Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Official Report 271KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

We are delaying consideration of the other petition under item 2 until we have the petitioners in front of us, so we move to item 3, which is consideration of current petitions, many of which we have dealt with at previous meetings.

I do not know whether this is a commendation for PE504, but it says in the papers that it is the oldest petition in the system. It has been in the system for so long—more than seven years—that perhaps it is getting a telegram from the Queen. PE504 is from Mr and Mrs Watson, who call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers in Scotland from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.

The petition has been before us a number of times, but the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Home Office have been discussing practical issues, and those discussions—tortuous as they may seem to us—are on-going. Given that information and the need for continued dialogue, I am open to suggestions about how we should deal with the petition.

A consultation paper on defamation is being worked on and has not yet been published, so perhaps we should suspend further consideration of the petition for five or six months.

Are there any other suggestions?

Will the consultation be complete in six months?

It should be completed by then. We also await the outcome of the Coroners and Justice Bill—there will be a legislative consent motion on that in Parliament on Thursday.

The issue is serious. We are talking about families who have suffered the indignity of seeing the individuals who have carried out those acts publishing their stories in newspapers and so on. We need to pursue the issue, even if that means delaying the petition for six months in order to get the information that is required. Hopefully, clarity from the Home Office will assist the cabinet secretary in legislating here.

After we have the outcomes that we are awaiting, we could ask the cabinet secretary to meet the petitioners so that he can bring them up to speed with what is happening.

I am happy to do that. I thank members for their patience on the petition. I apologise to the petitioners that it has taken so long for some reasonable progress to be made.

---

High-voltage Transmission Lines<br />(Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)

PE812, from Caroline Paterson, on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.

Dr Richard Simpson is one of the members who cover the area and he has spoken in support of the petition on a number of occasions. I presume that that is why he is here this afternoon.

The inquiry reporters have submitted their report to the Government and we await its response. Ministers have said that they will respond by the end of the year. Since the public inquiry concluded, however, information continues to be gathered. The problem is to decide at what point to draw a line. There can be no doubt that we need the power line in the interests of Scotland's renewables, but we also need to be sure that there is no health hazard associated with it. That is my particular interest.

I draw the committee's attention to my parliamentary question S3W-23891, to which I have not yet received a reply, which mentions that

"proposed legislation in Germany and Austria could result in the undergrounding of up to 250 kilometres of 400kV power lines in Lower Saxony and Thuringen in Germany".

The proposed legislation covers power lines that pass within 200m of single homes and 400m of residential areas. My question also mentions

"the decision last year to underground 60 kilometres of the interconnector between France and Spain"

and

"the decision to remove 52 pylons"

in the area of the Olympic games in London. I presume that that decision was made partly because of the logistics, but it is interesting that the lines are to be undergrounded. There is evidence that the move towards undergrounding throughout Europe is gathering pace, and the costs are coming down. When the original submissions were made, the cost of undergrounding was about 10 times the cost of overhead lines, but it has now come down to three to five times that cost.

There is increasing health evidence, a growing political response, and a reduction in the costs. I hope that the committee will take those three new factors into account and keep the petition open until the Government's response to the report is published.

There is a further factor, which is not unassociated with the others. On 2 April 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for a review of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection limit, which is currently 100µT, because of the increasing weight of evidence on health matters.

Finally, I remind the committee that there are two declarations on the use of the precautionary principle in health matters. One is the Rio declaration of 1992, but perhaps more important in the context of the petition is the Maastricht treaty of 1992, which says that when health evidence begins to emerge, even if it has not reached a point where its evidential power is absolute, the precautionary principle should be applied. I believe that that applies to the application to put overhead power lines through part of my constituency.

Thank you. Similar arguments are made in the extensive written statement that we received from Christopher Harvie, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife. It supports the petition, stating that the precautionary principle should be applied and that we should not

"create an expensive, long-term health hazard that future generations may rightfully blame us for."

Do members have any observations or comments on the petition?

I certainly do not think that we should be closing the petition, but I also do not think that we can do much more until we get the Government's response at the end of the year. In the meantime, it would be appropriate to write to the Government to outline the concerns that Dr Simpson has raised this afternoon and to ask it to consider the emerging facts. It might also be worth writing to the Health Protection Agency for the same reason.

