Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Official Report 277KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Broken Glass (PE986)

The next item is discussion of current petitions. The first is PE986, by primary 6/7 of Woodlands primary school, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take greater action to protect the public, domestic and non-domestic birds and animals from the dangers of broken glass; to promote the use of plastic bottles as an alternative to glass; and to introduce a refundable deposit scheme that is aimed at reducing the amount of broken glass in public places. The petition's aim is similar to that of PE1145, which we have just discussed. We have received background information on the issues and we have seen the petition before. Do members have any strong views on how we should deal with it?

We have had a response from the Government, but there are a couple of issues that we may want to pursue further, such as how it will tackle the problem of broken glass and how that combines with its broader message about anti social behaviour and the environment. Do members want to pursue the matter further with the relevant authorities?

Environmentally, the petition has a lot of merit. Various schemes are being promoted, but they do not seem to be developing into a national effort. I think that we should pursue the matter, but where should we apply the pressure, convener?

We need to get some clarity from the Government about what it intends to do. The problem is systemic and our role needs to be in partnership with local government because it has direct responsibility for cleansing and waste disposal. We want to fit in with the broader debate around outcomes and pledges to reduce waste and to ensure a tidier and cleaner environment. That is probably the best advice that I can give you until we get a response.

Okay.

I agree, but we should not forget the point that the petition originally made about children having safe places to play. It is not unreasonable to seek some sort of clarity from the Government about whether it will or can pursue that by raising awareness.

I am happy to ask for that as well. We will accept those recommendations.

Is this an issue for an organisation such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, given that local government is now much more autonomous and is, as the convener said, responsible for cleansing?

That would be worth doing, partly because COSLA has policy conveners who respond to the Scottish Government's or the UK Government's direction of travel, and who set the broad template for how local government can respond to waste or other issues in respect of the built environment and quality of life. It is not unreasonable to raise the matter with COSLA, which might tell us about positive action that councils are taking and which we might like to become uniform throughout Scotland.

---

Charter for Grandchildren (PE1051)

PE1051, by Jimmy Deuchars, on behalf of Grandparents Apart Self Help Group Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to make the charter for grandchildren legally binding, ensuring that the rights of children are recognised by all public agencies and families, and enforced by law.

Do members have any suggestions about how we can deal with the petition?

I have a lot of sympathy with the petition, but the issues that it raises were considered when Parliament passed the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. The Minister for Children and Early Years made a commitment to family group conferencing for children in difficult circumstances: that would involve grandparents. The child can initiate family group conferencing, which puts the onus back onto the child to ask for what they need.

We should close the petition because we should not look to enshrine in law something that might not always be in the best interests of the child, such as in cases where there is domestic abuse or where the child might be in danger. Although I understand the frustration of grandparents who feel that they are being separated from their grandchildren maliciously, for want of a better word, we must be careful that we do not push for something that creates more problems than it solves.

Do you recommend that we close the petition?

Yes.

Does the committee accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Independent Midwifery Services (PE1052)

PE1052, by Jayne Heron, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to promote the services of independent midwives and to ensure that such services continue to be available. Again, the petition has come directly to the committee. Are there any comments on how to proceed with it?

I recall the petitioner coming to the committee. I am of the same opinion as I was then: I am not very supportive of the suggestion within the petition, but it is up to the committee.

Are there any other observations?

I would close the petition.

We did not receive responses from any of the NHS boards that we wrote to, did we? The letter that we received from Dr Margaret McGuire suggests that it is for NHS boards to find a solution. Should we pursue that?

I understand the deputy convener's view, but I think that Claire Baker is right to suggest that there are key players whose views we have not heard. We might still arrive at John Farquhar Munro's conclusion, but we should seek more information to allow us to see a fuller picture. I support Claire's suggestion.

I do not know its details, but the Health and Social Care Bill is going through the Westminster Parliament just now. Should we raise the issue with the Health and Social Care Bill Committee? I think that it will be considering indemnity issues.

