’ views on how we should proceed with the petition.
I agree with the petitioner when he says that the Co-operative should serve as an example. I laughed out loud when I heard that when it piloted playing classical music outside the shops where young people congregated, it got rid of them no problem. That is a great way to deal with the issue. I cannot remember the figures, but it reduced antisocial behaviour substantially inside and outside the shops.
As a Labour and Co-operative Party MSP—I register that interest—I know that the Co-op is always very innovative and was right to carry out the pilot. I agree with the serious points in the petition and those that Anne McLaughlin has made. This is not the way to go about dealing with a section of society. It is completely reactionary. We should write to the Scottish Government in the terms that Anne McLaughlin has correctly outlined.
I will go beyond what has been suggested. I am seriously concerned—perhaps I should say “appalled”, because that is how I feel. Perhaps I am just showing my ignorance. I will paraphrase the response from Health Protection Scotland. It says, “We don’t know much about this,” and does not sound worried.
So we agree to write to the Government to say in the strongest possible terms that we have major concerns and are keen for action to be taken.
John, do you have a comment?
No—I agree.
I thought that you wanted to say something, but you concur—thank you.
Political Education (PE1368)
PE1368, by Rowena Carlton MSYP, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, is on political education for all.
I declare an interest as a former modern studies teacher, although I am old enough not to have to return to teaching when I retire from Parliament.
I should have declared such an interest, too.
The petition should be continued. We should ask the Government to meet the petitioner, and perhaps the Modern Studies Association and Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, to discuss the issues that the petitioner has raised. It should then report to the committee the outcome of those discussions.
Does the committee agree to that?
Leisure and Cultural Facilities (Young People) (PE1369)
PE1369, by Jodie McCoy, on behalf of South Ayrshire youth forum, is on young people’s views on the provision of leisure and cultural facilities. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
We should continue the petition. It would be useful to write to ask the Scottish Government to respond to the questions at the first and third bullet points in the petitioner’s letter of 17 December. We could also write to ask COSLA to respond to the question at the second bullet point in the petitioner’s letter and to ask Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, to respond to the question at the fourth bullet point. We need the answers to those questions.
It is particularly important to pursue the petition in the light of reduced support for cultural co-ordinators throughout the country.
So we agree to continue with the petition.
Previous
New Petitions