The evidence that Dr Simpson and Professor Harvie gave us makes it quite clear that things have changed since the inquiry was first established and that the precautionary principle must be taken on board when we are considering this issue. As Nanette Milne has indicated, we should write to the Government to seek a clear and unambiguous response on how the inquiry will consider the information that is now coming out, particularly the European Union's decision to call for a review of the current guidelines.

We need to be clear about the fact that an inquiry's report should not make a recommendation that is based on outdated information. The review must take account of the latest developments and information that has been produced by the scientific community. It would be pointless to produce a report that is based on information that is two years out of date. We should ask the Government what consideration it will give to the latest information that is coming out of Europe and elsewhere.

The recommendation is to keep the petition open and pursue some issues, including the ones that have just been raised by John Wilson, with the Government and other agencies. Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Hopefully, that will reassure your constituents, Dr Simpson.

---

Village and Community Halls (PE1070)

PE1070, from Sandra Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to recognise the importance of village and community halls in rural Scotland, and to consider the associated issues to do with funding and the regulatory framework.

The petition has been before the committee on a number of previous occasions, and we have given the issues fairly substantial consideration and have tried to progress them. Do members have suggestions about what to do with the petition at this point?

I think that there has been satisfactory progress on the petition. The petitioners have been very much involved in the process. At this point, we could quite comfortably close the petition, and I understand that the petitioner would be content for that to happen.

I agree that we should close the petition, but we should note that the Scottish Government's decisions on the rural development programme and its policy of continuing to exempt such halls from paying water charges until 2014 have been useful with regard to retaining as much of the rural provision of such services as possible. The Government has been actively working in the background, which has led us to the position in which we can close the petition.

I agree with John Wilson. I am content with the Government's decision to delay any consideration of water charges for such halls until 2014, which means that it can be an issue in the next election.

As John Wilson knows, I always welcome intelligent and thoughtful decisions that are made by the Scottish Government.

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Education Maintenance Allowance (PE1079)

PE1079, from Laura Long, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the eligibility conditions for the educational maintenance allowance programme to take account of the number of children in a household between the ages of 16 and 19 who are in full-time education.

I believe that the issue that the petition deals with was subject to an announcement in Parliament in the past few weeks. Members have before them copies of a letter to Fergus Cochrane from the Scottish Government's education department, which gives an update on actions that the Government has taken with regard to the EMA.

As you would expect from a clerk who is inundated by petitions, Fergus Cochrane suggests that that letter is a sufficient response and that the petition might have run its course. Do members have any views?

The letter that I have before me is dated 31 March. Is that the letter that you are talking about?

No, it is the one that is dated 15 May.

Oh, here it is. Thanks. Yes, in that case, I agree that we should close the petition, as it looks like the matter has been addressed.

Do members agree with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

That is a wee victory for the clerk, for a change.

---

Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)

PE1089, from Morag Parnell, on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network in Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate links between exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and the workplace and rising incidences of cancer and other chronic illnesses.

Are there any comments from members?

I understand that a meeting took place last week but that we have not received any report about it. We should continue the petition and await such an update.

Are there any other suggestions? I think that there are a few questions that we might want to pursue.

I believe that American manufacturers have decided to remove bisphenol A from babies' bottles. We should ask whether the Food Standards Agency will review its own advice about the levels of BPA.

It might be worth asking the Food Standards Agency what advice it will be issuing regarding the recent reports about toxins leaching into water that people keep in bottles in their cars.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and pursue those points?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Wind Farm Developments (PE1095)

PE1095, from Sybil Simpson, on behalf of the save your regional parks campaign, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide greater protection for the national regional parks of Scotland from industrialisation, including wind farms and their associated quarries, roads, cable trenches and substations.

Are there any comments from members?

It would be worth asking the Government whether it agrees that the Sandford principle, which should cover this issue, was properly embedded in the original legislation. I was assured that the Sandford principle—in other words, the principle that the environment should prevail when there are contradictory pressures on the environment of a park—was implicit in the legislation.

There are issues around the planning system as well. We should ask Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency whether they think that planning policies are adequate to protect the purpose and status of regional parks.

In addition to Nanette Milne's suggestion, we could ask SNH and SEPA whether they continue to support a blanket ban on industrialisation in regional parks. It might be useful to get their viewpoint on that issue, given the major quarrying works that have taken place in some national parks down south. It is difficult to understand why quarrying or other works should be allowed in regional parks that have been designated as such specifically to protect the natural heritage.

