Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Official Report 537KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions, of which there are 12. The first is PE1400, by Libby Anderson, on behalf of OneKind, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I apologise to Libby Anderson: at our previous meeting, we had to defer consideration of the petition because of a very full agenda.

Members are probably aware that the UK Government intends to proceed with a full ban on all wild animals in circuses. Wild animals are well recognised in legislation. I had a question to which I do not have a particular answer: would it be possible to join in with a Westminster bill? Westminster is ahead of us and its intentions are clear. The Scottish Government’s intentions are pretty clear, too. Perhaps we could write to the Scottish Government and ask it to confirm what action it is taking. Doing so would probably speed up the process. I invite comments from members.

The third paragraph of OneKind’s response says:

“Developments south of the border suggest that we can no longer be confident”

that the UK Government

“will maintain its commitment to a full ban on wild animals in circuses. A pre-legislative report by the Westminster EFRA Committee”—

that is, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—

“proposed that a ban might be confined to elephants and big cats.”

OneKind’s response raises concerns that the ban might not go as far as we had anticipated originally. If we are to write to the Scottish Government, it might be useful to ask whether it is minded to go further than the indicative outcome of the discussions at the UK level and to have a full ban on the use of wild animals in circuses in Scotland.

I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government, in light of OneKind’s submission, how it will take forward the matter.

The clerk has pointed out to me that the latest note from Libby Anderson said that

“the UK Government has announced that it disagrees with the recommendation in the EFRA Committee report to restrict its proposed ban on wild animals to big cat species and elephants.”

It sounds to me as if the UK Government and the Scottish Government are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet.

Convener, you said that Westminster was ahead of the Scottish Government. When we considered the petition in April, that was not the case. Since April, it seems that the Scottish Government has kept its counsel to itself on the topic. We should therefore be looking to prod the cabinet secretary rather sharply into declaring his hand to ensure that we do not find ourselves falling behind Westminster. There is no need for that to be the case, and the committee could serve a useful function by ensuring that focus is brought to bear on the Government.

I apologise, convener. I cited OneKind’s letter of 2 October, so I thank you for reminding me about its submission on 28 October, which gives an update on the UK’s position. We should therefore seek clarification from the Scottish Government about its intentions and whether it will follow the UK Government’s clear intention to opt for a full ban.

At the weekend, I read that the UK Government had said that 48 wild animals are in circuses in England and Wales—that is the scale that we are talking about. I do not have a Scottish figure.

Do members agree to Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we write a very straight note to the Scottish Government asking for action on the matter?

Members indicated agreement.

We will report back once we have a reply.

11:45

---

Pernicious Anaemia and Vitamin B12 Deficiency (Understanding and Treatment) (PE1408)

The second current petition is PE1408 by Andrea MacArthur, on updating the treatment of pernicious anaemia and vitamin B12 deficiency. Members will have the clerk’s note and submissions.

In inviting contributions from members, I should point out the options in the clerk’s paper. The first option is to defer consideration of the petition until next year, following the publication of the guideline by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology. The second option is to take any other action that the committee considers appropriate. I certainly think that the first option seems fairly sensible and would recommend that we agree it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The only rider to my agreement is that we write to the BCSH about the comment in the clerk’s paper that the BCSH expects to publish the guideline “by mid-2014”. It would be useful to get a more specific date. I understand that it has gone into the matter in more detail but has found the workload involved greater than it had expected. I welcome the fact that it is carrying out the research, but I would like a clear indication of when the guideline is likely to be published.

Do members agree with John Wilson’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Bond of Caution (PE1412)

PE1412, by Bill McDowell, is on bonds of caution. Members will have received the clerk’s note and submissions.

The first option with regard to the petition is to ask the Scottish Government for its view on the petitioner’s suggestion that the categories of executor for which a bond of caution is required be restricted, and for an update on its work on succession law. It is fair to say that the issue is perhaps not a top priority for the Government but it is important that we find out its view on the petitioner’s suggestion. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ferry Fares (PE1421)

PE1421, by Gail Robertson, on behalf of the Outer Hebrides Transport Group, is on fair ferry fares. Members have the clerk’s note and submissions.

