Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Official Report 379KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)

Agenda item 2 is our consideration of current petitions. The first current petition, by Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, is on the potential health hazards of high-voltage transmission lines.

The petition has had a good hearing and lots of evidence has been gathered. I think that we should close the petition as the Government has confirmed that, in light of the report of the Beauly to Denny power line inquiry and the conclusion of the technical assessor, it does not consider that a specific review of planning policies is necessary. Further, the petitioner has participated in the UK stakeholder advisory group and the Health Protection Agency has been asked to keep the issue of potential health impacts under review.

I find this a very difficult petition to make a final decision about. It has been on the go for quite a long time. John Wilson and I have sat around the table and heard many people—including some MSPs—speak in support of it. We have also heard changing evidence on the risks from the low-grade emissions. We get clear responses every time that there is no proven risk at this time, but the fact that the Health Protection Agency has been asked to keep the issue of potential health impacts under review is important and should be stressed if we close the petition. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the committee can do an awful lot more. We have gone over the same ground on a number of occasions.

Members of the previous Public Petitions Committee will know—the brief tells me this—that the petition has been considered on 16 previous occasions. It has been detailed and well-argued consideration.

Like Nanette Milne, I am reluctant to close the petition, but I think that the committee has taken it as far as we can. I agree with her comments about the consistent, updated evidence from various other countries in Europe on the hazards or health effects for residents and workers of being near electromagnetic fields. The Parliament must treat seriously that evidence and the actions that are being taken by other European countries and must recognise that the scientific evidence is changing. The other issue that the committee must be aware of is that the petition is linked to the mitigation measures that were supposed to be implemented in the Stirling area along with the Beauly to Denny line.

I am reluctant to close the petition, but until the Parliament has conclusive evidence that we need to review the current guidelines that have been adopted by the UK Government, we have no other option than to close the petition.

It is clear that the committee wants to close the petition under rule 15.7.2, in line with the points that Sandra White has identified and the points that are raised in the clerk’s note. I flag up the fact that the petitioner has participated in the UK stakeholder advisory group, so she has taken a positive and active role in the matter.

Is it agreed that we close the petition in the terms that I have identified?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to put PE1175 slightly further down the agenda? Claire Baker MSP is very keen to speak to that petition, but she is at another committee at present. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

NHS 24 (Free Calls from Mobile Phones) (PE1285)

The next petition is PE1285, from Caroline Mockford, calling for free calls from mobile phones to NHS 24. Members have a note from the clerk, PPC/S4/11/7/7. I invite comments from members.

I would like to continue the petition and seek updated information. We could write to the Scottish Government, asking how the NHS 24 call-back facility is being publicised and whether the feasibility of call-backs on the basis of texts is being investigated. We could also ask for an update from the Government once the University of Sheffield’s evaluation is available.

Is it agreed that we will keep the petition open and seek that further information from the Scottish Government and the University of Sheffield?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Child Sexual Exploitation (PE1393)

The next petition is PE1393, from Martin Crewe on behalf of Barnardo’s Scotland, on tackling child exploitation in Scotland. Members have a note—paper PPC/S4/11/7/8—by the clerk. I invite contributions from members.

At our previous meeting there was discussion about the role of local authorities in following the guidelines that are set out for tackling and preventing child sexual exploitation. I note that we have received one response from Glasgow City Council, which is already following good practice in that area. It is slightly concerning that the other local authorities to which we have written have not responded, particularly given the issues that have been raised about the role of local authorities. I suggest that we continue the petition and ask again for written evidence from the local authorities.

I also note that we have not received a formal response from the national health service. I think we should ask for one as well as contacting the health boards.

I agree with Neil Bibby.

The clerk has suggested that we could invite the Minister for Children and Young People to respond in an oral evidence session to points that have been raised by the petitioner. Do members agree to that and is it agreed that we continue the petition in the light of Neil Bibby’s comments?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Lochboisdale-Mallaig Ferry Service (Reintroduction) (PE1394)

I move quickly to our next petition, from Huw Francis, on the reintroduction of Lochboisdale to Mallaig ferry services. Members have a note by the clerk—PPC/S4/11/7/9. I invite views from members.