We will take on board those comments from committee members and we will continue the petition. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

PE1105, from Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland hospice, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to guarantee the retention of continuing care provision for patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care, such as that provided at the 30-bed unit at the hospice, and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care provision at hospices in the context of Health Department letter HDL(2003)18 are fair and reasonable.

We have considered the petition on at least two occasions since we heard directly from the petitioners. The issue has attracted considerable interest from the local MSPs, including Des McNulty, who cannot make it to today's meeting, and Gil Paterson, who has also been supportive of the petition.

Does Gil Paterson want to make an opening statement on the petition? As always from now on, I should say that statements on this petition should not go on for more than two minutes.

Why do you say that?

I say that due to the previous experience.

It was not me. I will try my best to be brief, but the issue is quite complex.

I refer members to the letter of 16 March 2009 that the convener received from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. Let me quickly read out a paragraph that sums up the issue:

"Turning to the funding arrangements currently in place for the provision of palliative care, as currently outlined in HDL (2003) 18, I have indicated previously that this remains a matter for discussion through the Scottish Hospices Forum".

Following a meeting of the forum, the forum has basically said to St Margaret's, "You're on your own." That is not a good answer for St Margaret's because of the disparity that exists between St Margaret's and other hospices—the funding arrangements are out of kilter. In my view, it would be helpful if the committee supported the concept of the cabinet secretary having a meeting with people from St Margaret's to address the issue. If the forum cannot deal with the issue, someone else should, so the next port of call is probably the cabinet secretary.

Another aspect that members will be aware of is the stay of execution that has been obtained for the 30 beds. St Margaret's is trying to have a meeting with the health board to discuss matters further, but the board is still of the opinion that St Margaret's should go to a place to which it cannot go because of the articles by which it was set up. A cross-party group of MSPs had arranged a meeting on the issue with the cabinet secretary but, unfortunately, that arrangement had to be stood down because of the swine flu outbreak. We certainly hope that our meeting will still take place. However, let me emphasise that, although word has gone out that St Margaret's in some way does not want to engage, St Margaret's is continually requesting to engage with the health board on the issues. Frankly, the sooner that happens, the better. Again, I think that the committee could be helpful in arranging that meeting, which St Margaret's has been looking for.

Do committee members have any observations or comments?

I have previously mentioned NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's behaviour with regard to meeting representatives of St Margaret's and, given what Gil Paterson has said, the points that I made then still seem to be relevant. If the health board is making it difficult for the hospice to meet and discuss its future, it is incumbent on the committee to write to the cabinet secretary to express its concern at the board's reluctance to have a meeting and to ask her to write to the health board, asking the chief executive and chair of the board to arrange a meeting as soon as possible and allow the issue to move forward. After all, if we cannot secure even a meeting between St Margaret's and the health board, we are failing everyone.

We can take that suggestion on.

I agree with John Wilson. Instead of expressing our difficulty in understanding the health board's reasons for not meeting St Margaret's, we should perhaps express our failure to do so, and ask the health board to explain its reasons.

We have given the health board a fair opportunity to be much more open and transparent. It is not as if it has had a great track record in that respect over the past few years, particularly given that in more than a fair share of petitions petitioners have consistently highlighted the board's approach to engagement and the provision of information.

The core suggestion is that we encourage the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to engage directly with the health board and the hospice on the issue, and with the health board on opening up dialogue with the hospice. We will therefore keep the petition open as we follow those actions.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Cancer Treatment (Cetuximab) (PE1108)

PE1108, from Tina McGeever, on behalf of Mike Gray, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider the provision on the national health service of cancer treatment drugs, in particular cetuximab, to ensure equity across NHS boards on the appropriateness, effectiveness and availability of such treatments.

I welcome Tina McGeever to the meeting. Ms McGeever has not only attended the meetings at which her own petition has been considered but been a regular attendee in general and, when asked for her comments, has been very supportive of the committee's work. I appreciate that. She has also made a very positive contribution to the moving stories exhibition, which was opened by the Presiding Officer. In fact, the Presiding Officer, who I know is interested in the public petitions process, has also joined us this afternoon. I want to recognise Tina McGeever's work in highlighting the accountability that the Parliament should have to its citizens—including herself and Mike, who is no longer with us—and its duty to secure better responses to issues of concern.

