Public Petitions Committee, 16 Jun 2009

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Official Report 259KB pdf

---

New Petitions

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 11th meeting in 2009 of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee. This is our final meeting before the summer recess.

We have received no apologies. I think that one member is running late as a result of other parliamentary commitments, but he expects to be here soon.

I remind all committee members and all members of the public that all mobile phones and other electronic devices should be switched off.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of new petitions. We have five new petitions for consideration today. All supporting information has been provided to members of the committee.

---

Vitamin D Supplements (Guidance) (PE1259)

Petition PE1259, on which we will take evidence, is by young Ryan McLaughlin, whom I welcome. He is one of the youngest-ever petitioners to the Parliament; unfortunately, a wee boy in north-east Scotland who lodged a petition was six months younger than he is. He nearly had an accolade. The petition is part of a campaign that included a procession down the Royal Mile just over an hour ago.

The petition calls on Parliament to urge the Government to produce new guidelines on vitamin D supplementation for children and pregnant women, and to run an awareness campaign to ensure that people know the level of vitamin D supplement that they should take.

I also welcome to the meeting Alan McLaughlin, who is Ryan's father—he has been very supportive of the campaign—David McNiven, who is director of the Multiple Sclerosis Society Scotland, and Sreeram Ramagopalan from the university department of clinical neurology at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. I apologise for mispronouncing Sreeram's surname; people have been mispronouncing my surname all my life. I met the witnesses earlier, when the campaigners arrived at the Parliament. I welcome the campaigners in the public gallery.

I invite Ryan to speak to his petition.

I am here because my mum has multiple sclerosis and because I know about the devastating effects that that condition can have on individuals and families who live with it.

It is too late for my mum. We are waiting for a cure, but my shine on Scotland campaign aims to prevent hundreds and eventually thousands of people in Scotland from going through what we have had to experience over the past couple of years. It aims to help them.

Recent research on the genetic effects of vitamin D deficiency has shown a connection to the development of MS and has led many people to believe that vitamin D supplementation could help to prevent future cases of MS. The campaign's basic aim is to ensure that everyone, especially children and pregnant mothers, gets the amount of vitamin D that they need to stay healthy. We hope that that will reduce the number of new cases of MS.

We started the campaign because of MS, but we have been amazed by the amount of research and scientific evidence that is piling up that shows that vitamin D is crucial for general health and, potentially, in tackling a range of other common diseases, including cancer. We know that most people in Scotland are vitamin D deficient for a large part of the year. This is June, but we need only look out of the window to see that we are not getting much natural vitamin D today. The lack of vitamin D is clearly having an impact on the health of many Scots. However, the vitamin is safe and relatively cheap to supply. It would cost just a penny per child per day to ensure that every child in Scotland receives the vitamin D that they need.

There are guidelines at the moment, but the Scottish Parliament information centre's briefing points out that the awareness of the matter among professionals and the public is minimal. That is a disaster for our national health, although I am heartened that many thousands of individuals throughout Scotland, Britain and beyond have recognised that and supported my campaign.

I am also pleased to have received the support of many politicians already, as well as that of the MS Society Scotland and Revive MS Support. Running the campaign has been a fantastic experience, but I could not have got so far without the support that I have received from many people.

In summary, we do not believe that enough has been done to promote vitamin D, which is vital, and to ensure that everyone in Scotland knows about its health benefits and how to access the right amount of it. I hope that by putting the issue firmly on the political agenda, as we have been doing over the past few weeks and—crucially—today, politicians will now take action and I can go back to supporting my mum and pursuing my goal of becoming a doctor.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thanks very much, Ryan.

I want to say for the Official Report that Ryan's campaign, which has used social networking tools and involved young people, has been a remarkable achievement. We do not often receive petitions that have covered the whole range of ways of engaging with individuals. I do not say that lightly. Ryan has taken youngsters from the west end of Glasgow on his march, used YouTube and so on. That demonstrates what can be done to get a message across. His lodging a petition knowing that a massive challenge faces him and his family in coping with the impact of MS is a powerful message. I hope that we can, through our question-and-answer session and discussing what we can do with the petition, give him confidence that things can be more positive in the future for individuals and families who face what he is facing.

Ryan has opened the discussion, but any other individual at the top of the table can respond to members' questions. I invite Bill Butler, who is the constituency member, to ask a few questions before other committee members do so.

