School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
There are 12 current petitions for consideration today. The first two will be considered together. They are PE1098, in the name of Lynn Merrifield, and PE1223, in the name of Ron Beaty, on school bus safety. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I refer members to an additional letter from Keith Brown, which gives an update on his original letter on the issue. It is a fairly positive letter—I will say no more than that. I invite comments from members.
I am delighted to see Mr Beaty here again. He has been at almost every meeting at which his petition has been discussed and he has taken a keen interest in it. The situation is a little difficult, because the petitions have been on the go for a long time. Although we have not quite reached stalemate, it sometimes feels like it. However, the letter from Keith Brown gives us a good handle that will allow us to keep the petitions going. He has a meeting on 15 December with the Minister for Local Government and Planning and the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages. It would be a good idea to wait for the outcome of that meeting and to ask for feedback on it.
I agree that we should continue the petition. My colleague Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP has written to the Secretary of State for Transport and received a response that sets out that the current legislation requires all coaches and minibuses that carry groups of children aged three to 15 on organised trips to be equipped with seat belts. That applies only to organised trips, so I am not sure whether it covers day-to-day school transport. However, Keith Brown’s response is encouraging.
As Nanette Milne said, the committee has been dealing with the two petitions for some time.
I thank Mr Wilson for raising that point. My own feeling was that the original letter was inappropriate and that the minister did not treat our committee with very much respect. Having said that, I believe in sinners who repent, and I think that the most recent letter was a big improvement. I should like to put that on record, as it is Christmas. We are now considering the next stages for the petition, on which we have heard strong recommendations from Nanette Milne and Mark McDonald.
I agree with John Wilson’s point about asking to see the action points from the meeting on 15 December.
Do members agreed to continue the petition in the light of the comments made by Nanette Milne, Mark McDonald, John Wilson and Neil Bibby?
Thank you all for your contributions.
A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)
PE1236 was lodged in the name of Jill Campbell. I ask members to note that she has had a change of name and is now Jill Fotheringham. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions, and paper 4 refers. There is also a note from Nigel Don, as well as a late submission from the petitioner. I ask committee members to be aware of the late submissions, because they are material to our discussions today.
I am aware that the petition has been before the committee, in more than one guise, for some time. The submission from the local member is helpful, because it shows that he is pursuing these matters locally, particularly with the local authorities. I also note that the petitioner has suggested a possible compromise solution in the form of a split-level junction, as opposed to a grade-separated junction. Perhaps we should contact the Scottish Government to see whether it might consider that solution, as it could be less costly than grade separation while still having the desired effect in terms of safety.
I agree with what Mark McDonald has said. I watched the programme that he mentioned. No one who saw it can be in any doubt that the junction is dangerous. The BBC person who made the programme was horrified by the junction when he was there. Nigel Don should go ahead with the suggested meeting with the councils and the north-east of Scotland transport partnership to see whether something else can be done, short of a grade-separated junction. Something certainly needs to be done, and quickly.
I do not know what the protocol is when a local member tells the committee that he or she is pursuing things. Should we ask Nigel Don to update us on the outcome of his discussions? That will obviously be germane to our consideration of the petition.
I will take some advice from the clerk on that.
Absolutely. To clarify, my point is that Mr Don is pursuing matters that are related to the petition, and if he has some success in his discussions that might affect our consideration of the petition, it would be helpful if we knew of it. I am sure that, as a former member of the committee, Mr Don will be more than happy to keep us posted on how he gets on.
Perhaps we could raise the proposed split-level junction, which you mentioned. Should the committee ask the relevant authorities about that?
Yes.
I presume that Aberdeenshire Council and Transport Scotland both have a role.
They are definitely the two bodies that we need to contact on the matter.
I propose that we seek specific advice on that issue from those two bodies. When we get their responses, we can make a decision about the petition. Do members agree?
Thank you for that.
Institutional Child Abuse (Victims’ Forum and Compensation) (PE1351)
PE1351, in the name of Chris Daly and Helen Holland, is on a time for all to be heard forum. Following our evidence session two weeks ago with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the ministers, the committee agreed to consider a further note by the clerk on what action we wish to take. That is in paper 5. I seek contributions from members.
I think that we all agree that it was an interesting session. There were some interesting answers and it raised a number of questions, also. We should continue the petition, particularly as Mr Wilson of the SHRC wrote to the convener—I think the letter came in on 5 December—urging the Government to take leadership on what we heard is going to happen, which will now be in January or February 2012. That is not far away.
My understanding from the SHRC witness at our previous meeting is that, although 2012 has been mentioned, we do not have a specific timescale, because there is an awful lot of work to be done first. I think that it was just a general comment that was made.
Convener, given your comment about the timescale and the fact that other things have to be done and put in place, I suggest that, when we write to the Scottish Government, we ask what its timetable is for progressing the issues that were raised in the Shaw commission report and the SHRC’s report in 2010. We can then consider at a future meeting the timetable that the Scottish Government has devised. We could also consider whether we should go back to the petitioners and possibly to Tom Shaw and the SHRC to find out whether the Government’s timetable is adequate and will deliver on what is being requested of the Government in relation to a time for all to be heard.
This is a very important subject. We should ask for a timetable for things being done as opposed to things being talked about.
I agree with the comments made previously. The timetable is important, and it is slightly disappointing that there appears to have been movement back the way on the timings for discussions on interaction. Because of the points that have been raised by the SHRC, we should ask the Scottish Government what it is prepared to do on interaction, and what remedies it proposes.
