Official Report 236KB pdf
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee's eighth meeting in the third session. I forewarn members of the committee and members of the public, in case they have not had their hair done today, that a photographer is in the room. He will take snapshots of the committee in session. If you are a wee bit averse to photography, as most politicians are, you may wish to leave the room.
Village and Community Halls (PE1070)
The first new petition for us to consider is PE1070, by Sandra Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to recognise the importance of village and community halls in rural Scotland; to create a Scottish halls fund to refurbish or modernise community buildings in order to increase the level of community use of them and improve the range and quality of the services that are provided; to fund a village halls support service; to create a fair relief scheme for water charges for charities that will maintain the exemption beyond 2010; and to work with appropriate partners to cut regulatory burdens and support the interests of hall committees.
Before I was elected to the Parliament, I worked as a policy manager for the SCVO, and I know the two witnesses.
I thank you for your courtesy and honesty.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of PE1070.
Does Norman MacAskill have anything to add?
No. Sandra Hogg's presentation was very comprehensive.
Having heard the presentation, do members have any questions?
Is there any way of accounting for the difference between the Big Lottery Fund's attitude to funding halls in England and the attitude that is taken in Scotland? Has that been explained?
I do not think so. I think that there are just different priorities in the different countries.
I know that, for village halls and other charitable organisations, the potential impact of the withdrawal of water rates relief in 2010 is an issue. What financial benefits does the present water rates relief system provide? What is the impact of that on new-build halls?
At the moment, halls need to meet about six different criteria to qualify for water charges relief. Some halls managed to meet those criteria, but new-build halls qualify for the relief only if they have remained in the same premises. New buildings do not qualify for the relief, so such halls automatically start paying charges. Those halls that were not registered in the required period do not get the relief either. Water charges relief does not apply across the board. The system is iniquitous.
As things stand, the relief will disappear for all halls after 2010. Is that right?
At the moment, that is correct.
Who owns the village and community halls that we are talking about?
In the vast majority of cases, the halls are owned by the communities themselves.
Do you want water rates exemption to be applied to all village community halls rather than just those that are in community ownership? For example, many halls that act as a vital hub to small communities are technically owned by the local authority. However, communities very much desire such halls to be run as community facilities rather than to be seen as part of the local authority's outreach work. Do you want the relief to be extended to all halls, including those that fall into that category?
That question is difficult, because it asks where we draw the line. The SCVO's position is that all charities should be exempt from paying water charges. Charities are also exempt from paying local authority rates. However, not all halls are charities. Relief would encourage halls to become charities, which might be good for them from several points of view, including accounting to the public. However, deciding where to draw the line is difficult. To say that all charities should receive relief might be the easiest way to proceed.
It strikes me that the challenge that you raise in the petition is about whether decision makers discuss with one another a strategic vision for community halls. Anyone who has been to a community hall will know of a similar nervousness about who dances first.
We have had individual discussions with many people who are involved in village hall funding and support. One proposal that we are running in parallel with the campaign is for a village hall summit that would bring together not primarily village hall users, but people who are involved in providing funding and support, for the purpose that you described—to ensure that they are all dancing the same dance—and to reduce the burden of difficulty on village hall committee members, who have to fill in dozens of funding applications with different reporting requirements.
In discussions, we are all unravelling the recently announced budget. From looking at the budget, do you have a sense of avenues in it that would assist the debate, or has it made that more difficult?
To be honest, I have not been in a position to study the detail of the budget. We are glad that the Scottish rural development programme, which awaits signing-off in Brussels, includes a measure on community and leisure facilities. That is by no means ring fenced for village halls, but it represents a pot of money that will be available for village halls to make bids to through rural development contracts or LEADER. We are happy with that, but on the detail of the budget and joining up with other funders, we are watching this space.
You suggest a Scottish halls fund. Do you have a ballpark figure for how big that fund would have to be to satisfy basic demand?
One problem is that we do not know the number and condition of village halls and how much funding will be needed to refurbish, repair and, where necessary, rebuild them. We are loth just to pluck a figure out of the air, but we have brainstormed it a bit. What is on the table for the next six years of the rural development programme is potentially £32 million. We did our sums and reckoned that if the figure were taken up to about £50 million for that period, that would probably approach sufficiency to address the needs. However, we do not want to say that with one figure, the problem will be sorted. The Government or somebody else should do serious research to assess the condition and needs of village halls.
