Official Report 256KB pdf
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2007 of the Public Petitions Committee. This is the last meeting of the committee in this session of Parliament. We have a full agenda and a lot to go through. I have received apologies from John Scott, who hopes to join us shortly. Apart from him, we have a full house.
Institutional Child Abuse<br />(PE535 and PE888)
The first petitions to be considered are PE535 and PE888, by Chris Daly. In PE535, the petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to make an inquiry into past institutional child abuse, particularly in respect of children who were in the care of the state and under the supervision of religious orders, to make an unreserved apology for said state bodies and to urge the religious orders to apologise unconditionally.
It is clear that the Law Commission report on personal injury actions is still to be published and that the Executive's independent expert has yet to report, so I suggest that we keep the petitions open pending receipt of those reports.
Fire Control Rooms (PE765 and PE795)
Our next petitions are PE765, by Jim Malone, and PE795, by Drew McFarlane Slack. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure retention of the current eight fire control rooms in Scotland.
The decision on fire control rooms is important and has been with us for some time. I spoke earlier to the Fire Brigades Union in committee room 3—it is obviously concerned about the decision. I want to keep PE765 open and to seek the Executive's views on what the expert group might come up with. I believe—I think all committee members have expressed this view—that to reduce the number of fire control rooms from eight to the recommended three would put lives in danger.
I do not necessarily agree with the basis for Sandra White's seeking to keep open the petition, but I agree that we should keep it open and seek an update from the Executive on progress on the issue.
The on-going debate on the issue between staff, unions and the local authorities will run for some time yet.
It is right to keep open PE765 so that we can keep an eye on progress and allow our successor committee to do the same and make a decision at some point in the future. Do members agree?
Speech and Language Therapy<br />(Agenda for Change) (PE768)
Our next petition is PE768, by Susan Bannatyne, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the proposed agenda for change legislation for speech and language therapy services and service users in the national health service.
The committee's position has always been to seek the views of petitioners, but the response from Amicus was late and the petitioner does not appear to have had sufficient time to respond to it. It might be appropriate, therefore, to seek the petitioner's views on Amicus's response. We should also note that all health boards are expected to have their staff assimilated into the agenda for change's pay scales by the end of March 2007. We should seek an update on that from the Scottish Executive.
Yes—just to ensure that the assimilation has happened.
I agree entirely with Helen Eadie. I am rather concerned that health boards have not implemented the new pay scales. Can we write to health boards and ask why there is a delay, given that the pay scales were to be implemented by March 2007?
We can ask that specific question. We need to know whether things are moving forward. Is that agreed?
G8 Summit (Peaceful Protest) (PE871)<br />G8 Summit (World Poverty) (PE874)
PE871, which was lodged by Rosemarie McIlwhan, calls on Parliament to express support for peaceful protest during the G8 summit. PE874 was lodged by Shauna McIntyre and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the First Minister to follow the advice of Sir Bob Geldof to lobby the G8 heads of state on world poverty.
I suggest that we close both petitions because the G8 summit took place in 2005, which is some time ago. The petitions served a good purpose when they were lodged in that they raised awareness in advance of the summit. I have no doubt that global poverty was firmly on the agenda. There is no point in keeping the petitions open.
I agree with Jackie Baillie. The summit took place a long time ago, so there is no reason to keep the petitions open. However, the fact that the First Minister did not respond to a committee of Parliament is a matter of concern.
Yes—we should record that. We have in the past criticised ministers when they have not responded to us. There is nothing we can do about the petitions; what could have been done at the time of the summit is history. However, a committee is entitled to a response when it requests one.
It is pitiful that the First Minister did not see fit to respond to the committee. Although the G8 summit in Scotland is history, Rosemarie McIlwhan made a good point. We have a right to protest and we should bear that in mind in the context of Trident and other issues that will arise in the future. Parliament should ensure that the right to protest is upheld, so it would have been good if the First Minister had expressed a view.
We wrote to the First Minister in particular about PE874, which sought to ensure that global poverty was firmly on the agenda. The theme of the G8 summit was making poverty history. I remember demonstrating in Edinburgh, with others, in support of that theme, although I do not know where other members of the committee were that day. It is bizarre to criticise the First Minister for not responding to a letter that was sent in September 2005 that referred to an event that had happened in July of that year.
Convener, I object—
I will let you in when Jackie Baillie has finished making her point.
Given that the issue was raised, it is appropriate that I have put that on the record.
I let other members comment on the lack of a response from the First Minister, given that the G8 summit is finished business, but I object to Jackie Baillie's comments about the freedom to protest. Members of Parliament are in a fortunate position; perhaps the protesters are taking up the matter in the only way they can. When we think about Westminster and how the Scottish Labour MPs voted against—
We do not need to turn this discussion into a debate on Faslane—
No, we do not, but Jackie Baillie's disgraceful comments should not have been allowed—
I suggest that members leave their electioneering to outside the committee. If not, we will be here all day. We have many other important issues to consider.
I was going to say that. There are 40 petitions on our agenda: if every discussion deteriorates into an election campaign, it will take a long time to get through them.
We certainly will.