As members will see, Tina McGeever has raised a number of specific questions that she feels still need to be pursued in relation to the committee report that was debated in the chamber a number of months ago. I believe that we should keep the petition open, but the question is how we pursue certain relevant matters. Do members have any comments?

We really need to find out how—and, indeed, whether—things have moved on since the petition first came before the committee. I know that we put a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing at a previous meeting but, after a quick glance at Tina McGeever's list, I suggest that her questions are all very relevant and that perhaps we should simply seek the Government's response to them in toto. After all, time moves on. It is not good enough for the process still to be patchy, and we have to push ahead the issue as quickly as we can.

Are members happy to pursue the questions that Tina McGeever has submitted and issues raised in the responses that we have received?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open and, I hope, get some satisfactory answers to those questions.

Given that it is always helpful for elected members to be in the Presiding Officer's good books, I will, with members' permission, move to PE1180, which I believe he wishes to speak to.

That is an extremely kind offer, convener.

Obviously I am looking after my own interest. Perhaps you will remember me the next time I am looking for a question.

I saw through that one straight away.

I am a Glaswegian with noble intent, if you can believe me.

I understand that you were about to have a break. I would be very happy for the committee to do so for the simple reason that Mr and Mrs Wallace, who submitted the petition and were hoping to attend the meeting, have not yet made it here.

As always, I bow to your better judgment on these matters.

Very wise, convener.

We will take a brief comfort break.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Further Education (Students with <br />Complex Needs) (PE1180)

I will resume where we left off. I know that the Presiding Officer has a busy schedule; given events elsewhere, it is important that he knows what is happening in the office.

PE1180, from Tom and Josie Wallace, has been considered by the committee previously. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in achieving further education placements and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up. I know that Alex Fergusson has raised the issue in his capacity as constituency member, so I invite him to make a contribution.

I am grateful for that, convener. I am even more grateful to you for calling a comfort break that has allowed my constituents, the petitioners, to get here in time to hear the committee's deliberations.

I will start by briefly taking members back to the beginnings of the petition. At its centre is a young boy, Thomas Wallace, who has severe learning difficulties—he is severely handicapped, to use a rather old-fashioned phrase. During his school years, his parents were given every expectation that when he left school their son would benefit most from attending a residential establishment. Given his very rural home, that makes enormous sense, because it is the only way of providing young Thomas with the opportunity to

"combine educational learning opportunities with group living experiences which will help develop independent living skills."

Those are the words of Dumfries and Galloway Council, in a letter to the committee of 20 February 2009. In the same letter, the council recognises that

"a small but significant group"

within its boundaries requires that creative approach to be taken.

Once Thomas left school, Mr and Mrs Wallace's hopes were dashed, as the expectations and assessments that had been approved by the education department could not be afforded—that is the reality—by the social services department, under whose auspices Thomas now fell. Nothing could be done—the department could not go the extra mile to ensure that Thomas could fulfil his potential.

More, I suspect, in sorrow than in anger, Mr and Mrs Wallace turned to the Parliament for assistance. They submitted their petition on 9 September last year; as the convener intimated, I was pleased to speak on their behalf. I closed by saying that I was sure that

"Mr and Mrs Wallace will do everything that is humanly possible for their son, but I like to think that the system could have done an awful lot more"—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 9 September 2008; c 1026.]

Since then—forgive me if I cut through the fine words and fancy ideals—we have had mapping exercises, questions and responses, consultations and partnership working, all of which no doubt have a role to play. However, for Thomas nothing has altered. In effect, the local authority says that it cannot afford what everyone once agreed would be best for Thomas, and the Government says that the matter is for the local authority. We have a vicious circle with regard to Thomas's support.

Thomas's parents have, of course, done their best for their son. They have begged and borrowed £55,000 to send him to Dilston College of Further Education in Hexham, Northumberland—to be fair, that has been backed by £15,000 from the local council. He has positively thrived in those surroundings, as the experts always said that he would do, but he will have to leave them as his parents simply cannot afford to borrow any more money. Instead of making significant progress, Thomas will no doubt regress.

I come to the point that I really want to bring to the committee's attention. A paper that the Scottish Parliament information centre kindly prepared for me, which compares how we deal with such issues in the United Kingdom, states:

"There are 4 colleges in Wales with specialist residential places. Similarly to England, where individuals' learning needs are assessed as requiring residential specialist education or training, the Welsh Assembly Government funds further education placements for these individuals at a specialist residential college, either in Wales or elsewhere."

