Public Petitions Committee, 18 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Official Report 256KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Oil Depots (Public Health) (PE936)

Petition PE936, by Simon Brogan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the public health implications of siting oil depots in residential areas in light of the Buncefield oil depot explosion in December 2005.

At its meeting on 8 March 2006, the committee agreed to write to various bodies, await the outcome of the Buncefield major investigation board's deliberations, and seek further views from the petitioner. Since that time, the board has published a number of reports, including one on the design and operation of fuel storage sites. We have received various responses and now have the petitioner's comments on those responses and the inquiry reports. I seek members' views.

The relevant agencies will take time to consider the reports and to work out exactly what they need to do to improve safety at such storage facilities. We should write to all those bodies again and ask them for their views.

You are suggesting that we write to the Health and Safety Executive, Health Protection Scotland, the department in the Scottish Government that is responsible for safety issues and the site owners, BP, about the action that has been taken since the Buncefield incident. That would be a series of letters to find out about the current situation. Are there any other recommendations?

When we write to the Scottish Government, we should also ask about planning guidelines for such facilities.

Are members happy with those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Rural Schools (Funding) (PE937)

The next petition is PE937, by Mrs Catherine MacKinnon on behalf of Roy Bridge primary school. I was a wee bit worried when I saw the term "PCP funding" in relation to primary schools, but I misunderstood the meaning of the acronym—it means public-community partnership funding. The petitioner wants that to be investigated as an alternative to public-private partnership funding as a means of securing the long-term future of rural schools.

The Public Petitions Committee in the previous session of Parliament sought views on the petition from Highland Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, COSLA and the Scottish Executive and agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses. A response has been received from the petitioner and circulated to members. Do members have any thoughts on how to deal with the petition?

Some time ago, the Roy Bridge community petitioned or made suggestions to the Parliament about the fact that it wanted to build a new school under a PPP or private finance initiative, but that that was refused by Highland Council. However, the community now proposes a different strategy and hopes to get support for the new initiative. The community has already built facilities with private finance—a new school house, a library and a service point—and the petition is a follow-on from the community's proposals at that time. Roy Bridge is not in my patch, but in Fergus Ewing's, although I know the people concerned.

Are there any strong views on how we should deal with the petition?

Can we ask the Scottish Government to consider the issue? On the face of it, community partnerships sound like a good idea, but the issue may be more complex. A funding package and a strong funding body would need to be in place to deal with the maintenance and upkeep of the school, but it would be difficult for a community to come together and form such a body. However, the proposal is well worth a wee bit of further exploration.

Are there any other recommendations?

I do not know whether it is possible to do both, but we could also refer the petition to the Finance Committee, which is considering an inquiry into funding methods. If that committee considers those issues, it would be sensible for it to examine the model that is proposed in the petition, too.

If the Finance Committee is already doing that work, I am sure that it cannot complain.

I withdraw my suggestion and propose that we go with Claire Baker's. If the Finance Committee is doing that investigation, it would be better for it to deal with the petition.

The suggestion is that we close the petition, but refer its content and the concerns to a committee of the Parliament that has taken on a consideration of how public projects are funded. That will be part of the debate on the new Government's spending review, given one of the key commitments in the manifesto of the party that has formed the Administration.

I am informed by the clerk that we can close the petition, but that we should write to the petitioner to suggest the course of action that we think is more appropriate—that is, writing to the Finance Committee. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Will the petitioner be able to present further information to the Finance Committee?

Yes.

---

Family Law (PE944)

Petition PE944, on access rights for fathers, was submitted by Gary Strachan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government, first, to investigate why there is no presumption of equal access or residence for children with both parents after separation in Scots law; secondly, to investigate bias against fathers as equal parents in the Scottish court system; thirdly, to investigate why contact orders are not enforced; and fourthly, to investigate why parental responsibilities and rights are ignored by the medical, welfare and governmental institutions to the detriment of children.

Prior to this meeting, the committee sought views on the petition from the Executive. We invited the views of the petitioner on the response that was received. I invite members' views on what we should now do with the petition.

I am not sure what to do with it, but I have a lot of sympathy with some of the petitioner's responses, particularly regarding the enforcement of contact orders. There seems to be little doubt that some conscientious fathers in this country get a raw deal. I do not know where we take the matter from here, but there are questions to be asked of the Scottish Government.

There are also detailed questions to ask about interpretation. It would be worth writing to the law officers and the Government to establish what they think about what is contained in the existing guidance notes for sheriffs. Situations involving family break-up are sensitive, complex, emotional and difficult. The bullet points in the papers before us cover the questions that have been raised. I think that it would be reasonable to capture those points in a letter.

I agree. It is important that children have access to both parents. Sometimes, the establishment does not put the rights of the child before everything else. The child has the right of access to both parents, and we should examine ways to ensure that that is possible.