I want to try to get the ballpark figures. You are saying that £4 million or £5 million per year would get the £32 million up to £50 million. Joined-up, coherent discussions are an issue. Discussions with the likes of the Big Lottery Fund in Scotland could result in matching funds. Have there been any discussions about extending the exemption scheme for water charges? Such discussions would be complex for anybody at ministerial level to deal with. Is the door totally closed on that matter, or is there still willingness to talk?
Our colleagues in the SCVO have been pursuing that matter. The issue was included in our petition because it is a great concern to people in many village halls, but it is obvious that that concern stretches much wider—it is a concern for charities and the voluntary sector. We have not led on the matter, but the SCVO is certainly pursuing it.
I would like to expand the debate slightly. Community ownership of community facilities is an issue that is dear to my heart. In that context, I should have declared an interest earlier, as I have been working with a group in my constituency to take ownership of community facilities that the local authority currently operates.
It probably is expanding. In England, a fund that is delivered through the Big Lottery Fund was announced this year. The money that is involved is not the Big Lottery Fund's money—I think that it is Government money. I cannot remember the details, but the money supports local authorities giving communities their buildings and funding the refurbishment of those buildings. A specific fund has therefore been opened to allow communities to take ownership of community buildings. A fund also exists that helps them to bring buildings up to standard, as many have been badly neglected over the past few years.
The Big Lottery Fund in Scotland is discussing with different communities the transfer of community assets that are currently under local authority control to create an equity base for community halls. As you can imagine, the issue is fraught with complexities, but a commitment to do that certainly exists.
The need for a nationwide support service that would help to bring together diverse funding and support and consideration of many issues should be emphasised. We envisage that as a resource not only for hard-pressed village hall committee members spending a Friday night trying to fill in funding applications or get architectural advice, but for people who want to find the most appropriate ways of delivering funding and support. The support service could work in both directions. It would not cost a huge amount of money for the Government to fund, but the benefits would be enormous.
We have heard the petitioners and had the question-and-answer session. Do members have any recommendations about how to proceed with the petition?
One key issue is the continuation of water charge exemptions. It would be worth writing to the Scottish Government to ask for its views on that and on what it sees as the future of the exemptions for village halls post 2010. We should ask whether the Government envisages a continuation of the exemptions and what its plans are.
In view of the fact that none of us really has a handle on the budget proposals that the Parliament debated last week, I presume that we need to write to the Government to ask where it thinks the funds that we have been talking about might be in the current budget proposals.
We should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Many village and community halls provide vital services in communities. We have discussed rural post offices and alternative avenues for certain services. Village halls provide many facilities that are normally picked up by local authorities or health boards, so it would be useful to get a view from COSLA on the future of the village halls programme and its possible expansion.
The water charge issue is clearly a major concern for many charities. If we are writing to the Government to ask about the water charge exemptions, is it in our remit to extend the query to include churches and town halls, even though the petition is clearly about community and village halls? I do not know about other members, but a significant amount of the mail in my mailbag is from churches, which have a major concern about water charges.
On Nanette Milne's first point, the clerk advises me that, because her suggestion is not within the scope of the petition, it would be difficult for us to refer to those points in our letter. The member, like many of us, has had letters from churches that allow church halls to be used by groups other than church ones. We can continue to pursue that as individual members or perhaps as a committee when that is appropriate, but the structure of PE1070 does not allow the committee to do so at present.
Thank you.
Car Parking (Hospitals) (PE1086)
I ask the next petitioner to come to the table. PE1086, by Chris Paterson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to issue new guidance to health boards to remove excessive charges for car parking—particularly for staff who work shifts and for whom public transport alternatives are limited.
I come before the committee as an individual representing the 5,200 people who have signed the petition—I am not representing an organisation. My original statement on the petition was written prior to the introduction of hospital car parking charges and I surmised what the potential problems were. Now that we have lived with the charges for almost four months, I confirm that all those concerns are a reality.
Thank you very much, Chris. Do members have any questions?
Forgive me—I come from very much further east—but I have one simple question. Are the car parks run by the health service or are they run under some private arrangement?
I am not entirely sure about all of them. I know that the situation at Glasgow royal infirmary is separate from the arrangements that have been introduced at other Glasgow hospitals. To the best of my knowledge, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has brought in an independent company and its attendants manage the car parks.