Dementia Treatment (PE886)
PE886 was lodged by James McKillop, who is the chairman of the Scottish dementia working group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to ensure continued availability on prescription of medications such as donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. At our meeting on 19 April, the committee agreed to write to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, NHS QIS, and Irene Oldfather MSP, who is the convener of the short-term working group on Alzheimer's disease. Responses have been circulated to members.
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Executive to seek its views on the adoption by NHS QIS of the NICE recommendations, given that there is strong opposition to the recommendations.
Do members agree with Helen Eadie's recommendation?
Dalkeith Northern Bypass (PE900)<br />Dalkeith Bypass (PE928)
Our next petitions are on the Dalkeith bypass. Petition PE900, by Jade Allison on behalf of the save Dalkeith park campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the proposal for the Dalkeith northern bypass is comprehensively and properly assessed with data from 2005 and that the results are published and consulted on before any contract is let. Petition PE928 by Margot Russell calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the Scottish Executive's proposal to build the bypass.
Given that the contracts for work on the bypass have been let and work has commenced, I suggest that no further action can be taken on the petitions, so we should close them.
Do members agree that we should close the petitions?
Urban Regeneration (PE911)
Petition PE911, by Paul Nolan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the Scottish Executive's support for market-led urban regeneration projects and for the operation of privatised urban regeneration companies and, in particular, to consider the mechanisms through which local communities can influence and hold such companies to account.
It is a pity that, as with the two previous petitions, the issue that the petition raises is now basically a done deal. However, the petitioner has suggested that the Executive should respond to him directly on his suggestion about the legislative framework on urban redevelopment. If the committee agrees, we should ask the Executive to do that.
We can ask the Executive to comment on the petitioner's suggestion. Are members happy with that?
Hospital Patients (Spiritual Care) (PE923)
Petition PE923, by Ben Conway, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to promote pastoral and spiritual care in hospitals to ensure that the physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs of patients are properly addressed.
Again, I pay tribute to the hard work that has been done by my constituent, Ben Conway from Kelty. I note the current legal position—which I have been very aware of throughout the process—on the legality of people obtaining information under data protection legislation. As a committee, we should consider supporting the chaplains' professional association's campaign for chaplains to be designated as part of the clinical team so that they gain the right to access appropriate relevant information. I suggest that we seek views on the petition from the information commissioner for England and Wales and from the Department of Health. Therefore, we should keep the petition open.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (PE930)
Our next petition is PE930, by Lucy Johnson McDowall. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to bring all aspects of local authority administration under the remit of the public services ombudsman, without exception or exemption, and for the ethics and professionalism of local authority officials to be included in the remit of either the ombudsman or the Standards Commission for Scotland.
There was very little support from the respondents for the aims of the petition. Given that much of the petitioner's response is in legal terms, and the fact that the committee is not a court of appeal or arbiter between competing views, I recommend that we close the petition.
Do members agree?
Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (PE934)
Our next petition is PE934, by Dr J W Hinton. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 to ensure that local authority consultation on traffic orders is full, meaningful and democratic.
I met Dr Hinton and others regarding the petition. I note the late arrival of the letter about that meeting, which includes 10 basic points. The petitioners ask whether the committee could contact the Executive official to whom they spoke. Could we keep the petition open to get Glasgow City Council's views on the 10 points?
Is everyone happy with that?
Public Health Services (Consultation) (PE938)
The next petition is PE938, by Dr Patrick McNally, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that clear, transparent and meaningful public consultation takes place when changes are proposed to public health services. At its meeting on 4 October 2006, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Consumer Council, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Scottish health council and the Scottish Executive, and agreed to seek the petitioner's views on those responses. Members are invited to comment on the response that has been received from the petitioner.
The petitioner has welcomed the Scottish health council's
Are members happy with that?
Plagiocephaly (PE960)
Our next petition is PE960, by Claire McCready. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that cranial abnormalities in babies, such as deformational plagiocephaly and torticollis, are properly recognised and treated by evaluating babies at birth and at six weeks; that appropriate advice, including repositioning advice, is available to parents; and that cranial remoulding therapy is available free of charge from the NHS.
I note that the majority of the responses support the view that further research should be done. It seems that no research into plagiocephaly has been done in Scotland. Until the position becomes clearer, it is impossible to say who is right and who is wrong. We should write to the Executive and ask whether research can be undertaken. Some of my constituents and some people I know in Fife have suffered from the condition, which is a real concern to them. It would probably satisfy the petitioner if we got that research under way.
The response from Headstart4Babies calls for research to be undertaken. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland also calls for research, but it says that it cannot intervene. In her written response, the petitioner asked when the leaflet would be published—it is now available, so that question has been answered—and mentioned that Yorkhill hospital in Glasgow is carrying out a small-scale trial. I would like to know what comes of that research, so we should keep the petition open. I do not know whether we can send it to the Health Committee—perhaps the clerk can advise us on that. The leaflet has been published, but I would like to know how it will be distributed, and I would like to know more about the small-scale trial. Can we keep the petition open in the meantime?
I have an idea about that, but we will hear what other members have to say first.