We could ask the UK health minister whether the issues that are raised by the petition will have any impact on that bill. In addition, we will write to a selection of NHS boards to seek to clarify the options that are open to them in making available and promoting independent midwives, and to ask how boards are supporting people who would like to have an independent midwife as part of their prenatal care.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Broadcast Spectrum (Local Television) (PE1055)

PE1055, by Graeme Campbell, on behalf of media access projects Scotland—MAPS, for short—calls on Parliament to urge the Government to seek clarification on the ownership of electromagnetic broadcast spectrum in advance of the proposed spectrum packaging and award process, and to seek assurances that capacity will be reserved on the digital multiplexes to enable local and new Scottish television channels originating in Scotland to be broadcast to Scottish viewers receiving the public service broadcasting channels.

The Scottish Broadcasting Commission is now in situ and has been raising such issues. An event took place last week in Our Dynamic Earth on digital commitments, in order to keep people up to date on the issues. Furthermore, during the past month two or three questions on the issue have been asked in Parliament.

I would like the committee to remain aware of this petition, but I am conscious of the timeframe and wonder whether we should suspend consideration of it until we have received a report from the Scottish Broadcasting Commission. We can let the petitioner know that we are still pursuing the petition but wish to study the commission's deliberations.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Deep Vein Thrombosis (PE1056)

We have already heard oral evidence on PE1056, by Gordon, Jane and Steven McPherson, which calls on Parliament to urge the Government to introduce mandatory assessment tools relating to diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis. The petition also makes a range of recommendations on making people aware of the impact of DVT and of the early-warning signals.

We are still awaiting information from NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, which has reported to the chief medical officer. We might also want to wait until the responsible minister responds. I know that Nanette Milne has inquired into the issue.

I agree with the convener. I received an e-mail from the petitioner, which came with a relevant paper. I wonder whether we could send that on.

We have received a series of responses from the petitioner. The information will be among our documents.

I have received more information today.

If it is additional information, you should pass it to the clerk.

Thank you. The petitioner certainly thinks that it is relevant.

Do any members have recommendations on what we should do with the petition? We will certainly want the Government's view on how its new policies address the issues that are raised by the petitioners. We can certainly continue our dialogue with the petitioners on DVT.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Endometriosis (Research Funding) (PE1057)

PE1057, by Andrew Billson-Page, on behalf of the Save Our NHS Group, is on issues relating to the future of the national health service. Again, following the Kerr report, there have been various substantial discussions.

Sorry—my fault—I am misreading the petition. PE1057 is on the diagnosis of endometriosis, in light of the Kerr report recommendations. I apologise, but I had thought that the petition was about the NHS more generally.

What options for action do we wish to consider?

The diagnosis of endometriosis is a significant issue that has been rumbling away for a few years now. I can remember being approached about it when I first entered the Parliament five years ago. We should contact the Government to find out how it intends to increase awareness of the condition, how it is engaging with Endometriosis UK and whether it is encouraging the NHS to invest in further research projects. Quite a lot of work is on-going—I think that three research projects are on the go—but there is not a lot of awareness of the condition.

Nanette Milne's recommendation is worth while. We will pursue it with the Government to see what is happening.

---

Supermarket Developments (PE1058)

PE1058—I will try to get this one right—by Dr Samer Bagaeen, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the traffic, environmental and sustainability impact of large 24-hour supermarket developments on existing communities in designated town centres.

Do members have any comments on PE1058, which has been in the system for over a year?

Will this week's members' business debate on supermarkets cover those issues?

Yes.

The difficulty is that such planning issues are dealt with by the local authority, which in this case is Glasgow City Council. Personally, I think that such issues are dealt with at local level through quite an open process that allows individuals to raise concerns, so I would close the petition on that ground, but other members might feel that the petition raises broader issues.

I feel the same. There are plenty of local planning regulations to control such developments.

This is a big issue throughout the country, but I agree that planning law exists to deal with the matter.

We will close the petition on the ground that the issue is for councils to deal with. The nature of the issue is such that it is being ventilated at the appropriate level.

---

Debating Chamber <br />(Scottish Parliament Symbol) (PE1066)

Ironically—it is quite funny, given the subject matter—PE1066, by John M Thomson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the displaying of the current symbol of the Scottish Parliament in a prominent position in the debating chamber.

Do members have any views on the petition? We have raised the matter with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which deals with such issues. Personally, I would close the petition on that ground. The SPCB may want to address the issue, but I doubt that we can add anything more. Is it agreed that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1066 and all that is closed.