Do we agree with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ownerless Land (PE947)

Petition PE947, on ownerless land, comes from Diane Huddleston on behalf of Dornock Eastriggs Creca Initiative Development Enterprise. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide community groups with the right to take ownership of land when it is currently ownerless or has been abandoned by its owner or owners for seven years. The previous Public Petitions Committee sought views from the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer—an organisation or individual I had never heard of—Registers of Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Community Land Network and the Scottish Executive, and invited the views of the petitioner on the responses that were received.

Detailed responses have been received, and I invite members' views on how to proceed with the petition. Do members feel that we will get any further information by keeping the petition open? If not, should we close the petition, particularly given the potential access to resources through the Scottish land fund and the national lottery?

The committee has probably gone as far as it can go regarding responses. We should ensure that the responses that we have received have been given to the petitioner. It might be worth writing again to a number of those people who have written to us, asking them to clarify some issues and asking them to respond directly to the petitioner. The committee should close the petition.

Are we happy with that course of action?

I think that the land reform legislation gives communities rights to buy land where there is a specific interest to the community. Those rights should be considered.

Do we approve the recommendation to close the petition, given the information that we have received, but also to write to the QLTR and Registers of Scotland on a couple of points?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Plagiocephaly (PE960)

Petition PE960, on cranial abnormalities in babies, is from Claire McCready and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that cranial abnormalities of babies—members can read the proper names in the papers and pronounce them themselves—are properly recognised and treated by evaluating babies at birth and at six weeks; that appropriate advice is available to parents, including repositioning advice; and that cranial remoulding therapy is available free of charge from the NHS.

The previous committee sought views on the petition, noted the progress that had been made and agreed to ask the then Executive whether it intended to conduct further research into such cranial abnormalities. A response has now been received from the new Minister for Public Health, enclosing an evidence note on the topic of cranial helmets and bands for use in treatment. The note has been circulated to committee members. Further responses have also been received. Do members have a view on how to proceed?

I was slightly involved with the petitioners when they came to present their petition at the end of the previous parliamentary session. They put forward a very strong and coherent case that attention should be paid to the condition, although there is disagreement about whether it gets better spontaneously.

It might be worth approaching the Government to ask what it is going to do in response to the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland evidence note. The current Minister for Public Health commented in her letter that the evidence note would be forthcoming, so I would like to follow that up and find out how widely the NHS leaflet has been distributed. It would appear that it has not been widely distributed and that general practitioners and midwives do not really know about it. We need to do a little bit of follow-up work on the petition.

I agree.

It may fall within the remit of health visitors and midwives more than GPs, given that they visit mothers and babies and they can spot and deal with any problems. We might just have to get confirmation from the Government that the continuing professional development of those groups covers the subject and that the information is going out to them.

We have identified about six issues on which we would like further clarification, so we can write to the appropriate minister and ask for guidance on those.

I have just read Claire McCready's letter of 3 August, in which she suggests that the new leaflet is not being distributed to new parents, which is extremely worrying. It is all very well giving it to the health visitors and displaying it in health centres, but all new mums should be given such leaflets as a matter of course before they leave the hospital. They would then have at least some knowledge of the problem, which would help enormously.

---

Swimming Pools (Investment) (PE966)

I imagine that the contributions on PE966 will be relatively brief.

The petition was submitted by Robert Lambert, on behalf of the Glenrothes community action group, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the lack of investment in swimming pools in Scotland; what action is being taken to address the sportscotland report "The Ticking Time Bomb", which was published in 2000; and how the goal of increasing and maintaining the proportion of physically active people in Scotland is being met. Members will have noted that the petitioner is no longer the chair of the Glenrothes community action group but is still involved with the campaign through another body. The committee has received a letter, dated 7 September 2007, from the new chair of the action group, Alex Lawson.

The previous committee asked the previous Scottish Executive to respond to the concerns that were raised by Fife Council and sportscotland in response to the petition, and a response has been received from the Scottish Government and circulated to committee members. A further response from the petitioner has also been received and circulated. I invite members' comments on how best to proceed with the petition.

The petition has merit, although it acknowledges the huge challenges that are faced by central and local government in trying to maintain sport and swimming facilities in Fife and elsewhere. I am torn on what to do next with the petition. I am concerned that if we send it to the Health and Sport Committee, it might disappear in the amount of work that that committee is considering. I would like the petition to receive more focused attention, so I am leaning towards the option of sending it back to the Scottish Government. I acknowledge that the Government has already sent us a response, to which the petitioner has had an opportunity to respond, but I think that it would be worth sending the petition back again.

As swimming pools are a UK issue as well, it might be worth sending the petition to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I understand that there is an Olympics minister. It might be worth drawing it to her attention considering the overall infrastructure improvements.

The Glenrothes community action group has done a great deal in raising awareness of the situation of sports facilities particularly in Glenrothes but also Fife-wide. We have already had a discussion today about other sports facilities—football pitches in particular. What is clear, certainly from the sportscotland report and all the evidence that we receive, is that there has been chronic underfunding of sports facilities for many years. That is certainly the situation in Fife.