As I think I have mentioned previously to members, with my regional member hat on, I have met Gail Robertson, who has great knowledge of the commercial vehicles industry and has really been leading the campaign in the Western Isles. She has sent a note that I think only I have received but which I am happy to circulate to members. In the note, she states her position, which is that she still feels that this is a huge issue in the Western Isles. Members will keep me right on this, but my assessment of the Scottish Government’s view is that although it might be looking at extending the road equivalent tariff, there is not a lot of evidence of its changing its ruling on commercial vehicles. Although the petition has clearly had a big impact, one suggestion is that we close it under rule 15.7 but ask that Transport Scotland keeps closely in touch with the petitioner. If members have any suggestions about some other way forward, I will certainly welcome them. It is fair to say that the petitioner’s view is that this is unfinished business.

Given his Western Isles background, Angus MacDonald will know a lot about the issue. Angus, would you care to comment?

Indeed, convener.

As far as I am aware, the transport minister has identified and publicly announced extra funding to assist the hauliers, and although that money might not go as far as the petitioner might like it will still help hauliers keep their costs down. On that basis, therefore, I am happy to go with the recommendation that we close the petition while at the same time enforcing the suggestion that Transport Scotland ensures that the working group consults the petitioner, who is a key stakeholder.

I apologise—the clerk was just advising me that everyone got a copy of Gail Robertson’s email, so they should all have it in front of them.

The only other point in the email that I want to highlight is that there was a meeting between the Outer Hebrides commerce group and Keith Brown, and that some follow-up request was made of Mr Brown. If it is competent to do so, I would certainly like to ask the minister whether he can get back to the group and confirm the points that it raised.

Can we do that at the same time as closing the petition?

Yes.

I thank Gail Robertson for submitting her petition. We will ask the minister to chase up the various points that were raised with him. However, I recommend that, under rule 15.7, we close the petition on the basis that a study on the impact of the removal of RET has been conducted. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fair Isle Marine Protected Area (PE1431)

We move on to the fifth current petition, which is PE1431 by Nick Riddiford, on behalf of the Fair Isle community, on a marine protected area for Fair Isle. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

I apologise for the fact that we had to defer consideration of the petition at our most recent meeting. As I understand it from the preparation that I did for that meeting, Marine Scotland will be happy to give evidence in 2014. Some of our longer-serving members will have been present when we took evidence from the Fair Isle community.

I think that it makes sense to defer consideration of the petition until the final assessment of Fair Isle’s demonstration and research proposal has taken place. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning (Protection for Third Parties) (PE1461)

The sixth current petition is PE1461 by William Campbell, which is on protection for third parties in the planning process. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

I draw members’ attention to the fact that I have met Mr Campbell a number of times in relation to various constituency matters, so I know him personally. I know that Mary Scanlon has an interest in the petition, but I do not think that she can attend today.

The key point is that any intimidation in the planning process is a matter for the police. I do not think that Mr Campbell or anyone else disputes that. His key points were that he wanted to change Scottish planning policy and that he wanted the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to see the petition. Members will know that Police Scotland has set up a new-counter corruption unit to prevent public sector corruption, which I think might have some impact on the petition.

I invite views from members.

I suggest that we keep the petition open and that we write to the Scottish Government to ask it to respond to the latest submission from the petitioner.

When a third party who is involved in a planning application faces harassment and intimidation by an applicant, the only recourse is to go to the police. However, under the present regulations, there is nothing to prevent the planning committee from considering an application despite the fact that a third party might be being harassed and intimidated by the applicant. We should ask the Scottish Government whether it would consider halting a planning application’s consideration by a local authority when legitimate claims have been made that the applicant has been involved in harassment and intimidation. Even if someone feels that they are being intimidated and harassed and they go to the police, consideration of the planning application will still go ahead. Regardless of any potential harassment or intimidation, the application can be considered and approved by a local authority without any reference being made to the actions of the applicant against third parties or neighbours.

I think that there is merit in John Wilson’s suggestion. We might not be in this situation had the pre-2007 Administration not got rid of the third-party right of appeal, but that is an issue for another day.

You have made your point, Mr MacDonald.

Do members agree to Mr Wilson’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Living Wage (Recognition Scheme) (PE1467)

The seventh current petition is PE1467, which was lodged by Andrew McGowan, who is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament. It is on a Scottish living wage recognition scheme. Members have a note by the clerk.

I flag up the fact that I spoke to a group on Friday, and Andrew McGowan was another of the speakers. I wanted to pass on to the committee his congratulations to us on our petition handling.

I think that it was at the Scottish National Party conference that there was mention of a potential manifesto commitment to have what would be a Scottish living wage recognition scheme, in effect. It did not have the same name, but it was the same idea, so it sounds to me as if there is some movement on the issue. There is some debate about whether the powers involved are reserved or devolved.