I suggest that although in the past we have referred ferry and transport inquiries to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee—as, I think, John Wilson mentioned two weeks ago—this case is slightly different because there is a practical suggestion from the petitioners on reorganisation of vessels, that the MV Isle of Arran could be used. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government about that good suggestion for reintroducing that route before we refer the petition to another committee, if we do that. Is it agreed that we will seek further information from the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Staffordshire Bull Terriers (PE1396)

The next petition is PE1396, from Ian Robb on behalf of Help for Abandoned Animals, Arbroath, on overbreeding and abandonment of Staffordshire bull terriers. Members have a note by the clerk, paper PPC/S4/11/7/10.

I think Graeme Dey wants to speak to the petition. With the permission of the committee, I will bring him in before I invite committee members to speak. Thank you for coming, Mr Dey. Do you wish to say anything?

I do not, particularly, but I thank you for giving me the opportunity. As you know, I am broadly supportive of the petition and I commend the respondents. I think there has been a fantastic and constructive response from a variety of sources.

Overbreeding of certain breeds of dogs is a problem about which I have had concerns since before I was elected as an MSP. I note that PE1396 deals with Staffordshire bull terriers; issues with greyhounds and whippets have been raised in the past by many dog charities. There is a real problem in that although the dogs need to be bred, a number are abandoned, put into homes and often, regrettably, have to be destroyed because people are not going to the homes but to breeders to access such breeds. The petition should be kept open and the clerk’s note makes some interesting points about seeking further evidence.

The petition predates my arrival on the committee. If we wrote to the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, as two of the organisations previously—

We did.

Okay. We should take the steps that have been highlighted by the clerk and continue the petition.

This has been a useful exercise because of the interesting information that we have received from various organisations. We should put the petitioner’s letter on the desk of the Scottish Government and ask it how it wishes to respond.

According to the clerk’s note, other information has come to light, for example the solutions that Angus Council is considering. It would be interesting to find out from the council what progress it is making with those initiatives and to consider whether they could be rolled out throughout Scotland. This will come down to how local authorities will progress the issue.

We received useful information from the National Dog Warden Association Scotland, which says that Clackmannanshire Council had a pilot up and running. We could write to it to find out how the pilot went and what the council’s conclusions are in relation to dealing with the issues identified by the petitioner.

Just to clarify, we will continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government asking for its views on the National Dog Warden Association’s suggestion regarding the introduction of a scheme to provide free or reduced cost neutering/spaying of dogs. We will also ask the Scottish Government how it will respond—or support others to respond—to the other six points that are made by the petitioner in the conclusion to his letter. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Mr Dey for coming along.

---

A92 Upgrade (PE1175)

The final petition is the one that I deferred earlier. Unfortunately Claire Baker does not appear to be able to attend the meeting. PE1175 is by Dr Robert Grant, on behalf of the Glenrothes Area Futures Group, and calls for upgrading of the A92. Members have the clerk’s note and the submissions.

I am not sure whether it is normal practice, but given that a local member wanted to speak to the petition today, would it be worth continuing the petition to allow that to happen?

I agree; I welcome input on petitions from local members. However, rather than defer the petition to a future meeting, there is action that we can take in the meantime. The petitioner has raised further points, which it would be useful to present to Transport Scotland. That would allow the petition to move forward. Hopefully, Claire Baker can contribute to the discussion once we have the information from Transport Scotland.

Mr Bibby, are you happy with John Wilson’s suggestion?

Yes—if there are things that we can do in the meantime.

I know that action has been taken, albeit that it has been patchy. I agree that we should listen to the local member.

The Glenrothes Area Futures Group has participated in the consultation process. Could we get an update from the group while we are waiting for Transport Scotland’s views?

Yes. That is in the note from the clerk. Claire Baker will have an opportunity to contribute when the petition comes back to the committee.

We will continue the petition and write to Transport Scotland to ask for its views on the points that have been raised by the petitioner in the letter of 7 November 2011, following the meeting with the Minister for Housing and Transport and officials. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their contributions.

Meeting closed at 15:09.