We have no such places in Scotland, and the Parliament or Government do not fund those people nationally. I simply ask members whether we are really prepared to tolerate there being such a system in another devolved legislature, particularly in the policy area that we are discussing, without questioning why such a disparity exists. We could be leading the way instead of falling further behind.

When Mr Wallace and I met last week, he asked me a question that I could not answer. If I may, I would like to put that question to the committee for it to think about in the context of everything that we say and do about lifelong learning, equal opportunities and equal access. After everything that Mr Wallace had been through, he said to me, "Do we really want to be bothered with handicapped people?" I leave the committee with that question.

I do not know what the committee will do with the petition. I would understand if it wished to close it, but serious questions need to be asked about the disparity in provision in different parts of the United Kingdom. I think that there is a postcode lottery in Scotland for dealing with such issues; there is certainly a postcode lottery throughout the United Kingdom. I beseech the committee to ask the questions that still need to be asked, and I thank it for its time.

Thank you for that powerful contribution. I noticed the reaction of members, which was the same as mine, to the personal and financial impacts that there have been on the family. Do members have any observations to make on how we should deal with the petition?

I agree that the local member's presentation was impressive. We should not close the petition at this point; we should keep it open. We should get back in touch with the Government again to make all the points that Alex Fergusson has made. Obviously, the issue is serious. It probably does not affect many people, but it can have an enormous impact on the lives of those whom it does affect.

We have received petitions on related matters. I feel strongly not only that we should continue to ask questions but that the petition should go to the Parliament's Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. What happens in England and Wales is so disproportionate to what happens in Scotland that surely we should give the issue full parliamentary attention. It is not good enough simply to ask some questions; we should press for the matter to be fully considered.

I agree that we should continue the petition. I wonder whether the UK Equality Bill, which will affect all the devolved Parliaments, will introduce a public duty on the matter, as there will be new strands, including for disability. I wonder whether we should continue the petition until we see whether that bill affects it—that could be a good reason for continuing it.

I agree with others that Alex Fergusson made a powerful argument for the petition. In light of that, we could write to the Scottish Government and ask whether it intends to undertake a review of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. There is a postcode lottery regarding what region people live in, whether Wales, England or Scotland. In addition, as Alex Fergusson said, there is a postcode lottery in Scotland, depending on the resources that are available to each local authority.

If the Parliament and Government are committed to social justice for people with additional learning support needs, we must ensure that there is provision to allow them to participate fully in the available educational opportunities. It is clear that opportunities are not available at present in Scotland, so the Government must review that. We are sending people south of the border for educational opportunities, so we must review what is available in Scotland to address that situation and ascertain who will fund what is required. We cannot rely on local authorities to provide such funding.

As Marlyn Glen pointed out, the forthcoming equalities duty will apply to all levels of government, including local government and the Scottish Government. We must therefore ask the Government to review the 2004 act and ensure that we have adequate provision to allow people to participate at the appropriate level. That may require additional funding directly from the Scottish Government.

Given what Alex Fergusson has said, we should ask the Scottish Government to consider what is done in Wales and England to meet additional support for learning needs, in order to ascertain whether something is missing from Scottish educational provision for people with such needs.

There is a strong sense from committee members that we are very supportive of the concerns that the Wallace family has raised, so we will pursue those matters. We should keep the petition open and explore whether the issues can be considered further. We will call on the Government and other agencies to undertake reviews to assess whether the petitioners' concerns can be addressed. I hope that that meets the expectations that Alex Fergusson and the Wallace family had prior to the meeting.

I will not take much more of your time, convener. I just want to say that the fact that I am grateful to the committee is entirely irrelevant, but Mr and Mrs Wallace will be delighted at the outcome that the committee has reached. There are serious questions to be asked and serious comparisons to be made, and I am delighted that the committee has shown a commitment to ask and make them—thank you very much indeed.

Thank you for your time. I know that the petitioners have had a long journey to get here, but I hope that what we have decided will keep the process open and help resolve matters.

A cup of Parliament coffee will make up for the journey.

We should do what we have decided for this petition with other petitions that we have before us on the same matter—I can think of one at least.

Can we do that retrospectively? I am not disinclined to do that, but I do not know whether it can be done procedurally.