Sandra White might be astonished to know that I agree with her, in part. I suggest that, rather than pass the petition to the Health Committee, we keep it with the Public Petitions Committee. We should keep it open and ask the Executive whether it will commission research on the back of the early evaluation of the small-scale trial at Yorkhill.
I agree. Almost all the responses said that there has been no research. We cannot establish the actual position until research has been done, so I agree that we should keep the petition open and seek a commitment from the Executive that such research will be done.
Absolutely. If we hold on to the petition, we can ask the Executive whether it intends to commission research. If its response is unsatisfactory, the petition can be sent to the committee that has responsibility for health in the next session of Parliament.
Citizens Advice Bureaux (Funding) (PE973)
Petition PE973, from Aileen Orr, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, following the recent closure of four citizens advice bureaux in the Scottish Borders and the cuts in the opening hours of a further four centres, to ensure that adequate resources are provided to prevent cuts in services both in the Scottish Borders and elsewhere in Scotland. At its meeting on 26 June, the committee agreed to seek views on the petition from Scottish Borders Council, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Executive and to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses. Responses have been received and have been circulated. Do members have any views on the petition?
I recommend closure of the petition, not least because of the interesting selection of responses that we have received. Scottish Borders Council, which cut the money, said, "Of course, if the Executive gives us more money, we will pass it on." Citizens Advice Scotland, tellingly, said that it did not petition the Parliament and would prefer to focus its attentions on the on-going negotiations with Scottish Borders Council. That is absolutely right and proper, as that is where the decision was made. Other local authorities throughout Scotland manage to fund their citizens advice bureaux properly, so it is a question of political priorities. I would close the petition.
I have a concern about the petition that relates to an issue that has not been apparent in any of the papers or in previous discussions. When the Scottish Parliament took the step of abolishing the health councils in every area, the agreement between the Scottish Executive and the Minister for Health and Community Care was that citizens advice bureaux would take over the role that the health councils previously had. As we all know, the health councils were active advocates for people who had health issues or complaints against health boards. The disbursal of money into the local areas to ensure that that advocacy role still exists has been a matter of on-going discussion in which I have been involved. It now appears that, in some areas, there will not be citizens advice bureaux to fill the vacuum that was left by the abolition of the health councils in those areas.
Are members happy for us to do that and close the petition?
Accountant in Bankruptcy (PE974)
Petition PE974, from Jesse Rae, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation of the Accountant in Bankruptcy to ensure that the rights and well-being of debtors and their families are fully considered during the sequestration process and to place all aspects of the sequestration process within the remit of the Scottish public services ombudsman. At its meeting on 26 June, the committee agreed to seek views on the petition from the Scottish public services ombudsman, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, Money Advice Scotland and the Scottish Executive and to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses once they had been received.
Of course, everyone is concerned about the length of time for which the petitioner has been conducting his case, but the Parliament has recently legislated in this area, so it might be appropriate to make the petitioner aware of that fact and to close the petition.
Are members agreed?
Protection of Health Care Professionals (PE980)
Petition PE980, from Mev Brown, on behalf of the NHS First Party, calls on the Scottish Parliament to adopt the yellow card, red card policy drafted under the Department of Health's zero tolerance guidelines on the treatment of violent and abusive patients and to amend the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to allow hospitals and other national health service facilities to apply for antisocial behaviour orders against such patients.
Given that none of the organisations that you have listed supported the points that were made in the petition and that, despite a number of reminders, the petitioner has not responded to the letters from the committee clerk, I recommend that we close the petition.
Is that agreed?
Neuropsychological Provision (PE981)
Petition PE981, from James Japp, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the recruitment and appointment of psychologists to NHS Scotland is based entirely on skills, competency and experience, and to initiate an independent review of neuropsychological provision in NHS Scotland.
Railway Infrastructure and Services (Inverness, Thurso and Wick) (PE894)
Petition PE894, from S Gordon, on behalf of the association of Caithness community councils, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and timetabling as part of a strategic root-and-branch review of the provision of rail services between Inverness, Thurso and Wick, with unrestricted thinking on how best to shorten journey times and to ensure the future of the railway to those destinations. The petition also calls for thought to be given to ensuring that the communities of the Lairg loop are provided for.
The petition is getting some support from others, especially the Caithness west community council. I recommend that the committee write to the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership seeking information on the outcome of its consultation process and, specifically, on its position on the Dornoch rail link. We could also invite comments on the petition from the Caithness Partnership and the Caithness transport strategy group.
I support that recommendation.
Would Rob Gibson like to comment on the petition?
I am happy with the recommendation that has been made. This is a live issue and the petition must be kept live, because we are in the process of trying to create a strategy. The committee's involvement is helpful.
We will keep the petition live.
NHS Dental Services (PE920 and PE1018)<br />NHS Dentistry (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE922)
The next three petitions concern NHS dentistry. Petition PE920, from Helen Smith, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to commit further resources to the provision of NHS dentistry, especially for the recruitment of NHS salaried dentists to provide emergency and comprehensive care, and for the provision of dedicated NHS dentistry facilities. Petition PE922, from Peter Thomson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider implementing a model that is different from the current plan, to ensure that NHS dentistry is available in remote and rural areas in the medium to long term. Petition PE1018, from Keith Green, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to restore NHS dental services throughout Scotland.