---

Scottish Prison Population (Catholics) (PE1073)

PE1073, by Tom Minogue, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate and establish the reasons for the apparently disproportionate number of Catholics in Scottish prisons.

Do members have any suggestions on how the committee should deal with the petition?

I do not have any difficulty with the suggestion that the committee should seek a written response from the Scottish Government, but we should first ask the right people about the issues that the petition raises. We have not done that so far. Given the nature of the petition, we should perhaps target some thinkers, academics and others who work in relevant areas of practice. I suggest that we write to organisations such as Sacro and the Association of Directors of Social Work, which I know has a criminal justice committee. We may even want to contact a selection of throughcare and aftercare social work teams, such as the one at Barlinnie prison. Various academics, such as Gill McIvor at the University of Stirling, who did a lot of work on the criminal justice system, and various ex-governors, such as Alex Spence, have done various bits and pieces of research, but I do not know whether they are still around. We should ask people who will give a bit more thought to the issue, rather than bureaucrats and civil servants.

I suggest that we also write to some of the judges who are making decisions. If the petition has validity, decisions are being made at the evidence and conviction stages. I do not know about the structure and who it would be best to deal with, but we should seek clarity on the issue. The petition has been in the system for a while, so I want to bottom it out over a reasonable period. Angela Constance has given helpful suggestions to try to get further clarity on the issue.

We also need to chase up the Scottish Government for a response. We cannot close the petition until we hear from the Government.

Are those suggestions agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Civic Forum (PE1082)

PE1082, by John Dowson, calls on the Parliament and the Government to undertake an urgent review of issues relating to the Scottish Civic Forum and the funding that was previously available to it, and to adhere to the principles of guidance on participation as published in the Scottish Parliament's participation handbook.

The petition has been in the system for a while. It is not a comfortable fact, but funding has been withdrawn from the Scottish Civic Forum and it does not seem likely that it will be restored. That is difficult for those who have been involved with the organisation, which did a lot of good work before the Parliament was established and in its early years. Do members have any views on how to deal with the petition?

I do not think that there is anything more that we can do.

The recommendation is that we formally close the petition. Is that agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Free Public Transport (Under-18s) (PE1107)

PE1107, by Robin Falconer, on behalf of Highland Youth Voice, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to reduce public transport fares for all under-18s in full-time education and to make provision for young people with no income to travel free or pay only half the adult fare. The petition has been in front of us before and there are still issues to be considered, although the idea of even more highlanders coming down to the fair city of Glasgow fills me with fear and trepidation.

If we get the highlanders back from the city of Glasgow we might do a bit better. There are too many of them there.

Glasgow would not cope without them.

I think that the petition is worth supporting.

Fair enough. Shall we write to the Scottish Government asking it to consider the issues again and to indicate what the timetable is for any review of the very good concessionary travel scheme that has been part of the transport network for the past three or four years?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Planning Inquiries (PE1112)

PE1112, by Robert Kay, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to clarify the circumstances in which the Scottish ministers would not accept the decisions of a local planning inquiry and public local inquiry, particularly in relation to housing developments on green-belt land, such as that at Cavalry park in Kilsyth.

The petition has been before us several times. As we discussed earlier, with the present planning law and the role for local authorities, the issues are best dealt with locally. Do members wish to propose any options for action?

The specific matter has been raised with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, so there is nothing more that we can do.

Shall we close the petition on those grounds?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Residential and Abstinence Treatment (PE1113)

PE1113, by Peter McCann, on behalf of Castle Craig hospital, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to increase the availability and provision of residential and abstinence treatment for those who are alcohol and/or drug dependent.

This is a good petition and there are still issues that we need to pursue. As elected members, we all have major challenges with individuals in our communities who have addiction issues and whose families are not able to access the necessary support. I think that only one addict in nine can access the support that is required to break a serious drug habit. None of us is immune to that issue, whether we represent Highland, urban or lowland Scotland.

Are committee members happy to seek further clarification from the responsible minister?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Child Care Strategy Review (PE1114)

PE1114, by Gillian Vance, on behalf of the Galloway Childcare Company, raises issues about the provision of adequate funding for child care services across all local authorities. Again, the petitioner is concerned about the impact of recent budget decisions by a local authority.