Is it therefore agreed that we will continue the petition in line with the option in paper 5 and with the comments that members have made?
Leisure and Cultural Facilities (Young People) (PE1369)
PE1369, in the name of Jodie McCoy, on behalf of South Ayrshire youth forum, is on the need to have regard to young people when considering changes to leisure and cultural facilities. Members have a note from the clerk.
I have read through the petition and the submissions again. I note that the Scottish Government has recently consulted on a bill on the rights of children and young people. I hope that the bill will take aspects of the petition on board, placing them in the wider context of children’s rights. The issue will be considered by the Scottish Government, so I think that we can close the petition.
Do members agree that we should close the petition?
Have we asked for the petitioner’s views on the Government response?
Yes.
That is fine.
Do members agree that we should close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has consulted on a bill on the rights of children and young people, which should allow the issues that are raised in the petition to be taken forward in the wider context of rights?
Wild Land (Protection) (PE1383)
PE1383, by Helen McDade, on behalf of the John Muir Trust, is on better protection for wild land. Members have a note from the clerk.
We should continue the petition, and we should consider it again once SNH’s mapping work has been concluded. I recently met Helen McDade, and I am given to understand that she was not originally able to make a presentation because the petition was part of a large batch towards the end of the previous session of Parliament. Because of that, I wonder whether we might invite the petitioner to speak to us and give us her views at a meeting once SNH has completed its work and we have its evidence.
I will have a discussion with the clerk about that.
I, too, have met the lady concerned. I am interested in the whole topic, because the protection of wild land is obviously an important thing in any country. We do not have much legislation in that regard in Scotland, so the petition should definitely be continued. We should seek more information from the John Muir Trust.
Is it agreed that we should follow option 1 in the clerk’s paper, which is to consider the petition again once SNH has completed phase 2 of its mapping work?
Helen McDade is in the public gallery, and I welcome her. We will ask the clerk to produce a note on oral evidence, and we will ensure that she is invited for the next meeting on this petition.
Coastguard Stations (Closure) (PE1389)
PE1389, in the name of David Macbeth, is on the adverse impact of coastguard station closures. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite comments from members.
Given that the Government has already taken the action that is requested in the petition and the petitioner has not responded to the committee on the two occasions on which he has been contacted, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7.
Is that agreed?
Orphan Diseases (Access to Therapy) (PE1398)
Pompe Disease (Access to Therapy) (PE1399)
Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria (Access to Therapy) (PE1401)
The next petitions are PE1398, in the name of Alastair Kent, on behalf of Rare Disease UK, on access to therapy for orphan diseases; PE1399, in the name of Allan Muir, on equitable access to therapy for Pompe disease; and PE1401, in the name of Lesley Loeliger, on behalf of PNH Scotland, and Professor Peter Hillmen, on behalf of the PNH Alliance, on access to therapy for paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I invite comments from members.
I think that we should keep the petitions open. The issue is complex, as we know, and there have been a number of submissions about it. We should look for more information from the Government, asking for its response to the points and requests that have been made by the petitioners in recent submissions. I would be interested to know how the new system of individual patient treatment requests—what used to be called exceptional prescribing—is going, as I get mixed reports about it. I know that orphan diseases are a slightly different issue, but I think that it ties in with the whole concept of drugs that are not generally available being given to patients.
I agree with Nanette Milne and bow to her expert medical knowledge. I also thank everyone we contacted for getting back to us. The health boards and Healthcare Improvement Scotland have been excellent at getting back to us. We do not always get that level of information and I would like to thank them for it.
I endorse that. Is the committee agreed that we will continue the petitions in line with option 1 in the clerk’s paper and Nanette Milne’s comments?
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Diagnosis and Treatment) (PE1402)
PE1402, in the name of Richard Jones, on behalf of Addressing the Balance, is on a strategy and policy for diagnosing and treating adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite comments from members.
I have had meetings with Addressing the Balance since the petition was lodged and we are currently in discussions about the potential to hold a reception in the Parliament, which we hope will help to inform elected members about the issues in the petition. I think that we should continue the petition. The petitioner has helpfully given us some guidance on asking the Scottish Government about the potential for a thematic review under the mental health strategy, and I think that we should pursue that.
Does the committee agree to Mark McDonald’s suggestions along with option 1 in the clerk’s paper?
Victims of Crime (Support and Assistance) (PE1403)
The final petition is PE1403, in the name of Peter Morris, on improving support and assistance to victims of crime and their families. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite comments from members.
When Mr Morris attended the committee to give evidence, he was in a foot cast and, sadly, subsequently had to lose the lower part of his leg as a result of the injuries that he sustained. Having been heavily involved in the process with Mr Morris, I think that we should put on record our best wishes to him as he tries to recover from that setback. He said to me and to the press that if he can make some positive changes, the loss of his leg will have been worth it.
Are members happy with that course of action?
I am advised that we have written to Mr Morris and have received a very positive note back from him, which is in the committee papers. I totally endorse Mark McDonald’s comments. Mr Morris lodged an excellent petition and has shown a lot of bravery in very difficult circumstances. Is it agreed that we will continue the petition in the terms suggested by Mark McDonald and the clerk’s note?
As this is our last meeting before Christmas and new year, I put on record my thanks to all members for their contributions, the clerks, the official report and our colleagues from broadcasting. I also thank all the petitioners. We have had a good session in the run-up to Christmas.
Previous
New Petitions