It has been suggested that we could ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to fund the Poverty Alliance. I stress that it looks as though the Government will adopt such a scheme.

I note the quote that Mr McGowan has used in the second paragraph of his letter, which states:

“the government will fund the Poverty Alliance to deliver a Living Wage Accreditation Scheme to promote the living wage and increase the number of private companies that pay it”.

Promoting an accreditation scheme is different from funding the Poverty Alliance. I should declare an interest as a former employee of the Poverty Alliance.

When we write to the Scottish Government, we should seek clarification of whether it is to fund the accreditation scheme. As I understand it, the accreditation scheme, which is in operation, helps to promote among employers the introduction of the living wage. Employers receive accreditation from the living wage campaign if they deliver the living wage. We should ask the Scottish Government to clarify whether it intends to provide funding for the Poverty Alliance or for the living wage campaign’s accreditation scheme. The Poverty Alliance is one organisation among others that are involved in the living wage campaign in Scotland, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress, several unions, churches in Scotland and other interested organisations. We should get that clarification from the Scottish Government before we proceed.

Sure. Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Young People’s Hospital Wards (PE1471)

Our eighth current petition is PE1471, by Rachael McCully MSYP, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on young people’s hospital wards. Members have a note by the clerk, with possible options for action. I invite contributions from members. To prompt the committee, one possible action is that, given that the Scottish Government has said that responsibility for ensuring that staff are appropriately trained lies with NHS boards, we write to the Government to ask what actions would be required to ensure that all staff who routinely deal with young people have appropriate training. Do members agree to do that?

If we must, convener, but I have to say that we are stretching the elastic. I would certainly say that writing to the Scottish Government would be our final action prior to closing the petition. We have received pretty comprehensive responses on the principal request in the petition, which was on the establishment of such wards. I agree to our writing to the Government if that is our final action in respect of the petition.

I take the member’s point—thank you for that.

---

Interisland Air Services (PE1472)

The ninth current petition is PE1472, by Councillor Gordon Murray and Councillor Rae Mackenzie, on behalf of Protecting Inter-Island Transport Links, on interisland air services. Members have a note by the clerk, and submissions. Members who were at the Parliament day in Stornoway—which was most of us—will remember that we considered the petition then. We are looking for possible actions. I would certainly find it helpful to hear evidence from the Minister for Transport and Veterans on public service obligation air services in the Highlands and Islands. That might well fit into part of a wider strategy.

The problem that I have with that is that interisland PSO services are the responsibility of Western Isles Council, as we heard from the leader and convener of that council when they were here prior to the recess. I am therefore minded to close the petition, on the basis that the Scottish Government has stated that it has no plans to review the number and range of air services that are subject to PSOs. I see little point in asking the minister to attend when that position has been clearly stated.

I have met the minister and would certainly agree with Angus MacDonald’s interpretation of the policy.

I am not minded to close the petition. Angus MacDonald made the interesting point that Western Isles Council is the responsible authority, but I am concerned that the letter from NHS Western Isles states, on page 1:

“NHS Western Isles has not been asked specifically to participate in work in relation to economic studies.”

We should seek clarification from Western Isles Council of what consultation and engagement it had with stakeholders in the Western Isles who rely on the services before it made the decisions that it has made. It says that the Scottish Government is responsible, but we know that it is the council.

It would be also be useful to get clarification of the wider implications of the decisions that have been made. NHS Western Isles has said that travel times and costs have increased significantly because of the decisions.

12:00

Members will probably recall that the services from Stornoway to Benbecula and Benbecula to Barra are quite heavily used by patients, and getting to Stornoway is crucial. A doctor told me that the stroke clinic in Stornoway is held on a Friday, but there is no flight from Benbecula to Stornoway on that day, so they cannot get patients there. John Wilson is right to say that there is a health component to the issue. I am not suggesting that the health service has a statutory responsibility to fund the service, as it is clear that it does not. However, not having the same frequency of service has certainly caused dislocation in the Western Isles.

I contend that this is also about the preventative spend agenda that is supposed to apply in services across Scotland, including the health service and local authorities. The council may have made a decision without consultation of stakeholders. You mentioned the effect on the stroke clinic, which is a good example because it has a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of residents on some of the remoter islands. Did Western Isles Council consider that when it made the decisions?