Like a number of other parliamentarians, I have been heavily involved with the issue. I warmly welcome the fact that the Minister for Health and Community Care has announced that well in excess of £30 million will go towards the establishment of health service dentistry throughout Scotland.
Although the Executive is implementing some measures to address the crisis in NHS dentistry, some of the petitioners think that that is taking too long and the measures have not resolved the fact that in many places, half the population still do not have access to NHS dentists. Can we ask the Scottish Executive whether it will introduce a statutory obligation to provide dental care on the NHS so that people can get what they deserve and need?
It would be legitimate to ask that specific question. Do members agree with that suggestion?
Forth Road Bridge (Tolls) (PE921)<br />Tolled Bridges (PE921 and PE925)
Our next petitions concern tolled bridges. Petition PE921, from the Rev Ross Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive not to increase the tolls on the Forth road bridge. PE925, from George Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive not to extend the tolling regimes on the remaining tolled bridges—the Erskine, Forth and Tay bridges—but instead to take over the bridges and their approaches as part of the national road system and remove the tolls forthwith.
The Rev Ross Brown, who is one of my constituents, sent me an e-mail to apologise for not being here today, because he has some serious family health issues. He would have liked to have been here to hear what we had to say. He is pleased to note that, although the Liberal Democrat Minister for Transport suggested initially that the tolls be increased to £4, he subsequently withdrew that suggestion, so there is no need to pursue the point any further.
I should have said that the petitioners had not responded. That was my mistake. We do not have any responses to consider, so we have to close the petitions. That was the point that I was trying to make, but I got it wrong.
In closing petition PE925, I point out that the petitioner got one out of three, which was to remove the tolls on the Erskine bridge.
I do not know whether I will be re-elected—I am hoping and praying that I am—but, if I am, I will bring back my bill to abolish the tolls on both the Forth and Tay bridges.
Sandra, you might as well get in now, too.
Do you want me to tell you everything that I have planned for Glasgow Cathcart?
Why do not we all just put our manifestos on the table?
It is all right, convener. I will not be mischievous.
Do we agree to close the petitions?
Forth Road Bridge (PE942 and PE943)
We are still on bridges. PE942, from Bill Cantley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to desist from spending taxpayers' money on preparing for the construction of a second Forth road bridge before having at its disposal all the facts regarding the condition of the existing Forth road bridge, on the ground that any such expenditure would be both environmentally irresponsible and fiscally imprudent. PE943, from Mark Hood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider the need for a new Forth road bridge.
I spoke to Mark Hood last night in my office, and he warmly welcomes the announcement that the Executive has made, as do I. Given the success that we have had with his petition and the fact that there has been no response from the other petitioner, I suggest that we close the petitions.
Okay.
Skin Cancer (PE931)
Now, we can move away from bridges. PE931, from Helen Irons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on tackling the growing skin cancer epidemic in Scotland.
I met representatives of the Skin Care Campaign Scotland yesterday. They appeal to the committee to note what Professor Ferguson and Polly Buchanan said when they appeared before us, which was that skin cancer is the most diagnosed cancer every year. It can be prevented, but the problem is that we do not have a strategy for education on the issue to be provided in schools throughout Scotland. Recognising that, I hope that the petition can be continued. We need to get word back from the Minister for Health and Community Care about the Executive's plans to ensure that a strategy for educating children is adopted throughout Scotland and that an awareness campaign is included in the training of schoolteachers.
I would like to see the petitioner's response. I agree with what Helen Eadie has said. We should remind Helen Irons to respond to the responses that we received. I would not mind keeping the petition open. I have great interest in the issue, particularly in respect of unmanned sunbeds. That is the danger area. People may put a pound in a slot and get three or four minutes under a sunbed. I supported Ken Macintosh's proposed bill. I hope that it comes back in the next session and, if it does, I will support it again.
I understand that argument and I would be keen for us to keep hold of the petition. However, if we send it to the Health Committee now, we do not know what might get done. It might simply be included in a legacy paper. I do not even know whether the Health Committee is going to meet again this session. It is probably best for us to keep hold of the petition and then see whether Ken Macintosh makes progress with his bill in session 3. I note that the proposal had the support of more than half of MSPs when it was first made. It is very much in the interests of the Parliament to pursue the matter. We should keep hold of the petition to ensure that it gets progressed.
Supporting People Funding (PE932)
Petition PE932, from Stella Macdonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the supporting people funding arrangements to ensure that vulnerable adults are in receipt of the responsive services that are required to keep them healthy.
I ask that we keep the petition open because there is a level of unmet need. The petitioner is asking us to review the formula. Having reflected back on the responses that we have received from the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations, Shelter and Community Care Providers Scotland, I think that it would be useful for us to make that request again of the Executive. Rather than close the petition and leave it to a conversation between the Executive and the petitioner, we should give the issue the status that it needs by continuing to involve the Public Petitions Committee in the conversation.
I am delighted with Jackie Baillie's suggestion because I was going to ask for something similar. I have worked with the people who are involved in my area and I feel strongly that they have legitimate concerns. I am delighted with Jackie's recommendation.