The petition has some way to go, so I do not think that we should close it. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government asking for further views, particularly in light of Alex Lawson's letter to us asking for the Government's opinion on social and community sports provision. We could also ask the Government whether it is going to consider a new sports bill for Scotland. Considering all that we have heard today, particularly about playing fields, I think that we could make some movement on developing more community involvement and asking local and national Government and quangos such as sportscotland to talk about what the real problems are and how those are going to be addressed. I do not think that any one body has all the answers. The state of our sports facilities is such that we need joined-up thinking about how we can develop and improve them for the future.

The petition raises very important issues and there is some way to go with it. We should keep it open and continue to explore the issues.

I agree with what Claire Baker and Tricia Marwick said, and I will make a suggestion. Can we join it up with PE1041, which we heard evidence on this morning? It deals with a similar issue of sports facilities, so it would be good to consider the petitions together.

That is sensible, as the petitions are asking fundamentally the same questions. Thank you for those contributions.

---

Jet-skis (PE978)

The next petition is PE978, from Diana Cairns, on behalf of Portobello community council, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider how best to restrict the use of jet-skis—a weekend activity that I regularly engage in—in the vicinity of public beaches, particularly in residential areas.

The previous committee sought views on the petition, and we sought further comments from the Scottish Government and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which have been received and circulated.

Do members have any questions, points or suggested courses of action?

There was a debate about the issue some time ago when it concerned the inland waters of Loch Lomond. Restrictions were imposed there.

I note that the petition comes from Portobello. Forth Ports has curtailed the activities of some of the machines on the Forth, but perhaps it is not enough. We should take more advice from the like of Forth Ports to find out whether there is anything that we or it can do to make the situation better and safer for people who use the beaches in other ways.

We should write to a number of people, including the local authority, in relation to its regulatory framework and community safety agenda. We should also write to Forth Ports and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, in relation to the discussions that might have been entered into with the Department for Transport.

I do not like jet-skis. I do not know whether that disqualifies me from making an observation on them, but I just want to say that these machines are immensely powerful and dangerous and have killed people and that, if someone was driving a motorcycle with that kind of power, they would be required to have a licence and to have passed a test.

I agree with the action that has been proposed. We particularly need to find out about enforcement. If there are existing powers, we should ask whether they are being used. Clearly, the petitioner does not think that they are.

Are we happy with those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (PE994)

The next petition, PE994, from Margaret McCabe, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, in relation to the statutory right of surviving children to part of a deceased's moveable estate.

The previous committee sought views on the petition from the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Child Law Centre and the Scottish Executive and invited the petitioner's comments on those responses.

The committee subsequently agreed to await the publication of the Scottish Law Commission's review of succession before deciding what further action to take in relation to the petition. The Law Commission published its discussion paper on succession on 16 August 2007.

Since the petition was last considered, the clerks and I have been in correspondence with Andrew McCabe, the petitioner's son. He wishes it to be noted that he objects to statements that were made at the committee's meeting of 15 November 2006, when the petition was originally considered, and which he considers to be factually inaccurate. In particular, Mr McCabe disputes that he was estranged from his father. We recognise that petitions might raise personal and emotive issues. It is not the intention of the committee to cause any person distress during our consideration of such petitions.

Do members have a view on how best to proceed with this petition?

I suggest that, in view of the Scottish Law Commission's paper on succession, we close consideration of the petition. It might be more appropriate for the petitioner to read the discussion paper and make her views known to the Scottish Law Commission.

Do we agree to follow that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Information Plaques (PE1012)

The final petition today, PE1012, from Frank Beattie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to adopt a nationally co-ordinated and funded scheme for marking people, events and places by erecting informative plaques at sites of local, regional, national or international importance. The previous committee agreed to seek views from a variety of organisations with responsibility in this field and to seek the views of the petitioner on those responses.

I am sure that we all have a list of things that we would like commemorated—Alex Harvey being born in the Gorbals would be one of mine. By and large, the responses are supportive of the petition, although issues are raised about planning permission, aesthetics and the sustainability of the scheme. Such issues are important—there is a wonderful statue in the Canongate of one of Scotland's great but forgotten poets, but for about six months there was no plaque to explain that this guy was Robert Fergusson. It took the intervention of two different agencies before it was possible to get a plaque there.

As I recall, the initial plaque had his name spelled wrong.

That may well be the case. There was a big stushie in Glasgow City Council about naming a building after Nye Bevan, but it ended up being spelt with Ernest Bevin's surname. There we go; that is spelling for you.

Do members have any views about what to do with the petition?

Why not get the views of the Scottish Government? That would be straightforward.

Are we happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Hopefully, we have not yet got any strong recommendations on who we want to commemorate.

I have a little list already.

Aberdeen has already got quite a lot of plaques for various people. If there ends up being a sort of corporate Scottish image for plaques, it will cost councils a lot of money to change what they have up already.

We have to ensure that we do not make any such scheme too bureaucratic. People like to put plaques up to people and we do not want to have a situation in which a plaque has to be a certain size and have a certain content. However, there probably needs to be some information about how to go about getting a plaque and who should pay for it.

I thank committee members for their forbearance this afternoon. It was a good session.

Meeting closed at 16:15.