Accountant in Bankruptcy (PE1008)
Agenda item 1 is consideration of current petitions. Current petitions are those that have already been in front of the committee, and we have tried to explore some of the issues that the petitioners have raised. That is the purpose of this agenda item.
As the convener said, the committee has considered the petition on a number of occasions over the years. I do not see what else we can do to progress the petition. We have received clear information from the Accountant in Bankruptcy that the AIB has fully considered the issues that the petition raises. I do not see what locus the committee now has in any personal matter or grievance that the petitioner might wish to pursue, as that is not the role of the committee. Having said all that, therefore, I think that we should close the petition.
I completely agree with Bill Butler. Given that the Accountant in Bankruptcy has taken steps to address the issues that the petitioner has raised, and given that the petition has been open for three years, I would be quite happy to close the petition.
Okay, we will close the petition.
A92 Upgrade (PE1175)
PE1175, by Dr Robert Grant, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government immediately to improve and upgrade the A92 trunk road, particularly between Prestonhall roundabout and Balfarg junction, to reduce the number of hazards and accidents and to bring about improved benefits to the local and wider economy. The A92 will be familiar to many of those who are present, and particularly to the pupils who are on their way from Glenrothes. I invite comments from members on how we should deal with the petition.
There seems to be no disagreement among committee members on that. We will suspend the petition until we receive the full STAG report. The petition will be brought back to the committee in due course.
Perhaps we should suspend the petition, given that there has obviously been some sort of delay in progressing the works that were promised by Transport Scotland. We should wait until we see the effects of those works. In the meantime, we should suspend the petition.
I agree with Nanette Milne. We are still awaiting the Scottish transport appraisal guidance report, which will not be in the public domain until 31 March. At this juncture, it would be sensible to suspend the petition until the STAG report is received.
Ur Dùthchas (Land Tenure) (PE1297)
I apologise to Robin Harper for completely disagreeing with him. I do so not on his assertions of fact, which I take on their merits, but because I do not think that we have done the petition justice. Having read the papers as well as I can, I think that they contain a lot of assertion. When we are dealing with legal matters, assertion is only as good as its authority, and I have seen no authority.
I disagree with Nigel Don’s assertion that we have no authority in relation to dùthchas in title deeds. We have received a submission from Andy Wightman, who is regarded as one of the leading experts on land tenure in Scotland. Over the past 20 or 30 years, he has written many books on land tenure and related issues, and on who owns Scotland—the mosaic to which Nigel Don referred. In his submission, he indicates that, in effect, dùthchas title ceased to exist when feudal tenure was imposed on the mainland of Scotland.
I did not mention earlier that I have met Andy Wightman many times and that he is known to me. I respect him as one of the foremost authorities on land tenure in Scotland. Even if his assertions could be reasonably challenged, the one way to test them is in the courts and not by asking the Government to conduct an investigation. We should close the petition.
I agree that we should close the petition. If the petitioner wants to take the issue forward, the courts are the place to do so. We are considering many other more important petitions. I propose that we close it.
I sense that the broad view of members is that we should close the petition. I recommend that we close the petition on the grounds that we have discussed—I appreciate Nigel Don’s position, which is on the record. Is that okay?
PE1297, by Ranald Alasdair MacDonald of Keppoch, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate Scottish land ownership and tenure under the ur dùthchas, or native title, system of land tenure. Do members have any comments on the petition?
Obviously, as a former teacher of modern studies and history, I have a great deal of sympathy with the petitioner on the historical issues that he raises. However, the Government has clearly stated that recent changes in the law—the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, to name but two—make it unnecessary to investigate the issue, as the decisions have already been taken.
Myoclonic Dystonia (Care Standards) (PE1299)
PE1299, by Geraldine MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to set national standards of care for all myoclonic dystonia sufferers and to issue guidance to local authority social work and housing departments to ensure that they provide adapted service provisions and environmental adaptations to sufferers on the basis of a fair assessment of their condition.