Is the petition that Robin Harper has in mind on the same topic as PE1180?

Yes. There is another petition on the same topic, but I cannot put a name to it.

I suggest that you draw the clerk's attention to that later, Robin. If the committee needs to reconsider the petition that you have in mind, I am happy with that.

---

Diabetes (Self-management Plans) (PE1123)

PE1123, by Stephen Fyfe, on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland, urges the Scottish Government to ensure that all national health service boards provide the necessary resources to promote and deliver diabetes self-management plans to all people with diabetes. We have had the petition in front of us on two previous occasions, and the notes indicate that dialogue has opened up between Diabetes UK Scotland and Scottish Government officials. I think that that represents progress, so I recommend that we close the petition on those grounds. Do members accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

A82 Upgrade (PE1140)

PE1140, by Alasdair Ferguson, on behalf of the A82 Partnership, urges the Scottish Government to begin immediately phased improvements to the A82 Tarbet to Fort William road to improve safety and bring that trans-European lifeline route to a standard that is fit for the 21st century. The petition has been in front of us before. The strategic transport projects review made commitments on the A82. How do members wish to deal with the petition?

Quite an amount of movement has gone on since the strategic transport projects review, so I would be happy for the petition to be closed. It would, nevertheless, be helpful to the petitioner if Transport Scotland agreed to keep them informed of the progress of the planned works.

Is the committee happy with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Historic Building Listing (PE1176)

PE1176, by Thomas Ewing and Gordon Prestoungrange, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide a right of appeal against decisions by the Scottish ministers, following advice from Historic Scotland, not to list an historic building and to review the criteria that are used to list such buildings to ensure that the value that a local community places on local heritage assets is fully reflected and that buildings can be considered for listing even when a planning application that affects them has been submitted.

Do members have any comments on the petition? There are still some issues on which we require further information. We should perhaps write to the Scottish Government about, for example, the reasons for not making public the reports from external assessors and the Government's view on the points that were made in the last submission from the petitioners. I recommend that we keep the petition open and continue the process.

I agree with that. I get the feeling that more transparency in the process would help the petitioners to understand what is happening. There is a feeling, which I have encountered in other situations, that people are not quite sure what is going on and whether their concerns are being taken into consideration. I think that we should try to get some answers.

Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)

PE1179, by Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of acquired brain injury. The petition has come before the committee on two previous occasions, but there are outstanding issues on which we have not received responses from key organisations. I think that we should keep the petition open and write both to the Government and to the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland to pursue the matter. Okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Epilepsy Specialist Nurses (PE1182)

PE1182, by Allana Parker, on behalf of Epilepsy Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to increase the number of epilepsy specialist nurses and to ensure that all NHS boards provide adequate epilepsy services for adults, children and people with a learning disability. How do members wish to deal with the petition?

Some of the point of the petition seems to have been addressed, but I wonder about the number of epilepsy specialist nurses. I know that it is not just about epilepsy and that specialist nurses are required in a lot of fields, but I wonder whether that question has been answered.

I agree that there is still a question to be answered. NHS boards are expected to achieve the targets that are recommended by the Joint Epilepsy Council with regard to the timing of diagnosis and to make arrangements accordingly, but I do not know whether that is happening. It would be interesting to find out whether all health boards are doing what they are meant to be doing in that respect. I would like us to write to whomever we need to write in order to find that out.

Okay. So, the recommendation is to keep the petition open and seek further information on those issues. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

St Andrew's Medal (PE1232)

PE1232, by Alasdair Archibald Walker, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to instigate a national civic award, the St Andrew's medal, to recognise those who have committed extraordinary or outstanding acts of bravery. The petition has been in front of us before. I understand that the Government is carrying out a scoping exercise relating to bravery and other areas for commendation, and we are awaiting the results of that. Christine Grahame has expressed an interest in the matter.

If the Government is carrying out that exercise, I am very happy. This is the 10th anniversary of the Parliament, and it will be important that the Government can do what some local authorities can do and make civic awards to recognise good deeds. That will be good for Scottish society and good for the Parliament. It might even help politicians to regain some repute—although that is not why I am supporting the petition.

We will keep the petition open but suspend our consideration of it for four months while we await the results of the Government's scoping exercise.

If we are suspending our consideration for four months, can we write to the Government to ask when it expects the results to be available?