Do members agree to that?
Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (PE977)
Our next petition is PE977, from Paddy Imhoff, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its proposals for the controversial Aberdeen western peripheral route in light of growing public concern with the project.
One of the biggest issues that come to the committee is consultation. I would hope that, when it takes place, the consultation will allow full public participation.
I remember the conversation. If memory serves—we can check this—we asked the petitioners for evidence of the meeting, but it never materialised. I know that the allegation was made that such a meeting had taken place and that they were pretty confident that they could prove that, but I have not seen any evidence to substantiate that allegation. Unless they can provide a bit more information, it will remain an allegation.
When the minister was asked, he said:
The petitioners said that the minister had said that—we did not get evidence of that. That is my recollection and, as I said, it can be checked. However, I remember the conversation when the suggestion was made, and I was particularly concerned about the impression, if nothing else, that such a meeting had taken place at which a decision was taken to spend £X of taxpayers' money, without any record of the meeting being taken.
Building Warrants (PE979)
Our next petition is PE979, from Najem Al Hasan, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the Building (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 with the aim of permitting competition between neighbouring local authorities in relation to the provision of building warrants. At the meeting on 6 September 2006, we agreed to seek views on the petition from the Scottish Building Standards Agency, the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers, COSLA, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, and to seek the petitioner's views on the responses. The responses have now been received.
We have received responses from several organisations—the convener read out the names of the organisations to which we wrote—but none of them supports the petitioner. In fact, one of the responses states that the difficulties that Mr Hasan experienced are best considered and addressed through the system of audit rather than by allowing verifiers to undertake functions outside their areas. Given the nature of the responses that the committee has received, it would be premature to make changes in the system for verifying that building standards have been followed. We should therefore close consideration of the petition.
I apologise for being late, convener.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Microchip Implants (PE983)
The next petition is PE983, from Raymond Bell, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to ban the use of microchip implants on young people in Scotland. At the committee's meeting on 4 October 2006, we agreed to seek views on the petition from Health Protection Scotland and the Scottish Executive, and to seek the petitioner's views on the responses. The petitioner has asked specifically that the Minister for Health and Community Care and Health Protection Scotland be given the opportunity to respond to the questions that he raises in his response. To facilitate that, the committee may wish to agree to forward, for information only, the relevant response to the minister and Health Protection Scotland, asking that they respond directly to the petitioner. The committee may also wish to agree to note the minister's commitment that the Scottish Executive will examine closely any measures that are necessary to protect the health of members of the public who might have such microchip implant devices inserted, and to close consideration of the petition.
I agree with the recommendations, but I have one issue to raise. Paragraph 5 of our briefing note on the petition states:
If we kept the petition open and asked that question, we would not add much value or get much more information. However, if we ask the minister to respond to the petitioner and the petitioner finds that there are still outstanding issues, he could submit another petition specifically on those matters. I am advised that the petitioner, who is in Finland, is watching the meeting live. He may take up the offer to correspond with the minister on the issue. Instead of the committee continually trying to weed out small pieces of information from the wider picture, we could suggest that the petitioner would be better off submitting a new petition on any specific issue that remains outstanding. As a result, I invite the petitioner to take the matter forward in correspondence with the minister. Are members agreed?
Plants (Complaints) (PE984)
PE984, by Dr Colin Watson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints about vigorous growing trees, hedges, shrubs, vines or other plants. At its meeting on 4 October 2006, the committee agreed to seek views on the petition from Scott Barrie MSP and from the United Kingdom Department of Communities and Local Government, and to seek the petitioner's views and comments on the responses received.
Although the consultation on Scott Barrie's proposal for a member's bill closed in February, I am sure that, like all members who introduce bills, he will be happy to continue to receive responses from the public. His consultation document can still be accessed online on the Scottish Parliament website, at least until dissolution on 3 April. In the meantime, we should pass on to Scott Barrie the response that we have received from the Department of Communities and Local Government; forward to him for information only copies of the responses from the petitioner and the Scottish Executive; and close our consideration of the petition.
We should keep the petition open because although it has been around for a long time, very little seems to have happened. The forthcoming changes in Parliament might mean that many of us, including Scott Barrie, will not be back, so we need to keep the issue live. If we were to close the petition now, the matter might simply fall.
I have nothing at all against Scott Barrie, but I have some sympathy with John Farquhar Munro's comments. The subject of the petition has been a major issue for a long time, particularly in my constituency; indeed, for the past four or five years, I have been writing to people, telling them that Scott Barrie is about to introduce a bill on the issue. I share the petitioner's sense of frustration, and we must ensure that a bill is introduced. If keeping the petition live facilitates that by keeping the pressure on Scott Barrie—or whoever—so be it.
Do members agree to keep the petition open and see what progress Scott Barrie's bill makes?
Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PE985)
PE985, by Mick Napier, calls on the Scottish Parliament to congratulate the Palestinian people on their ability to conduct democratic elections while under Israeli occupation; to call for the ending of all sanctions against Palestine; and to invite a Palestinian parliamentary spokesman to speak to the Scottish Parliament.