I record my admiration for the initiative, hard work, resourcefulness and commitment of Ryan McLaughlin and the McLaughlin family. I have had the pleasure of meeting them on a couple of occasions, and I support the petition unreservedly.

However, before we start to think about what we can do with the petition, I have a couple of questions. My first question is for Mr McNiven. You are the director of the MS Society Scotland. Do you regard the aims of the petition and vitamin D supplementation as positive additions to the ways in which we, as a society, can try to combat the sometimes devastating effects of multiple sclerosis?

Yes. MS Society Scotland is delighted to support the campaign. We also significantly part-funded the scientific study that came up with the findings that cause us to be here and that caused Ryan McLaughlin to pursue the campaign. Research has shown that there are significant benefits to be had from supplementation. Ram will be able to give you the technical details of the study, which we fully support.

We ask for your support for the campaign and suggest that anyone who is thinking about starting a regime of supplements should get advice from their general practitioner and/or their pharmacist in order to ensure that they take supplements safely. The benefits that people in various other countries derive from such supplements show that what the petition suggests is an excellent way forward.

Thank you. My second question is for Dr Ramagopalan. Mr McNiven says that you are able to provide the committee with the technical details of the study. Please do so. Were the results of the study absolutely conclusive, or is the process still in train? We have still to see published a study that has been commissioned by the Scottish Government.

The results of our study were conclusive. The study found what has been known for a long while—that there is a main genetic component to MS. There is a single gene that significantly increases the risk of a person's developing the disease. We have shown recently that that gene is under the control of vitamin D. That reinforces the role of vitamin D in preventing multiple sclerosis. We strongly believe—we have shown it in various studies and in our paper—that when a person is given adequate vitamin D, the gene performs to the normal level, while a deficiency of vitamin D leads to diseases such as MS.

That seems to be very clear. That was all I waned to ask. It seems that there is a good case behind the petition, and other members may have questions.

I have a couple of comments to make. I am similar to Alan McLaughlin, in that I have lived with a partner who suffers from MS for the past 25 years. I know the impact that MS can have on a family, and I know the issues that arise. I want to lay to rest the urban myth that my wife keeps telling me, which is that Scandinavian countries pay for some MS patients to go to the Mediterranean during the winter to get their dose of vitamin D in another way. As Ryan McLaughlin said, they do not get an adequate dosage of vitamin D naturally.

Mr McNiven mentioned some research that has been undertaken by the MS Society Scotland. The society's website also reveals that research in a number of countries throughout the world, especially in Scandinavia, has identified that vitamin D is beneficial for those who suffer from MS. The research in those countries says that vitamin D should be freely available to such people. Do you want vitamin D to be made available on prescription, or do you believe that it is up to individuals to purchase supplements?

We would seek evidence from researchers and take evidence from countries that have taken policy decisions on the matter.

As I am sure the committee realises, Scotland has, globally, the highest incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis. The disease impacts very much on the basis of latitude—the further north of the equator people are, the higher their likelihood of getting multiple sclerosis. We would advocate best practice from countries such as France and Israel, which have taken policy decisions to provide supplements for children and pregnant women.

We are told that in these northern climes the best time for getting one's ration of sunlight is between 11 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. That is when we get the most exposure to ultraviolet light. However, we have a tendency to have ever-shorter lunch breaks. In the early days of my teaching career, we took an hour for lunch or even an hour and a quarter. There was time for relaxation through school clubs. Businesses, too, in all our cities would see their employees flood out into the parks at lunch time. It seems that lunch times are becoming ever more restricted as a result of the misguided idea that it is somehow more efficient to keep people indoors at lunch time and to give them only half an hour's break. Is there room for reconsidering how we structure our lives and our working days in an attempt to give people more access to sunlight and all the other benefits—aside from vitamin D—of getting a proper lunch break?

I am sure that there are more benefits than just sunlight from people taking breaks at lunch time and participating in exercise, which improve people's lifestyles and hopefully prevent some illnesses. That is a health education initiative that the committee might want to support.

There are a few other things to think about in terms of climatology. A certain wavelength of ultraviolet light is required to convert active vitamin D in the skin. In Scotland, you do not necessarily get the right wavelength of UV because of cloud cover and a few other things. You would need to speak to a climatologist to get more advice about that up front.

Good afternoon, folks. The evidence that you have presented in your petition is pretty convincing and quite alarming. It is alarming because the benefits can be gained quite simply: it is a pity that more has not been done to promote the concept. How much research has the medical profession undertaken in support of the claims that you are making for vitamin D?