We have written to the Government, which is what the petitioner asked us to do, and it has said that it is not going to do what has been called for. We have had the relevant council here, and it has told us that the matter is its responsibility, and that it is not going to do it either. We are not able to meet the petitioners’ requests any further. I have no doubt that the discussion is very interesting, but I do not see how it advances the petition. We have had a response from the Government and a response from the council that is responsible for the matter as far as the Government is concerned. This is just navel gazing on our part, and I do not see what its relevance is. It is for others to follow these matters through—not us.

I am happy to close the petition.

There is still unfinished business. I hear what Jackson Carlaw says, but whose responsibility would it be if it was not our responsibility to ensure that the questions that John Wilson mentioned are answered?

Local councillors have a responsibility to pursue the matter, as do local and regional MSPs.

A couple of members are suggesting that we should close the petition, and I think that John Wilson is suggesting that we should pursue the health board because there is unfinished business.

I would want to pursue the council, convener. It is clear from the response from NHS Western Isles that the decisions that the council made have had unintended consequences, one of which is that, as you mentioned, stroke clinic patients are having to find alternative ways of getting to the clinic. As I said, that has an impact on people’s health and wellbeing.

Angus, I take it from your comments that you are in favour of closing the petition. Is that correct?

I was, but—

I do not want to put words into your mouth.

I take John Wilson’s point on board.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to

“consider the impact on local communities by the withdrawal of ... air services”.

We have heard that there has been an impact, given that people from the southern islands cannot get up to the stroke clinic on a Friday.

Perhaps one solution would be, as we did with a previous petition, to close the petition but in doing so to complete the tiny bit of unfinished business by writing to the local authority to seek clarification on that one point. We did that with a previous petition, so that should be competent and would meet the needs of both sides in the committee. On how we would then consider the response, if any issues arise, we can consider whether we need to forward the response to another committee that might be looking at the issue. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority Examinations (Independent Regulator) (PE1484)

The 10th current petition is PE1484, by Ian Thow, on an independent regulator for national examinations that are set by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Members have a note from the clerk, and the submissions.

It is suggested that, under rule 15.7, we close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Government has considered the two points that are set out in the petition and has stated that it does not intend to take the action that is sought by the petitioner.

That is fairly final.

That seems to be a yes from Jackson Carlaw.

Convener, it is not for us to say what our preference is as a committee or as individuals, given the unequivocal response from the Government. Therefore, that leads us in one direction.

That is true. Do we have unanimous agreement to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Airgun Licensing (PE1485)

The 11th current petition is PE1485, by David Ewing, on airgun licensing in Scotland. Again, members have a note from the clerk, and the submissions.

There are a number of options open to us, but it is suggested that the committee close the petition on the ground that the Scottish Government consulted on its proposals earlier in the year and the petitioner responded to that consultation. The licensing bill that will be introduced during the course of the current parliamentary year will provide a further opportunity for people to make known their views, as part of the legislative process.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Schools (Religious Observance) (PE1487)

The 12th and final current petition is PE1487, by Mark Gordon and Secular Scotland, on religious observance in schools. Members have a note from the clerk, and the submissions. I remind members that we have received some additional papers, including submissions from St Louise primary school and St Matthew’s primary school and, if I remember correctly, from Mark Gordon.

Before I invite contributions from members, I remind members that we have probably two main options. One is to write to the Scottish Government to ask it to respond to the points and evidence that have been presented by the petitioner, and to ask how it ensures that parents are informed of the right to opt out and—this point was made very strongly in Mr Gordon’s evidence—that suitable alternative activities are arranged. The other option is to refer the petition, under rule 15.6.2, to the Education and Culture Committee as part of its remit. Of course, we could take any other action that the committee considers appropriate.

What are members’ views?

The Education and Culture Committee would not thank us for simply passing on the petition in its current form. At the very least, we should write to the Scottish Government, as is suggested, for clarification on those points.

Are we aware of whether the issue is currently, or is due to be, on the Education and Culture Committee’s agenda?

I do not think that the issue is in that committee’s work programme. Normally, the clerks discuss such things, so we would be told if the issue was already being actively considered. I have not picked up that it is actively considering the issue. However, I take Jackson Carlaw’s point that we normally try to go to the ends of the earth with petitions, and we have not quite done that.

I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the submissions that have been made to date.

Do all members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. We will continue the petition, which we will discuss again at a future date.

I now close the meeting. I will allow a few seconds for those in the public gallery to leave, but I ask committee members to hold on, as I have a couple of administrative matters that I want to speak about.

Meeting closed at 12:09.