I thank the members who signed my motion, which expressed support for the people of Palestine and drew attention to what they face every day with their own land under occupation. Although I am disappointed that the Presiding Officer felt unable to invite a spokesperson from Palestine to address the Parliament before the end of the session, I understand why he reached that decision.
Are members happy with that course of action?
Broken Glass (PE986)
PE986, by Gillian Purves, on behalf of Woodlands primary school in Cumbernauld, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take greater action to protect the public and domestic and non-domestic birds and animals from the dangers of broken glass; to promote the use of plastic bottles as an alternative to glass; and to introduce a refundable deposit scheme aimed at reducing the levels of broken glass in public places.
The children of Woodlands primary school brought this good petition to the committee. It is interesting to see all the responses that have been received. Some of them tackle the issue of litter and state that the environment would be improved if we did not have glass lying around. However, the petitioners were concerned about the dangers of broken glass, particularly in relation to non-domestic birds and animals. In that regard, I should point out that, from reading local newspapers and talking to people, it is clear that there is another dimension to the issue. It has been pointed out to me that broken glass poses a danger to people as well.
Are members happy that we should write to such organisations? Of course, we would need to identify the relevant organisations.
We could write to Patrick Brown, who is from an organisation that I have forgotten the name of.
We can get in touch with the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, which might be able to comment on the issue.
Yes, that would be useful. It would also be good to get in touch with an organisation representing the non-licensed drink sector.
Do members agree to write to those organisations, once we have identified them?
In the meantime, we should note the Executive's commitment to consider the impact of deposit-and-return schemes. I hope that those schemes are able to continue, as they might be the only positive initiative that can be undertaken in relation to this issue.
We should also let the petitioners know about the progress that has been made. It will be encouraging for the schoolchildren to see that there has been some progress and that their petition is making a wee bit of a difference.
Will we do that?
Home Loss Payment (PE988)
PE988, by Ian Macpherson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to increase the home loss payment.
I am pleased that the Executive is reviewing home loss payments, but I think that we should keep the petition open until we hear the outcome of that review. The matter is clearly close to the petitioner's heart, but it also has an impact on communities across Scotland.
I was going to make the same recommendation. A lot of work has been done on this complicated issue but further work is still going on and we do not know what the Executive's position will end up being. Therefore, I agree with Jackie Baillie's suggestion.
Do members agree with the suggestion?
Nuclear Power (PE989)
Petition PE989, by Colin Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate the issue of nuclear power and to discuss whether nuclear power stations are necessary in Scotland, given our enormous renewable energy resources; whether funding for nuclear power would be better invested in energy saving and renewables; whether nuclear power is sustainable, with regard to fuel supply and waste disposal; and whether plans exist to consult the Scottish public on the siting of nuclear power stations and waste depositories.
The committee will probably want to note the different positions on the petition that have been taken by the Scottish Executive, which is not opposed to new nuclear energy stations in principle, and the petitioner, who is opposed to new nuclear energy stations. We must acknowledge that gulf between the parties.
Obviously, there is, as Helen Eadie said, a difference of opinion between the Executive and the petitioner, but there is another difference of opinion, given that the Parliament does not have full responsibility for nuclear power stations. We debated such matters when we considered the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill.
I remember the petitioner and Professor Salter coming to the committee and making a knowledgeable and totally convincing presentation against nuclear power. Indeed, their presentation was so convincing that we must conclude that the position of the Government and the Executive is based on something other than logic. That said, we must accept what their position is and that the petition will not bridge the gap between the petitioner and the pro-nuclear Government in London. Unfortunately, we must also accept that consideration of the petition be concluded.
We will close it. This is another petition on which everyone can have their say and on which people can agree or disagree, but in an effort to move—
I just want to add: vote for independence.
You might as well throw that in.
Would the last person leaving Scotland turn off the lights?
The lights will be switched off for us.
We disagree about the whys and wherefores of nuclear power, but do members agree that the petition should be closed? We cannot do anything more about it, and the nuclear power debate will be on-going.
Local Plans (Environmental Designations) (PE975)
Petition PE975, by Malcolm Ouldcott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to legislate to ensure that local authorities consider all environmental designations—in particular, areas of great landscape value—when they produce new local plans. At its meeting on 27 September 2006, the committee agreed to seek views on the petition from the Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland, and to seek the petitioner's views on the responses.
I agree. There appears to be an issue with Scottish Borders Council's local plan, and we should not get involved. As you said, the Executive is reviewing NPPG 14. We should close the petition.
Do members agree?
Leisure Facilities (PE990)
Petition PE990, by Colin McCall and Derek Rosie, on behalf of Penicuik Community Education Association, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the provision of community leisure facilities throughout Scotland in the light of the proposed closure of Ladywood and Queensway community leisure centres and the Jackson Street community learning centre in Penicuik.
Although the petition has come from Penicuik and the Borders, the issue of community education facilities affects the whole of Scotland. It is remiss of the Executive not to get back to us. I would like to keep the petition open and to write to the relevant minister once again to seek an explanation of why the Executive has not got back to us.
As I noted in relation to an earlier petition, it is a discourtesy to the committee if ministers do not respond. We should make that comment and ask the Executive to explain why it has not responded. Unlike the other petition, which raised issues that were two years old and no longer relevant, this is very much a live issue. It is right that we get an explanation from the minister and a response to the petition.
Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal (PE991)
PE991, by Andrew Nicoll, calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the right of Scottish veterans to wear the pingat jasa Malaysia medal.
I would like to hear what the committee has to say first.
I am just reading the papers, as we got them only today, although the follow-up response was due in early March. I cannot follow the logic of the Cabinet Office ceremonial secretariat, which continues to say that, although we can allow the veterans to accept the medal, they have no official permission to wear it. When the men came to the committee to give evidence they were asked about the fact that they could wear the medal. They said, "Yes, we could, but we want that to be officially recognised." The correspondence suggests that although the Government turns a blind eye and no prosecutions have taken place of people who wear the medal ceremonially, they still do not have permission to wear it. As the men said, they fought and received a medal; they want the honour of wearing it without fear of being prosecuted. I cannot understand why the Cabinet Office will not give the veterans permission to wear the medal. I do not know what the committee can do about the issue, but I wanted to make that point anyway.
Given that the documentation has been tabled only this morning, it is difficult to know exactly how to respond. It is clear that there is concern out there, but the Cabinet Office's letter seems to suggest that there may be misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
The Cabinet Office is due to report in March. It would be worth the committee's while to keep the petition open at least until we see that report. We can look at whatever dialogue there is between the petitioner and the organisations involved, but we must await the Cabinet Office's decision.
The Cabinet Office has made a decision. That information is contained in its letter to us of 12 March. It is basically sticking to its original decision. I also note that it looked over all the rules on acceptance and award of not only the PJM but all foreign medals. I have to say that, although the petitioners have had the opportunity to respond, there is a great deal of detail that we have not had an opportunity to read because it has been presented to us only this morning. It would be in everybody's interests to carry the matter forward.
Unlike the committee, I have not had the benefit of seeing all the papers, but I would like to add a couple of points.
I think that our decision has been made. Are members happy to keep the petition open, so that our successor committee after May can consider it and correspond with the petitioner about how to take matters forward?
Linda Fabiani drew our attention to a fascinating matter. Can we extract her evidence from the Official Report, send a copy to the Cabinet Office and ask it to respond to the point that she made? The question needs to be answered.
Before we do that, members should take the opportunity to read the papers, which contain the answer. The petitioner provided the item in the London Gazette, but the papers include a response from the Cabinet Office ceremonial secretariat. Given the detail of the matter, if we are to do the petitioner justice we should reflect further before writing to the Cabinet Office.
We will have to keep the petition open.
We will have to do that, to be fair to the veterans. Linda Fabiani talked about Cabinetspeak. We have just received the papers and are looking through them as we go along, but I noticed a comment that, although no official permission has been given for the wearing of the medal,
We will keep the petition open, to allow proper consideration of new information. I thank Linda Fabiani for her evidence.
Christian Sabbath (PE992)
PE992, which was lodged by the Rev Hugh Cartwright, on behalf of the synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider and debate the need for a weekly day of rest from work throughout Scotland and to encourage business and commerce to close on that day. The petitioner asks that the day appointed be the Christian Sabbath.
There seems to be no mood to take the matter forward, either in Parliament or in the responses that we received. We must respect the petitioner's views, but by and large they do not reflect the popular view in the country on Sunday trading—perhaps that is regrettable. The petitioner has had his say and I do not see what else we can do with the petition.
Are members happy to close the petition?
Statutory Religious Observance in Schools (PE993)
We stay with religious matters for our next petition. PE993, by David Walker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to remove the statutory requirement on education authorities to provide for religious observance in Scottish schools.
The recommendations in our briefing paper are clear. There is strong support for maintaining the present statutory position and the status quo in Scottish education, and I suggest that we go along with that.
Unusually, I am utterly in agreement with the Scottish Executive. Religious observation is important in young and old alike. I am not concerned that taxpayers' money is being used to promote Christian values; in fact, I am glad about that, because they are vital at this time.
Shall we close the petition?
Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 (PE994)
PE994, by Margaret McCabe, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 in relation to the statutory rights of surviving children to part of the deceased's moveable estate.
I should say first that the petitioner did not receive copies of the responses. There was a valid reason for that, which I will not go into here but will explain to the clerks later.
Are members happy that we wait for the review and then reconsider the petition?
Drug-related Deaths (PE995)
Our next petition is PE995, by Robert Patterson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to hold a public inquiry into the high number of drug-related deaths in Scotland.
This is a very serious issue. I have asked a number of parliamentary questions in recent months, trying to find out exactly how people have died and how the deaths have been recorded. I understand the real anguish of the parents and relatives of people who have died through drugs, but I have never really thought that a public inquiry is the proper way to go about dealing with the issue. The petitioner is involved in another initiative and asks us to note that.
Do members agree with Sandra White's recommendation that we close the petition?
Nuclear Accidents/Incidents (Schools) (PE996)
Our next petition is PE996, by Alan MacKinnon, on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the preparedness of schools to deal with the consequences of nuclear accidents or incidents, and to introduce guidelines for local authorities on how to deal with such emergencies.