Vitamin D research has been going on for about 30 or 40 years—it has been a long process. We know how much a person can be given and how much it takes to provide benefits in terms of immune function. Its role in MS was hypothesised by the chief medical officer in England about 40 years ago. A lot of work has been done.

Very little, however, is happening in the medical profession at present.

Yes. The recommendations are dated—they date back to research from the 1950s and 1960s. Implementations were made in the 1960s and 1970s, but we now know a lot more. Ryan McLaughlin has brought the matter to the committee's attention to try to change the recommendations.

Our lifestyle in Scotland has changed over the past 30 or 40 years. We used to eat a lot more fish than we do these days—we typically had fish on Fridays and on a couple of other days in the week—and we all know that we can get vitamin D3 from fish. Also, working habits have changed as lifestyles have changed. As Robin Harper said, we do not get out for an hour-long lunch break any more, so our diet and eating habits have changed. Maybe 25 or 30 years ago, children also got a wee spoonful of cod liver oil every day, which is high in vitamin D. They no longer get that. If you were to try to give cod liver oil to kids today, the only thing you would see would be smoke from their training shoes. There is no way that kids today would take cod liver oil. We need to act.

I think that you have just unleashed personal memories of cod liver oil among the people in the room. You should have seen the looks on the faces of the crowd behind you in the public gallery. I am sure that my mother loved me as she held my mouth open and poured it in. John Farquhar Munro goes back a wee bit further than that.

Aye.

What Alan McLaughlin says is interesting, because some of the documents and papers that we have suggest that there is a high incidence of MS sufferers in the north-west Highlands; living in the west Highlands, I think that statistic is probably correct. However, local discussions on the subject always suggest that the fear is that the diet consists of too much fish, so you take your choice.

I think that Ram has drawn attention to a study in Norway that shows that people in the north, who eat an awful lot more fish than people in the south, have a lower incidence of MS.

That is right. It depends on the type of fish and the vitamin D content. Generally, people in Scotland do not eat as much fish as people in Norway, or as much of the right type of fish. That is why supplementation is the way forward.

When I was a child, I had a choice of cod liver oil and malt or straight cod liver oil—I must say that I preferred the latter, as I did not like the malt.

I, too, congratulate Ryan McLaughlin on his fantastic petition. He has done extremely well. I am awfully glad to hear that his voice has recovered from the march just before lunch time.

We have soundproofing in the building, but the noise came right through, so well done.

My first question is not directly relevant to the petition. We know the effects of vitamin D on the prevention of MS, but does it have an impact on people who are already suffering from the disease?

There is some minor evidence that vitamin D might help with the number of relapses that patients have. However, its role is more to do with prevention of the disease, rather than treatment.

The petition seeks clearer guidelines on supplements. Would the proposal have to go through the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline process?

I am not too aware of how policy changes are generated.

I cannot answer that, either, but it is a challenging question and I will find out the answer.

We will take up some of the issues with the health authorities.

I understand that the at-risk groups include people with darker skin, people who are housebound and people who are covered with more clothing. I have one question and one suggestion. My question is for Sreeram Ramagopalan, although I heard him being called "Ram".

It is easier.

Is there any evidence that countries where women are required to be covered with clothing when they are outside have a higher incidence of MS? I ask that just out of interest.

People need the genetic basis to give them MS. We have been showing the link between the genes and the environment. Unfortunately, Scotland has a high frequency of the gene that gives people MS as well as low levels of vitamin D. Places such as India and China do not have a high frequency of the gene, but Iran does, and the incidence there is rising substantially because people are covering up.

My suggestion is that, if there is to be a public awareness campaign, the Government should take note that people who are housebound and those with darker skin are at greater risk and it should find a way to get through to such people. In some cases, although not all, there could be a language barrier, so it will be important to provide the information in different languages.

I just want to say to Ryan McLaughlin that he has done a fantastic job. The campaign has caught people's imagination, even down to the outfits and the name, shine on Scotland. That is the key—to find something that gets people's attention. I know that, as you said, you had lots of help, but you have done an incredible job. I am not surprised that it has been carried out by another one of the clan McLaughlin—you even spell it the right way.

It is good to see some McLaughlins achieving well; others have darker pasts and become MSPs.