A letter that the committee received from the Government said that the exercise would be completed late in spring 2009, after which ministers would be invited to consider the next steps. Do you want to ask when progress is likely to be made on the issue?

Yes—that would be better than the committee suspending consideration for four months and then finding, when the petition comes back, that ministers have yet to consider the issue.

Okay, we are happy to do that.

---

Great Britain Football Team (PE1233)

Petition PE1233 is by Craig Brown—yes, the Craig Brown, in case anyone is wondering—and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider what impact the creation of a Great Britain football team at the Olympics, or other sporting events, would have on the promotion and support that it and other public bodies such as sportscotland provide for football as a means of encouraging healthy lifestyles as well as generating economic and social benefits.

The committee has considered the petition before, and I know that Christine Grahame has expressed the occasional view on the topic. On you go, Christine.

I have indeed. I do not know the Scottish Government's view, although I believe that the committee was writing to find out about the economic impact. I do not think that this issue is a dead duck; it is still a live issue and will have to be kept in focus. Real concerns might arise to do with participation at club level if Scotland were to lose the right to play.

As I said to the committee on a previous occasion, such issues are decided by FIFA, and one FIFA president cannot bind the next. Any undertakings therefore last only for a limited period. Many independent nations within FIFA are keen for the United Kingdom to have only one competing team. The rights of the four individual parts of the UK could be affected, so we are getting into dangerous territory.

I do not know whether Christine Grahame has seen a letter received by the committee from Kate Vincent, who is a deputy director in relation to sports policy. She gives reasons why

"the Scottish Government feel the creation of a GB football team for a one off event would have a negative impact on the promotion and support of football in Scotland."

She then adds that the

"Scottish Government and sportscotland have no plans to officially assess"

the impact of

"the creation of a GB football team for the 2012 Olympic Games at this stage."

That is the Government's formal response.

Thank you. I note that the response says "at this stage", which is a caveat.

I can tell that you were a lawyer in a previous incarnation.

I like the word "caveat"; I grow caveats in my garden.

The Scottish Government's position is clear. Do other members wish to comment on how we should proceed with the petition?

I did not realise that the little caveat—"at this stage"—had been included. I had not read the letter carefully enough. Is that really a caveat? If the Government is saying that it has no intention of assessing the impact, that is enough for me. It would undermine our position if the Government gave the notion any credence whatsoever.

The clerk has just told me that the fundamental position is that the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not support the creation of a GB football team for the 2012 Olympic games. I am not a lawyer, but the phrase "at this stage" suggests to me that the Government does not see any benefit in doing any scoping exercise on any aspects of the issue.

The petition makes arguments about two points, and if we accept that the first issue has been rejected it negates the second. The debate now is whether we close the petition on the ground that we now know the clear position of the Scottish Government.

I ask Christine Grahame whether she wants us to keep the petition open and to urge sportscotland or the Government to do some research.

To use another legal phrase, I would like the petition to be sisted—put on the back burner. The petition could be left open so that the committee could return to it in four months, or whenever, if a decision was made that there would be a team GB. At that point, there would still be a live petition before the committee. A decision has not yet been taken, but if the committee closes the petition another one might be required.

I should probably know this, but who makes the final decision? If the Scottish Football Association and the Football Association of Wales have said that they will not participate, can a GB team be imposed?

The line that has been taken is that there could be a team that does not have players from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales in it. The idea has been trailed that a team GB could go ahead with English players only. If there was a determination to have a team GB, the fact that the SFA has said that it will have nothing to do with it would be irrelevant.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the British Olympic Association would decide whether to enter a team for the football competition at the 2012 Olympics. There will definitely be a football competition; the issue is whether Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish players will participate in it, given that their football associations have, rightly, identified that that would be inappropriate.

A team GB might compete in the 2012 Olympics, but clarification is required on the impact of that on national teams competing in international events. FIFA is being evasive and cannot give us a hard and fast answer. We must ensure that the nations retain the right to compete in international matches. That relates to FIFA world cup matches but also potentially to tournaments run by the Union of European Football Associations. It could be argued that, because a team GB was presented in 2012, a team GB must therefore compete in European international competitions and world cups. We need a response that, beyond 2012, the integrity of the home football nations will be retained so they can compete in such tournaments.