Do other members have comments on the issues that we wish to explore?
I agree with what Nanette Milne said.
The relationship with local authorities in the assessment process is an issue, as are clinical standards, which Nanette Milne has touched on. We want to explore further with national health service boards throughout the country their implementation strategies for clinical standards and the training profile to increase GPs’ awareness of the condition. We should also explore the points that the Dystonia Society raised.
We should continue the petition. From what I have read, I think that we should still obtain responses about the range of provision that is made, whether that is about educating general practitioners to recognise such conditions or service provision through social work from local authorities. We should also explore further what is being done locally. I propose that we continue the petition.
I agree. The Dystonia Society raises significant questions, particularly about the correct diagnosis or misdiagnosis of patients and the lack of GPs who are specifically trained in neurological diseases. We should ask the Government the questions that Rhona Brankin mentioned.
Scottish Water (Executive Bonuses) (PE1300)
Members may have read reports in today’s papers that the chief executive of Scottish Water, Mr Richard Ackroyd, is voluntarily giving a quarter of his bonus to charity. I am 25 per cent impressed by that; I would be 100 per cent impressed if he gave all of his bonus to charity. These days, bankers are paid unacceptable bonuses for failure, and senior officials and chief executives are awarded performance-related bonuses. That is no longer acceptable to the public, who are absolutely right.
I will follow on from what Bill Butler said and give a similarly objective point of view. The situation seems bizarre. Scottish Water directors are receiving huge bonuses while Waterwatch Scotland, which is a very successful and hard-working group that looks after complaints by domestic and non-domestic water customers, finds that its very existence is threatened. That contrast is difficult to cope with. The petition should be continued.
PE1300, by Drew Cochrane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue a direction to Scottish Water under the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 to discontinue the practice of paying bonuses to its senior executives. I invite comments on the petition from members.
It is clear that the petition raises issues about the bonus culture in the public sector that are much wider than the issue of bonuses in Scottish Water. In light of recent newspaper articles about the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, the Scottish Government must be asked what it is doing to provide credible oversight of how public finances are being used and about how such bonuses can continue to be justified. The bonus culture was introduced in Scotland in 2002 under a previous Administration, but it is now up to the current Administration to review the arrangements and the terms and conditions that allow such bonuses to continue to be paid.
Judging from what members have said, we want to keep the petition open and raise those issues directly with the organisations concerned. In addition, we will seek views from the Government on some of the petitioner’s points.
Small-scale Redundancies (Government Support) (PE1265)
The recommendation is that we close the petition on those grounds. Is that agreed?
PE1265, by Matthew Goundry, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to deliver the same level of responsiveness and support to those individuals who are part of small-scale redundancy as is delivered to those who face large-scale redundancy.
I think that we should close the petition. Partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—provides support to all businesses and all employees, whether they face large-scale or small-scale redundancy. That support includes early intervention. The Scottish Government has responded to the questions that we posed about PACE support for subcontractors and agency workers. My feeling is that the committee has taken the petition as far as it can, but I will be interested to hear what other members think.
I support Bill Butler’s proposal that we close the petition, but I make the point that it is incumbent on employers who plan to make redundancies or even to adopt short-time working arrangements to advise the relevant unions and PACE as early as possible to ensure that there is early intervention. There are many workers who may lose out on early intervention because their employer deems it not relevant or necessary to involve PACE at an early stage. I make a plea for employers to give serious consideration to involving PACE as early as possible, to avoid redundancies or to look at how redundancy can be dealt with for the workers concerned.
Blood Donation (PE1274)
PE1274, by Andrew Danet, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a scheme to pay people each time they donate blood and to consider other measures to encourage more people to donate. As members are aware, Andrew Danet is one of the school students at Alness academy who spoke to us about blood donation when we were in Alness in September. Since then, we have had a chance to discuss the petition at a meeting in Edinburgh and to look at equivalent European schemes for encouraging blood donation. I think that we have also had a chance to discuss further with the petitioner the issues that he raised, which included, in addition to whether there should be a payment system, how we can encourage a more effective donation system. I invite comments from members.