The Government is opening up its early years strategy to consultation—I think that ministers have formally announced that—so perhaps we can raise issues through that. Do members agree to keep the petition open, write to the responsible minister and invite the Scottish Government to make representations to the UK Government on issues surrounding the tax credit system and the assistance that it might offer the petitioner?

Members indicated agreement.

I thought that Angela Constance would say yes to that. We will raise issues about the overall support for child care in Scotland.

---

Transport Strategies (PE1115)

I welcome a couple of members with an interest in the last petition: Roseanna Cunningham and Richard Simpson. The petition is PE1115, by Caroline Moore, on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway-station Again—COBRA—which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that national and regional transport strategies consider and focus on public transport solutions, such as the reopening of Blackford railway station, which is identified as a priority action in the latest Tayside and central Scotland regional transport strategy, and in doing so to recognise the positive impacts that such a reopening could have on local transport opportunities.

Does Roseanna Cunningham or Richard Simpson wish to make a quick statement?

I have very much supported the campaign from the outset. I ought to declare an interest, as I am within the catchment area and would be able to use the train if it stopped at Blackford.

I will make some comments about the papers that I have seen. The committee asked for information from various organisations, and the responses raise some issues that lead me strongly to urge it not to close the petition yet.

There is a detailed response from COBRA itself, which raises many specific issues on the back of the information that the committee has received. Although COBRA is not too bothered with the response from the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership—tactran—there is a bit of a contradiction between what is in tactran's strategy and what it says in the letter about its commitment to the station's reopening.

Network Rail's response is disappointing, because there is indeed a suitable rail service that could be expanded from Dunblane back up the line to Blackford. There is no reason why the service could not start and stop at Blackford instead of starting and stopping at Dunblane, which would take an enormous amount of pressure off Dunblane.

The Scottish Executive timetables for a review seem to be inordinately long. Equally, I wonder about approaching ScotRail for its comments about the matter, because some of the issues about backing another train service up the line would impact on its workings.

At this stage, and given the response from COBRA, a number of questions still require to be explored.

I concur with Roseanna Cunningham's comments and will add a couple. There is enormous and growing pressure on parking at Dunblane. Indeed, I think that the committee is almost about to get a petition on it, because the situation is becoming so difficult. The car park at Bridge of Allan, which is the next station down the line, has already been extended significantly, but it is now completely full, so people are back to parking on the streets there. The knock-on effect of traffic not being accommodated further up the line is creating significant problems.

I have two other points to make. First, although COBRA is not keen to be seen as campaigning to have Gleneagles station closed, access is not available in both directions at that station, which means that disabled people have extreme difficulty. In one direction, people have to come from Perth station to assist them to get on the train; in the other direction, it is impossible. Considering the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the long-term future, Blackford station would accommodate access for disabled people.

Finally, although the timing is probably too tight, the Ryder cup will be an important aspect of our tourism in 2014. As the station already exists at Blackford, it would be possible to get on with any work quickly. Gleneagles station is unable at the moment to accommodate the numbers of people who are likely to come. As Roseanna Cunningham has said, an extended rail service could go up from Dunblane using either the Glasgow or Edinburgh trains—both trains already go to Dunblane—

Or the one that is just the Dunblane train.

Yes, or the one that is just the Dunblane train. There are possibilities and no massive problems with the line. A station at Blackford would fit in with the changes that will have to be made given the new Alloa line that is opening on Thursday.

I imagine that we will want to keep the petition live rather than close it—that is reassurance for Roseanna Cunningham and Richard Simpson. There are issues of substance in the documents, which both members have spoken strongly about. We will be happy to pursue those issues.

Do members have any other recommendations on how we could move forward?

We could pursue Roseanna Cunningham's suggestion and contact First ScotRail for its comments.

Okay. Are there any other comments?

The previous train service was stopped, because diesel cars and buses were preferred. These days, it is clear that diesel is not good for the public because of pollution. Rail services were suitable in the past, and they are still suitable now. I support the proposal in the petition.

Also, we will need to review the Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal. We can continue consideration of the petition, seek further information on the issues raised by members, and bring the petition back to the committee. Obviously, Roseanna Cunningham and Dr Richard Simpson will be notified in due course so that they can continue to contribute.