COSLA has gone further than before with its guidance on "Preparing Scotland", which has been acknowledged as a marked improvement.
It might not be necessary to keep the petition open to clarify this, but the petitioner has asked specific questions about what would happen in the event of an accident involving the transportation of nuclear material and whether the strategic co-ordinating groups that are referred to in the guidance are actually in place. If an answer to those questions can be sent directly to the petitioner, it will not be necessary to keep the petition open.
Are members agreed that we should seek answers on those points, pass them on to the petitioner and close the petition?
Carers of Children (Support) (PE998)
Petition PE998, by Moira Lenehan, on behalf of the New Fossils Grandparents Support Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a national framework to provide financial, respite, social work and educational support for grandparents, relatives and friends who are carers of children who no longer live with their natural parents.
I am happy to agree with the Scottish Executive's position that more needs to be done to develop kinship care and I welcome its approach. I particularly agree with the views of Children 1st. In the light of the Scottish Executive's views and actions—the Executive is doing a lot in this regard—I am content to close the petition.
Are members happy to close the petition?
School Clothing Grants (PE999)
Petition PE999, by Jim Milne, on behalf of Dundee Anti-poverty Forum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the school clothing grant system.
Many of us consider education to be the centrepiece of the Parliament's efforts, so it is worth doing anything that will remove a barrier to that opportunity for young people. Given that virtually every response that we have received has supported a review, we should share the responses with the Executive and suggest that we need a national review of the school clothing grant system.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Cheap Alcohol (Health) (PE1000)
Petition PE1000, by Sarah Richford, on behalf of All Saints secondary school, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate the public health implications of cheaply available alcohol.
The petition is very worth while. It highlights what is going on in our country. The problem is not just cheap alcohol but the culture, which is a bigger issue. I thank All Saints secondary school for lodging the petition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably have his chance tomorrow to raise the price of alcohol, so we can perhaps leave it up to him and he can take the blame for making people pay extra for alcohol. The petition has raised awareness of what is happening in Scotland and perhaps even in Britain as a whole. However, I think that we can now close it.
We have reached the stage where the petition can be closed, because the petitioners have achieved what they set out to do, which was to highlight just how cheaply alcohol can be purchased. There was a debate last week or the week before on tackling alcohol misuse, in which I referred to the degree of hypocrisy that permeates discussions on alcohol misuse and the price and sale of alcohol.
I take a slightly contrary view. Although the petition is about raising awareness, I am conscious that we have a raft of new licensing laws and the Executive has introduced a variety of measures. As we have witnessed today, the problem has not gone away, despite our having had an alcohol action plan for goodness knows how many years. I hesitate to give work to another committee, but I wonder whether perhaps the Health Committee should take a much closer look at the robustness of all the measures that are in place and hold an inquiry. I am in two minds about whether we need to keep the petition open, but my inkling is that there is a body of work to do on which the petition touches directly. Perhaps we should not close the petition, but forward it to another committee or keep hold of it ourselves, because the issues that it raises have not gone away.
I agree strongly with Jackie Baillie. The petition could go to the Communities Committee, the Health Committee or even the Enterprise and Culture Committee, because it raises issues of trade, the impact on communities and health. There is no doubt in my mind that alcohol misuse is a serious issue. I was delighted to learn yesterday that we have had our first successful prosecution in Fife as a result of the test purchasing scheme. That delights me no end, because when people sell alcohol to underage young people they must face the consequences. I do not want the petition to be closed, because it raises such an important issue for Scotland. There is no doubt that we have a serious problem and that we need to have a major review, as Jackie Baillie suggested.
I am happy to keep the petition open. I am a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, which considered the licensing regulations that are just about to kick in. A lot of the discussion on them was about tackling the antisocial behaviour that is related to alcohol consumption. Underlying that is the availability of alcohol. There is scope for Parliament to continue to keep the issue on the agenda.
Mesothelioma (Prescribing) (PE1006)
Our final petition is petition PE1006, by Bob Dickie, on behalf of Clydebank Asbestos Group, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the current prescribing arrangements for mesothelioma sufferers under which Alimta is made available are continued.
The petition falls into roughly the same category as the petition on the Alzheimer's drug that we considered earlier. NICE came out with recommendations, but an appeal process is under way. I would like consideration of the petition to be kept open so that it can be reviewed once the outcome of NICE's determinations has been announced. Given that the Scottish medicines consortium has supported the use of Alimta for some time and that patients are benefiting from it, the present scenario is a matter of concern. The result of the appeal process should be awaited before a decision is made on what further action to take.
I agree with that recommendation; I would hate consideration of the petition to be closed while the discussion continues. I record my concern that NHS QIS says that it does not think that there are any contextual differences in Scotland as regards the prescription of Alimta. I ask NHS QIS to reconsider the matter.
I concur with Helen Eadie and Jackie Baillie and thank the petitioners for the extra information, especially the letters from the doctors. It is sad that NICE can overrule whatever is said by a Scottish organisation such as NHS QIS. That situation needs to be addressed further down the line. In the meantime, we must keep consideration of the petition open, because it is important that mesothelioma sufferers continue to be able to get Alimta, which is known to help them.
On that basis, we will keep open consideration of the petition.