It has been an important petition, and I congratulate the pupils at Alness academy on lodging it. As someone who used to be a teacher at Alness academy, I was delighted to come across the petition when I joined the committee.
I echo much of what Rhona Brankin said. I think that the petitioner has said that he is happy for the petition to be closed. He called for people to be paid each time they donate blood, but, as the convener said, that is not all that the petition was about. The petitioner was trying to raise awareness generally, and I think that he has done a tremendous job. He has looked into the matter pretty well. I enjoyed the live link-up that we had with Paris because I could tell all my friends about it, but also because it was interesting to speak to people over there. The petitioner has concentrated minds on how to increase the level of blood donation. He is happy for the petition to be closed in the knowledge that we have taken the matter forward and raised awareness where it needs to be raised. I am sure that the petitioner will continue to do that in some form, but I think that it is now right to close the petition.
Anne McLaughlin has already made the point that I wanted to make. I thought that it would be interesting for the people who are here this morning to know that we had a live videolink with France.
I will drop a letter to the petitioner on behalf of the committee. The petition is indicative of a young person who is keen on a particular issue and who wanted to see how he could test that issue in discussion with the Public Petitions Committee. I hope that, from that, he can see how he can try to influence other things in the future as well. We will formally close the petition.
School Visits (Funding) (PE1275)
PE1275, by Andrew Page, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that pupils at schools in remote areas such as the Highlands are not limited in or prevented from visiting educational, cultural or study events in the central belt or Lowlands, to demonstrate financial equity in meeting the costs of such visits, and to ensure that location does not limit the opportunity to have such experiences. Andrew Page is a pupil at Alness academy and he spoke to us when we were there in September. I invite members’ comments on how we should deal with the petition.
I am not sure that we need to take the petition further. I note that the petitioner is happy with the responses that we have had so far. The petition has flagged up a number of means of making it easier for pupils who live at a distance to have the equivalent of visits through things such as interactive and remote access and the schools intranet system, glow. Also, various exhibitions and galleries now tour Scotland, which makes it easier for pupils to access exhibitions. All in all, the petition flagged up an important issue, and steps are being taken to make it easier for pupils who live at a distance, such as those in Alness, to take an active part in what more centrally based pupils can do in person.
The petition has probably gone as far as it can, but, as someone who taught in the Highlands for a number of years, I recognise that it raises an important issue. It is not just an issue in the Highlands; it is also an issue in areas such as the one that we are visiting today. One of the biggest costs to schools is transport. I note that the Government has provided grants to the National Trust for Scotland for visits to Bannockburn, Culloden and Robert Burns’s birthplace but, to be honest, I think that people might wonder whether, if they had to provide grants to visit three places in Scotland, they would choose those places. Indeed, I am sure that many of us would have a discussion about that. The issue is serious. I realise that it is not customary for the committee to be political, so I choose my words carefully, but the cuts in education budgets mean that this will become more of a problem in future and will be something that schools and school pupils will need to watch very carefully.
I want to say something for the benefit of the school pupils who are here today. This is the second petition that we are considering today that was submitted by a school pupil. A lot of work goes on between our committee meetings. That is when most of the work goes on. We have had responses on the petition from the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the National Museums of Scotland, Our Dynamic Earth, the Scottish Government and the National Galleries of Scotland. When we say to school pupils and young people that we want them to submit petitions, it is important to note that such petitions are taken as seriously as every other petition that we consider. I just wanted to say that to encourage the pupils who are here this morning to think about submitting their own petitions.