After those classy wisdom-of-Solomon moments, do we want to keep the petition open to await a final decision, or do we wish to close the petition, given that the Scottish Government has made it clear that forming such a team would not be an appropriate course of action?

It is not only the Scottish Government that has made such comments—the Football Association of Wales, the Irish Football Association and the Scottish Football Association have all said that they do not wish to take part in a team GB if one is established for the 2012 Olympics. We should keep the petition open and monitor closely the decisions or outcomes from any international or national discussions that take place.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that it continues to support provisions for football as a means of encouraging a healthy lifestyle, and it asks whether the establishment of a team GB would make a difference to the support for football that the Government provides. The answer should be that such a team would not make a difference and that the Government would continue to promote and support football. Is that correct, or am I reading the petition wrongly?

It talks about the support that the Government and

"other public bodies such as sportscotland provide for football as a means of encouraging healthy lifestyle as well as generating economic and social benefits."

We have considered the economic impact. I gave evidence previously to the committee about the potential loss—I cannot remember, but I think that it was about £15 million. However, that is a different point. The petition is also about the

"impact the creation of a Great Britain football team at the Olympics or other sporting event would have on the promotion and support"

that the Government, sportscotland and other public bodies provide

"for football as a means of encouraging healthy lifestyle".

If we cease to have a national team that can play in international and European competitions, it might be the case that people's participation in and engagement with football will diminish. As you know, many children get into football as a result of watching Scotland play.

I can see the consequences.

There are consequences at all levels of participation, from the Scottish Premier League right down to kids kicking a ba in the street—I have brought a tear to the convener's eye.

I can testify to the fact that heart problems increase when we watch wur national team.

So does the use of Kleenex for your tears.

It is a traumatising experience, most of the time.

We want to keep the petition open because there are unresolved issues about decision making. We should stress that, the last time that we considered the petition, there was an exchange of letters and a number of us were caught up in what I would define as cross-ball incidents.

The reality is that the football authorities are autonomous, self-governing bodies that are accountable to FIFA and UEFA, so their direction should not be interfered with by national Government. It was right and proper of the Scottish Football Association to say that, but it was not right of the SFA to claim that politicians on the Public Petitions Committee cannot address an issue that has been raised by ordinary members of the public. There were crossed lines in that respect.

We want to keep the petition open on the basis that other decisions still have to be taken. The wording of the petition, which is complex, is such that it will not be easily addressed in any context, but let us not go into that at the moment. We will keep the petition open and find out whether there are any further developments. One way or the other, the issue will be brought back to the committee in due course. Do members accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Class Action Procedure (PE1234)

PE1234, by Peter Brown, on behalf of Leith Links residents association, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a class action procedure, or similar, so that, in that respect, Scots law corresponds with the legal systems of many other countries, including England and the United States. Shirley-Anne Somerville, who cannot attend our meeting because her own committee is meeting this afternoon, has sent us a letter in which she asks that we consider keeping the petition open. I think that we should keep the petition open because we are still awaiting further information.

I do not disagree, but perhaps we should suspend our consideration because Lord Gill's review of civil justice and the Scottish Government's response to it need to be published before we can decide whether to close the petition. We should keep it open pending that.

I accept that recommendation.

---

Specific Learning Difficulties <br />(Assessment of Children) (PE1237)

After our final current petition, we will return to PE1250, on which we have still to hear evidence.

Our final current petition is PE1237, by David Ballantine. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider the need for legislation to provide a standard assessment of all schoolchildren by the age of eight that will inform parents, pupils and educators whether the pupil is at risk of developing a specific learning difficulty. We are again considering a petition that deals with an issue that parliamentary committees have discussed over recent weeks and which will be the subject of parliamentary debate over the next few days. Do members have any comments or a course of action to recommend?

As we will have stage 3 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill tomorrow afternoon, the petition has gone as far as it can go. As far as a standardised assessment is concerned, we have been given the answer—the range of special needs and specific learning difficulties that exist means that it would be extremely difficult to have a meaningful standardised assessment. In view of the further legislation that will go on the statute book tomorrow, I am quite happy to close the petition.

Do we accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

I now invite members to return to—

Before we move on, convener, I seek your guidance. Three of the current petitions that we have been dealing with involve health issues that are addressed by cross-party groups of which I am an office-bearer. They are the cross-party groups on cancer, diabetes and epilepsy. I wonder whether I should declare an interest.

Reference has now been made to that.