The petition is quite a modest proposal. This may be the wrong metaphor, but you are not asking for the moon. If guidelines are slightly out of kilter time-wise, they will need to be shifted. What issues would you like us to explore further on your behalf? How can we deal with the double whammy of the gene pool evidence and the lifestyle issues that have been touched on in answers so far? I am keen to get one or two suggestions from the witnesses of moves that could be made in the next 10 years. How can we improve policy or make stronger recommendations to address the evidence that we have received so far?

One problem that I have encountered while running the campaign is that in this country we have a slight tendency towards laziness. Last week, at MS Life, I questioned Professor George Ebers about the issue. It is probably a result of the lifestyles that we lead. We are all busy, are working longer hours and so on. Supplements will work initially, but in the long term people may forget to take them. If we try to get them into schools, teachers may say that they do not want to give kids supplement tablets.

One option that we may want to consider is fortifying of school milk. That would deal with the issues that the chief scientist and the chief medical officer have raised about calcium and vitamin D, and it would mean that we were attempting to protect the country and all children from various diseases. We cannot tackle everyone at the same time, but fortifying school milk would be one way of ensuring that every child in Scotland got protection. For kids who cannot take milk for medical reasons, we could add vitamin D to a fruit drink or provide fortified water of the sort that is available in the Parliament's cafe, as I am sure members are aware. Supplementation, via fortification of school milk, may be a way of preventing the disease and reducing the number of sufferers in the long term.

Can you suggest any other useful ways of moving the debate forward?

Alan McLaughlin has said what everyone in the field is thinking. It is a hard issue. People cannot change their genes, so lifestyle is the main point on which we need to focus. As members can see, people will not be able to get much sunlight, so we cannot recommend that they spend more time outdoors. We need to consider how best to provide supplementation.

Committee members have no further questions. Ryan McLaughlin has mobilised a very good campaign. Would you like to make a final comment on what youngsters who have been involved in the campaign hope to achieve at the end of it?

I am sure that everyone from my school enjoyed their little trip to Parliament. I had not been to Parliament before I became involved in the campaign, which has really drawn children into the political process. I have nothing further to say. You have all been nice and helpful to me at most points and everything has gone smoothly. I could not ask for anything more than the support that I have received today. It is a tribute to Scottish politics. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments. Today we published the report on our inquiry into the public petitions process, in which you and your family participated. Our aim is to ensure that the citizen's voice can be heard. There is understandable scepticism among the public about the role of the political process, but you have demonstrated the capacity to have your voice heard. I know that Bill Butler wishes to add something.

I will make a few suggestions, if that is okay. I would be fibbing if I said that I have been convinced by what the witnesses have said—I was convinced before they even spoke. What we have seen here today is not simply Ryan's initiative, determination and organisation, but that of the whole McLaughlin family—Alan, Darren and Kirsten, too. It is a co-operative effort from the family, and it is not just about them and their situation; it is about trying to push forward ideas that will be of benefit to all the citizens of Scotland.

I do not think that this is a tribute to Scottish politics, Ryan; it is a tribute to the citizens of Scotland. Your campaign has caught the public imagination, and rightly so. It is asking for things to be done that help the nation's health, that are not too difficult to do and that perhaps should have been done a long time ago.

In your evidence, you mentioned the sum of 1p per child per day. That is a very good political slogan. It would be a good investment—a great investment, in fact—in the health of the nation. I think that colleagues will agree to support the petition; I certainly think that we should support it. I believe that, as Dr Ramagopalan has said, the evidence is conclusive with regard to prevention. He said that help could be given with regard to the number of relapses, but the petition is really about prevention, and that is the main thing that we should be pushing for.

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask it whether it will produce new guidelines on vitamin D supplementation for children and for pregnant and breastfeeding women. We might have to ask "If not, why not?" but I hope that the Government will say yes. I hope that it will not refuse something as overwhelmingly logical as what the petition is seeking. We should also ask the Government if it will run an awareness campaign, which is another major part of the petition, to highlight the importance of vitamin D for everyone, especially those groups that are mentioned in the petition.

There are a few other things that we should ask. Will the Government provide free vitamin D supplements to all groups, and not just to those who are in receipt of benefits? How will it ensure that those who receive free vitamin supplements are aware of the benefits of taking them? That means an education programme to raise awareness and make people see that the supplements will be good for them. We could also include Alan McLaughlin's suggestion about finding a way to help people to take the daily dose. The idea of milk or fruit drinks for schoolchildren might be a way to go about it.

A further point to raise with the Government relates to a piece of NHS Health Scotland research that is due out this month. We should ask the Government what actions it will take in response to the recommendations of that research, which might tie in helpfully.

Those are just some suggestions. The shine on Scotland campaign has certainly made an impression on me, as I think it has on all the committee members and on everyone else who has heard about it or seen the effect it has had. Although it is not a sunny day today, perhaps we can come to a sunny conclusion.

I have the sense that we want to take the petition forward. Part of our purpose is to get evidence and information from all the various key agencies that would have an impact regarding the demand around this issue. We will take some further suggestions, and then we will come to a conclusion about where to take the petition next. There will be a chance to come back to the matter after the summer recess once the information that we seek has come in.

We could write to the Food Standards Agency Scotland and ask whether it would like to review the advice that it currently gives on vitamin D supplements. Does it have a view about adding vitamin D to foods? Milk, in particular, has been mentioned.

Are there any other suggestions from committee members? Nanette Milne referred to NICE, which is the organisation that assesses medications for the NHS, so perhaps we can ask it direct questions. We can also ask NHS Quality Improvement Scotland whether its work plan includes consideration of vitamin D.

Can I just add a couple of points? We realised that the political process can sometimes be a wee bit slow, so we tried to speed it up by ensuring that we contacted the relevant bodies. We met Dr Harry Burns, the chief medical officer for Scotland, and Dr Roma Armstrong, of the chief scientist office, who have more or less concluded that vitamin D supplementation is the way forward.

We also contacted the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which has produced a small report on vitamin D. We want SACN to push the case for vitamin D supplementation, because it would be the team to advise the Food Standards Agency Scotland on the route to take. I did not have much luck in trying to contact the chair of SACN because he was away on holiday, but I will ensure that I keep on his tail. We will obviously keep pushing the issue from our end, but the Scottish Government and Parliament have been fantastic in helping us. We believe that vitamin D supplementation is a good move.

Thank you.

Committee members have made constructive suggestions, and I thank all four of the witnesses for their participation and contribution—particularly Ryan McLaughlin, who has done incredibly well. We will now explore all the issues, Ryan, and consider the petition again at a later date. You will be notified of when the petition is due back in front of the committee. We believe—or hope—that we can make progress on the petition's modest demand. We hope that you will get the kind of response that you have received today for the other initiatives that you have undertaken and that that will make a difference for the future. I thank you all for your time and wish you good luck with the petition over the next few months.

---

Rosyth Bypass (PE1255)

The next new petition is PE1255, by Carol McKenzie, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commit to developing a Rosyth bypass to cope with any increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles diverted from using the Forth road bridge.

John Park has expressed an interest in the petition, so I invite him to comment on it.

Thank you, convener.

I have followed the issue closely and encouraged Carol McKenzie to lodge the petition. As someone who has lived and worked in the Rosyth area for a good number of years, I recognise that the road that is currently used—the A985—is very congested, particularly when HGV traffic is diverted from the Forth road bridge to the Kincardine bridge. The Scottish Executive considered a bypass in 1999 and subsequently, but I stress that there have been a number of developments in the area since then—for example, the reinstatement of the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service and Babcock's proposals to develop a container port on the west side of Rosyth, which would have huge implications for traffic going along the road there.

Having spoken to local residents, I believe that there is, without a shadow of doubt, 100 per cent support for the development of a Rosyth bypass. People recognise that the A985 is a heavily congested road that goes past three schools. Particularly in the winter months, it is very difficult for people to get around in their cars.

For people who walk to school or to the local shops, the air quality is extremely poor. The development of a bypass would have a hugely positive impact on the quality of life of the people who live in the area, particularly those who live around Rosyth, and I think that it would sit nicely with other developments, notably the new Forth crossing.

The petition has received a lot of support. I hope that the committee will consider entering into dialogue with Transport Scotland, the south east of Scotland transport partnership and some of the local groups, such as Rosyth community council, to find out more information. I know that the local community in Rosyth appreciates what the committee is doing to look into the petition, and I know that Carol McKenzie appreciates the time that MSPs will spend considering it.

You mentioned that schools are affected. Is it the case that schoolchildren are affected by the road and have to use the bridge?

Yes. The road goes past three schools. St John's school is set back from the road, but two primary schools—Camdean primary school and King's Road primary school—sit on either side of a junction on the main road. It is an industrial area, close to Rosyth dockyard and the former Lexmark factory. Walking to school along a road with lots of HGVs going past is a hair-raising experience for young children and their families.

Forgive me, but I do not know the area. Can you give me some clues about how long the proposed stretch of road would have to be?

How long?

Yes—of what length would it have to be?

It is proposed that it would be between 3 and 3.5km. The main spur takes traffic from the Pitreavie roundabout in Dunfermline down on to the M90 and on to the Forth road bridge. The new road would mean that the traffic would bypass not only Rosyth but the south of Dunfermline, which would have a knock-on effect on an area where there is quite a lot of development. There would be a knock-on effect for the local economy and small businesses.

I can understand why other roads, such as the Kincardine bypass and the new Kincardine crossing, were priorities in 1999 when the trunk road review was carried out, but recent and planned developments mean that a bypass is an investment that would have a huge impact not just on the quality of life in the Rosyth area but on the local economy.

You obviously have some kind of drawing of the proposed road. Do we have an estimate of the cost? How big a sum are we talking about?

Figures of £15 million and £17 million have been mentioned. I understand that the Scottish Government is doing some work on that. I obtained those figures from public records, just as the committee might do.

It is helpful to get an idea of the size and shape of the proposal.

I know the area a bit, but I would like to clarify what the bypass would do. Would it provide a clear run from the road north all the way to Kincardine?

At the moment, someone who is travelling south down the M90 towards the Forth road bridge and who wants to travel west has to go through a densely populated area of Rosyth. A bypass would allow them to come off the M90 south of Dunfermline and north of Rosyth and join the A985 further along, slightly to the west of Limekilns. That part of the road is heavily used, but it does not have any houses next to it. It bypasses the village of Crombie and the west Fife mining villages.

I note the proposal for a Transport Scotland route action plan for the area. In among many other mitigating actions, consideration may be given to a bypass. Have you any indication of the length of time that it will take Transport Scotland to present the plan?

I have had no indication that the route action plan will address the section of the A985 that we are discussing. I understand that work has been designated under the strategic transport projects review to the section beyond Rosyth—the stretch of road that goes past Valleyfield towards Kincardine, which is notorious for overtaking. The section about which I am most concerned—the stretch just north of the Forth road bridge—runs through a densely-populated area of Rosyth.

In any dialogue that the petitioners or local authorities have had with Government, have they heard that consideration will be given to the proposal in any review?

No, and that is part of the frustration for local residents, particularly given that the local authority and local politicians recognise a bypass as a priority. As I said, others are taking the lead. Babcock is in discussion with the Scottish Government on national planning framework 2, in which the Government has identified a container port at Rosyth as a priority. Obviously, any discussion on a container port would need to include discussion on access, given the increase in HGV traffic through Rosyth, particularly traffic from the east to the new port. Those coming from the west travel along the section of the A985 that goes past the west Fife villages. There is consensus that something has to be done. Part of the concern for local residents is that no one appears to be taking the lead.

Okay. We have had a number of similar petitions for areas around Scotland. We go through this process quite regularly. How do members wish to progress the petition?

As John Park outlined, given the proposed development at Rosyth docks and other work that is to take place, it is clear that a review of transport links into and around the area is needed. Having travelled on the road on a few occasions, I am extremely surprised that such a busy arterial road is still routed through an urban area. Traffic has to go past schools to reach the port.

We should write to Transport Scotland to ask what plans it has, if any, for the area. It might also be worth while to write to the Scottish Government. As John Park indicated, NPF2 gives a clear indication that development will take place in the area. It would be useful to discover whether consideration is being given to the impact of increased traffic into Rosyth and whether that can be addressed by the building of a bypass. That would divert traffic away from Rosyth, particularly the articulated lorries that travel the road on a regular basis. I am not certain of the frequency of those lorry journeys, but I am sure that the road is used heavily by HGVs. We should try to get those lorries off what is essentially an urban road and on to one that is more suited to that type of transport. That would avoid some of the issues that John Park raised, particularly that of articulated lorries passing three schools that are in a built-up area to the danger and possible detriment of the children there.

That is helpful.

I suggest that we follow up on the route action plan. We should ask when it will be published and whether it will include a proposal for a Rosyth bypass. If that is the case, I would like to know where that fits with the Government's priorities for its transport projects in the area.

There are two or three areas that we can explore that we hope will be beneficial to the petitioners, who will be kept fully appraised of our discussions today by the clerks. I thank John Park for his contribution on the petitioners' behalf.

---

Sports Facilities (Primary Schools) (PE1256)

PE1256, from Jack Ferrie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to provide additional targeted funding to ensure that all primary schools have access to appropriate all-weather sports facilities to encourage an active, healthy lifestyle from an early age. Do members have any comments on or questions about the petition?

I entirely support the principle of what is proposed. We must do our level best to facilitate a healthy, active lifestyle for our youngsters, as we would for the rest of the population. The petition's principal aim is good—I am sure that we all applaud it. We will run into the problem that the petition calls for targeted funding—we all know what answer we will get if we ask for that—but that should not prevent us from asking the Government for its view on the subject and encouraging it to see what it can do.

It may be worth our finding out whether a survey has been done of the facilities that our primary schools enjoy. I suspect that some have good facilities; others, such as St Machan's, have a muddy patch out the back that is far from satisfactory. I wonder whether there is any information on the issue. If there is, it may be worth our gathering it together.

I have no problem with the principle of ensuring that all our primary schools have a proper, usable, indoor area for dance, gymnastics and physical exercise, but I counsel a note of caution. It would not be particularly environmental to turn all our grass pitches into all-weather pitches. The first step in dealing with a field that

"becomes like a swamp and your trainers/boots etc sink into it"

is proper drainage. If that does not work, people may think in desperation of going for an all-weather pitch.

I agree with Nigel Don and Robin Harper. We all accept the principle that appropriate, dedicated sports facilities should be available to primary school boys and girls. We should write to the Scottish Government with a number of questions, to which we will know some of the answers. Will the Government provide additional funding to ensure that all primary schools have appropriate, dedicated sports facilities? Will the review of the school estate strategy result in all primary schools having access to such facilities? How does the lack of adequate all-weather sporting facilities support the Government's commitment to provide a lasting legacy from the 2014 Commonwealth games? I suggest that it does not. We could ask the Government what it intends to do about that.

Given that finance is tight and that it is more than likely that all-weather facilities will not be available everywhere, I would like to know what alternative measures the Government and sportscotland are putting in place to ensure that children get an adequate amount of exercise per week. The current target is two hours, but I would like it to be even higher than that.

I agree with Robin Harper's comments on all-weather facilities—we do not want to cover up grass. However, especially after the first petition that we dealt with this afternoon, it is important that we emphasise outdoor facilities. It would be good to have indoor facilities, too, but children need to play outdoors.

I think that members are supportive of exploring the issues that are raised in the petition. We have had three or four good suggestions about what we should find out. We will do that and bring back the petition for consideration in due course.

---

Court Reporters (PE1257)

PE1257, by Mark Hutchison, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that solicitors who are acting as court reporters and who knowingly supply false information to a sheriff are not immune from prosecution, and that their reports are amended to correct any inaccuracies before the court makes a decision. Do members have any comments?

I believe that the Scottish Government has commissioned research on the matter. We should ask the Scottish Government what concerns and reasons prompted it to initiate that research. We should also ask when the research will be concluded and what changes it will bring about that would address the petitioner's concerns. That is three questions to start off with.

I concur with Bill Butler, but we must be clear that there are two issues. On the face of it, the issue is whether a solicitor who does something wrong can be brought to law. We must accept that for a solicitor who is acting as an officer of the court, the answer will be no, for some very good reasons. However, the issue behind that is about ensuring that solicitors who are appointed as reporters to the court, or in any other capacity to do with children, are trained to understand and work with children. As a society, we have an increasing understanding of those issues, but I am not sure that most solicitors do. The classic example that was quoted to me by a solicitor who works in the field is that, when a young child is asked why they do something, they think that they are being told off, because that is what parents tend to do. One has to understand that a child's logic and language are different from an adult's. Lawyers who are appointed by the court and who do not understand that could—in the best faith, never mind anything else—come up with wrong answers.

The first issue is the one that is on the face of the petition, which is about working out whether such people can be dealt with through the legal system. The other issue, which is probably more important, lies behind that first one and is about whether the Government is taking steps to ensure that solicitors who are appointed by the courts are trained in what they are doing and not just in the law.

We should write to the Scottish Child Law Centre, which I am sure would be keen to give us advice. We should also write to the Community Law Advice Network and the Law Society of Scotland.

I have a general point. Given the absolute importance of court reports for children and families, it is important that people have confidence in the reporters. Therefore, it is important that we consider the issue properly and ensure that the people who write the reports are trained properly, so that we can have confidence in the evidence that they give.

We should also write to the Law Society of Scotland to ask for its view on the issues in, and objectives of, the petition.

When we write to the Scottish Government, we should ask how many complaints of such a nature have been made against solicitors who have acted as court reporters. If the petition arises from an isolated incident, we could deal with it as that, but it would be interesting to find out whether the Government has pulled together information on the issue or whether it regularly monitors the number of complaints that are made about the court process. I understand Nigel Don's comments about officers acting on behalf of the court system not being approached in relation to the advice that they give and not having legal action taken against them. However, if we discover that such situations arise frequently, a re-examination of the system must be done to ensure that court reporters or other court officials do not mislead the court in the evidence or reports that they provide for the court's consideration.

Would it be suitable for us to put similar questions to Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People?

That would be fine. A series of suggestions has been made.

The Scottish Child Law Centre and another organisation, whose name eludes me, deal specifically with children and legal matters. We should ask the experts for their views on the petition.

We will decipher all the suggestions that have been made. As always, we will follow the wisdom of the clerk in deciding what to do next.

---

Voluntary Sector Mental Health Services (Funding Framework) (PE1258)

The final new petition is PE1258, from John Dow, on behalf of the organisation known as TODAY—Together Overcoming Discrimination Against You and Me. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a fairer funding framework for all local, regional and national charities and organisations that support individuals with mental health issues and new guidance on the best value and procurement of support services. Members have before them material relating to the petition. A previous petition, PE1231, on the structure and funding of the voluntary sector, has been referred to the Local Government and Communities Committee. We can refer PE1258 or continue with it—I am in members' hands.

My instinct is to refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee, given that the actions that we would take if we kept the petition open might be duplication of what that committee is already doing. Rather than risk wasting resources, it would be appropriate for us to refer the petition.

I agree with Nanette Milne.

I understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that we refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee. However, mental health services used to be called the Cinderella services, and I would not like them to become an addendum. I would rather the petition had some independent status. We could ask the Scottish Association for Mental Health for its views on the petition. Many groups—social workers, for example—are involved in mental health. The petition is relevant to the Local Government and Communities Committee, but it also relates to health services, which fall within the remit of the Health and Sport Committee. I was pleased to see the petition, because it relates to mental health issues. I would like it to be given importance in its own right.

Are the two suggestions mutually exclusive? I accept totally the point that Marlyn Glen makes, but I do not want us to duplicate any work that may be under way.

John Wilson is a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee. Are you aware of that committee's timetable for dealing with PE1231?

I am.

Are you at liberty to disclose any of that information to us?

Yes, as long as I am not chastised by the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee for doing so.

He can be quite ferocious.

We have tied the petition into our inquiry into local authority procurement, which relates mainly to issues that arose from the "Panorama" report on home care. As other members have indicated, there are links between PE1231 and the petition that we are considering, which may be a useful addition. As Marlyn Glen suggested, we may want to write to the Scottish Association for Mental Health and one or two other organisations. However, I am not sure whether we can twin-track the petition by both referring it to the Local Government and Communities Committee and writing to organisations on the ground.

I know that in Lanarkshire contracts have been issued and voluntary sector organisations that have delivered services for a number of years have found that they have been undercut by other organisations or bodies.

The two petitions tie in, as there is a crossover of terms and conditions. However, as Marlyn Glen said, there are also specific issues about mental health service delivery, particularly with regard to contracts from NHS boards and other bodies.

To follow on from what John Wilson said, there is general concern that councils and people who procure services should consider the true value of the services, rather than simply the costs. That is an important distinction, particularly with mental health services.

I get the feeling that the committee would like to explore the issue a wee bit further. The summer recess is about to start, but if the timescale is adequate and we get reasonably swift responses, we could examine the responses soon after the recess and decide whether to refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee. Members are right in saying that there are three issues: one is about the nature of the services that are mentioned in the petition; the second is about the best way in which to provide those services; and the third is a wider issue about the resources that are available from local authorities to the third sector. We should hold on to the petition for now—so we are choosing the "OR" option in our briefing on the petition—with the intention of referring the petition to the relevant committee if it is still exploring the issues at that time.

We will have a brief comfort break.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—