The Scottish Parliament’s organisational body, which has the almost theological title of the corporate body, has announced that, from September, it will pilot a travel subsidy scheme for schools booked to visit the Parliament building. I know that, as part of their standard and higher grade education, many students right across the country are interested in the work of the Scottish Parliament as a devolved Administration. On behalf of the committee, I certainly welcome and encourage such a commitment, and I hope that we can get even more young people to visit the Parliament and see how it works for people and the country as a whole. With those comments, I close the petition.
School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
It seems to me that if we were to wake up tomorrow and find that all school buses had seat belts, signs and hazard lights and every driver knew that they were not allowed to overtake a stationary school bus and it had always been that way, we would say, “Yes, that’s very sensible—that’s obviously right. Why would we possibly want to go back to where we were before?” However, the difficulty that we, both Governments and all the people who are concerned about the situation have is in getting from where we are to where we want to go. We are talking about making a step change that has huge activation energy and a huge number of issues involved. The answer that we have been getting for years is that the problem is going into the “too difficult” folder because nobody really wants to grasp it.
Given that, after Nigel Don’s contribution over a year ago on 13 January 2009, we took a decision in principle to support the petitions, we are duty bound to continue with them until we get a satisfactory answer or come to the end.
Although we have been dealing with the petition, there are still some unresolved issues. There will always be pressure on public finances and we all face a difficult situation in the next few years, but choices will still be made by local councils and Government departments about what the priorities should be. The question that the petitioners are asking is whether school safety can be part of that equation rather than being assessed as something that is of minor importance. Whether it would cost a lot to implement I do not know, but you would not wish on anyone else consequences such as the emotional trauma presented to us by the families. It is about pulling people together to change perspectives. Sometimes a measure is put in place, and it suddenly becomes the new thing to do. Everybody says, “Fantastic, that’s a great thing to do,” and there is no longer a worry about whether the money can be found, as public will has built up to support the measure.
I intend to bring together the next two petitions, both of which relate to school bus safety. The first is PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, which calls on the Parliament to ensure that the fitting of seat belts in school buses is made mandatory and to look at the ways in which we can ensure through the best-value regime that children’s safety needs are given proper regard in school bus provision. PE1223, by Ron Beaty—who joins us in the public gallery—calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take appropriate action through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses to be used only when necessary when schoolchildren are on the bus and to make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.
I admire Mr Beaty’s tenacity in pursuing his petition and attending all the committee meetings—at the Parliament, in Fraserburgh and now here—at which it has been discussed.
I agree with Nanette Milne that we should keep the petitions open. It is three years since the Scottish Government published its report “School Transport: Survey of Good Practice”, which identified good practice in contracting and covered the use of seat belts, bus safety standards, contract monitoring and ensuring pupil safety through supervision and the use of closed-circuit television. Perhaps we could ask the Scottish Government what lessons have been learned from that and in what specific ways it has impacted on improving school bus safety. It is well worth pursuing the aspects that Nanette Milne and I have raised about the petitions.
The Scottish Government gives guidance on the matter to local authorities through a circular, but essentially, it leaves it up to local councils to make their decisions. At a time when budgets are dwindling, the danger is that things might get even looser than they are at present. It is a very important issue of which I have been aware through my involvement with education over the years in a rural area where school buses were used extensively. In my view, there were big questions about the quality of some of the bus companies that were getting the contracts.
Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (PE1154 and PE1210)
Indeed. I have not done philosophy. In fact, I did not do essays either—I stuck to numbers.
I entirely agree with Nigel Don. Additionally, we should ask the Government to submit a further response to the committee once it has published its response to the Scottish Law Commission’s report on succession. The Government should outline the impact on both petitions. I agree with Nigel Don’s suggestion that we suspend the petitions at the moment, as there is nothing that we can do until the Government has done that.
A number of issues emerge as we go along. I suggest that we simply suspend the petitions. The Government has now got its minds around succession law—or mind; I not know how many minds the Government has.
That is an essay question for philosophy intellectuals.
I recommend that we suspend the two petitions until we get the Scottish Law Commission report.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions