Official Report 216KB pdf
Hedgehogs (Relocation from Uist) (PE581)
Our first current petition is PE581 on the proposed cull of hedgehogs. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to enable the British Hedgehog Preservation Society to relocate, or at least complete a trial relocation of, hedgehogs that live on the islands of Uist to avoid the proposed cull. At its meeting on 25 March 2003, the previous Public Petitions Committee agreed to urge Scottish Natural Heritage and the BHPS to enter into further discussions with a view to reaching an agreement on the matter.
We should just leave the two parties to get on with it. They obviously have different views, but there is nothing that we can do to contribute to the resolution of their dilemma.
I would not have thought that there was. Do members agree with that?
We will close that petition.
Eating Disorders (Treatment) (PE609)
Petition PE609 calls on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to address, develop and fund the specialised treatment of eating disorders in Scotland. At its meeting on 10 December, the committee agreed to refer the petition to the Health Committee. That committee has responded:
It would be helpful if the committee could write to the Minister for Health and Community Care and invite him to comment on the view of the Scottish division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that it is extremely concerned about the lack of appropriate specialist services for patients with eating disorders and on whether the Executive has any plans to conduct further research in that area. We could also invite the minister to comment on the apparent lack of national data on patients diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Are members happy to do that? As we have the new information about Dr Millar's research, perhaps we should ask him for his views on the petition. That might help us to take matters forward.
We agreed at our meeting on 3 March that, because of our work load, it was difficult to schedule any inquiry. However, perhaps we could keep that option open in the light of further information. If we are told that the data do not exist and that no real provision has been made to address the problem, that would be quite serious and we would perhaps need to reconsider some form of investigation.
I know that we do not normally copy a petition to health boards throughout Scotland, but might it be worth doing that to draw to their attention the comments from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the fact that we would like to investigate the matter further, besides asking them whether they are aware of the situation.
We have an advantage over Linda Fabiani, who was not at our previous meeting, when we again discussed our work load. Members agreed then that the number of petitions that we are currently dealing with makes it impossible for us to hold an inquiry. We need to consider how we can take the petition forward without holding an inquiry. Does that help you in any way, Linda?
Yes. That makes things clearer. I was worried that the petition might disappear into the ether.
We do not want that to happen. Everyone agrees that there is merit in the petition, so we want to see how we can take it forward. As the Health Committee cannot deal with the petition at the moment, we will ask for comments from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and from Dr Millar to see whether we can get some information that will allow us to continue the petition.
So the petition will come back to us anyway.
Yes. Is everyone happy with that?
Falkirk Football Club (Promotion) (PE647)
Petition PE647 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the Scottish Premier League's decision to deny Falkirk Football Club promotion to the SPL. At its meeting on 25 June 2003, the committee noted that an appeal against the SPL's decision was to be heard the next day by the Scottish Football Association's appeals committee. We agreed to draw the appeals committee's attention to the existence of the petition and to the strength of feeling among the supporters of Falkirk FC and the wider community that the club represents.
I agree with that recommendation. On Sunday, I had occasion to be in Falkirk, where I saw Falkirk FC's wonderful new stadium. As I recall, part of the debate centred on the claim that the club did not have a nice new football ground. In actual fact, it has a spectacular-looking new facility. That destroys one of the arguments that was put up at the time.
One of the petition's supporters was Dennis Canavan, who is the member for Falkirk West. He contacted the committee yesterday to ask that the petition be sent to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. It will be useful to let Dennis Canavan know that we have agreed to do that.
I declare my interest as a director of Dundee United Football Club. However, I was not a director when the issue was considered by the Scottish Premier League.
Is everyone happy with that?
I can tell from the look on Linda Fabiani's face that she is not interested in football.
I beg your pardon. I think that wee Henrik is wonderful.
Are you referring to Enric Miralles?
Education (Anti-Semitism and Gender Inequality) (PE669)
Petition PE669 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate what practical steps are being taken to deal with anti-Semitism and to promote gender equality within schools. At its meeting on 10 December 2004, the committee agreed to seek the Executive's views on the issues that are raised in the petition. The Executive's response states that it is committed to equality of opportunity and to raising the levels of attainment of all our young people, regardless of their gender, race or religious beliefs. The Executive believes that schools must take a lead in promoting equality and in demonstrating that discrimination, prejudice and bigotry are unacceptable. The Executive has also provided details of a number of initiatives that are aimed at promoting equality and good race relations within schools.
The Executive has given a comprehensive response. Although I am sure that neither I nor any other committee member would like to suggest that we are complacent about the issues that were raised by the petitioner, the Executive's response shows that as much as can be done has been done. Although we might have to keep an eye on developments, it is fair to say at this stage that we have taken petition PE669 as far as we can.
Basically, that is what I was going to say.
It is incumbent on every parliamentarian to keep an eye on the issue. That said, PE669 raised an important point to which the Executive responded at some considerable length. On that basis, I suggest that we close the petition.
European Union Constitutional Treaty (PE673)
Petition PE673 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to hold a consultative referendum of the Scottish people on the finalised European Union constitutional treaty prior to ratification of the treaty by the Westminster Parliament. At its meeting of 12 November 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Finance and Public Services inviting him to expand on the comments that he made at a meeting of the European and External Relations Committee on 9 September 2003 that the Executive might wish to engage in some form of dialogue with the Scottish people to obtain views on the new EU constitution. The committee also requested the minister's view on the holding of a consultative referendum on the issue.
Given the change in the Spanish political situation, the treaty may well be about to get back on to the agenda. Should the EU constitution be resurrected, the Conservative party would want a referendum to be held. I am perfectly happy that PE673 is passed to the European and External Relations Committee for information. Nonetheless, as I said, I want to record the fact that, if the EU constitution raises its head yet again, the Conservatives think that a referendum should be held.
That is at UK and not Scottish level.
Notwithstanding.
I accept the convener's advice that we take no further action on the petition. We are where we are: we have to deal with the facts as we know them at this time and not how they might be. If the point that John Scott raised were to come up again we could address it at that time. In the meantime, we should close PE673 on the basis that was outlined by the convener.
And we will send PE673 to the European and External Relations Committee for information.
Motor Neurone Disease (PE674)
Petition PE674 calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider the funding of services for people who suffer from motor neurone disease. The context for the petition is the Scottish Motor Neurone Disease Association's "Manifesto for the Scottish Parliament". At its meeting on 26 November 2003, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Executive on the petition. In its response, the Executive stated:
Perhaps we should write to the petitioner to ask for their view of the response?
That is a good suggestion. Are members happy with the suggestion that we do not close PE674 until we receive the view of the petitioner?
Shop Workers (Safety) (PE677)
Petition PE677 calls on the Scottish Parliament to work in partnership with retailers, the police and local authorities to improve the safety of shop workers by promoting and resourcing safer shopping partnerships. At its meeting of 26 November 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive inviting its views on the petition. We also asked for an indication as to whether such partnerships were likely to address the problem of retail crime in the context of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.
I do not think that we can do anything further until we receive the steering group report at the end of March. I suggest that we respond once we have been able to take a look at it.
I would have thought that we would also want to see the outcome of the steering group's decisions.
We will want to see whether it makes any proposals on this important issue.
We will keep open PE677 until that time. We could also advise the Executive that that is what we intend to do. That would let the Executive know that the petition is not closed and ensure that we receive a reply.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Main Board) (PE680)
Petition PE680 calls on the Scottish Parliament to disband the Scottish Environment Protection Agency board and allow the agency to re-form its board without political interference. At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the committee agreed to invite SEPA to respond to the issues that were raised in the petition. In particular, we requested details of any progress that SEPA had made in implementing the various recommendations that arose out of the policy and management review that was conducted in 2003.
There is no question but that this has been a burning issue in Ayrshire. We might wish to invite the petitioner to respond to SEPA's good and detailed letter—I welcome the way in which it was put together. In fairness, before we close down PE680, we might wish to seek the petitioner's response.
Is everyone happy with that suggestion? There is a lot of information in the response and it would be useful to get the petitioner's take on it.
That is us for this morning. I thank everyone for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:54.
Previous
New Petitions