Thank you for your evidence today, Chris. I am familiar with the issue, as my cousin is a nurse in Fife and I know the kinds of shift patterns that she is required to work. She recently passed her driving test, as it was impossible for her to use public transport because of the hours that she works.
To the best of my knowledge, one of the primary reasons for introducing the charges was that patients arriving at the hospital found it difficult to get parked. By and large, they could find a space, but it took them a bit of time because the car parks were busy. The only positive outcome from the charges is that patients have the luxury of being able to drive in and find a parking space easily.
Chris, can you clarify how you wish the petition to be taken forward? Are you concerned that the green issue has not been dealt with properly and that charges should not have been implemented before that issue had been effectively interrogated?
No, my main concern is that people should be able to get to their work reasonably and safely. They should not suddenly be required to pay out £140 a month for doing that.
The point that I was making is that, to your mind, the health board should have ensured that public transport was provided before it decided to introduce the charges. In effect, your argument is that the cart has been placed before the horse. If the health board cared so much about the green transport issue, it should have ensured that public transport was in place beforehand.
Absolutely.
Finally, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has given a commitment to complete a review by the end of this month. Are you disappointed that health boards in some parts of Scotland intend to proceed with plans to implement car parking charges before that review is complete?
Absolutely. That has disappointed many people. To the best of my knowledge, the review will begin this Friday 23 November, but its recommendations will not be made public until April 2008. That means that it will be five months before we see any recommendations, never mind changes.
Just out of interest, do you know whether the health board has made any attempts to ensure that public transport serves the hospital?
The board has said that it is looking into the matter and is in negotiations, but nothing has happened.
I understand from what you said earlier that health boards have prioritised parking spaces for certain members of staff, but they tend to be senior consultants and other senior medical staff.
The spaces are for people who have to use their car up to four times a week, which is generally people who have to attend meetings at different hospitals during nine-to-five hours.
I am looking at this from an economic point of view. It seems that those who are paid most in the health service are those who are least affected by the charges. Those who are paid the least could have to pay £140 a month to use the cark park. It all comes down to how one determines who an essential worker is. The health board seems to have decided that senior staff members are essential workers, but nursing staff and others are not.
Yes.
People have different starting points on this issue. In your experience, have the health boards' approaches shifted depending on their audience? They have made arguments about green issues, parking and generating income. It seems that different arguments have been deployed at different times. Each hospital in the area that you have identified faces different pressures in relation to parking—the situation is not the same for each hospital—yet a universal policy on hospital parking will be applied right across the board. Are you picking that up from staff who have signed the e-petition or have raised the matter with you?
I am not aware of each hospital having different problems. It is easier for staff at one particular hospital to park in surrounding suburban streets, but that is just creating another problem rather than solving the one that we are trying to solve. The points that I raised in my statement reflect a feeling across the board.
John Wilson referred to staff who might have higher salaries than support staff, ancillary staff or junior ward staff. The impact on staff in your area of work of paying car parking charges might be equivalent to a pay cut. Have you any notional figure for that?
Absolutely. A pay rise for somebody like me would be about £50 a month once a year, yet they would suddenly have to find £140 a month to bring their car to work.
If you have to perform certain duties at certain times, you could find yourself having less take-home pay than before the pay rise because of the parking charges.
I would have considerably less pay.
Are you as an individual staff member aware of what is happening in discussions with the health board or the unions? Do you find the communication helpful? Is there a lack of communication?
We get a core, brief letter sent over the intranet telling us what is happening. There does not seem to be much room for discussion. I have written to the health board and I got a letter back addressing my points, but saying that the board has to address the green issue, congestion and parking for patients. I know that one of the unions handed in an 11,000 signature petition to the health board in July and got the same response—that those issues have to be addressed and the matter is not up for discussion.
If you were able to secure concessionary parking for staff at the hospital, how do you suggest that it could be policed? How would you control it?
That is a difficult issue. However, there are lots of difficult things in life. We can fly people to the moon, so there must be a solution. I am not entirely sure what it is, but there must be a way of doing it. Each member of staff could be given a permit to prove that they were a staff member and not just somebody who wanted to park at the hospital so they could go and do their shopping in town. There could be a specific parking area for patients. There must be an average number of patients attending the hospital at any one time. An area could be allocated solely for them. They could get a pass with their appointment card.
So you do not think that it would be difficult to control the parking. What about people who are not medical staff—people who do not work at the hospital—using the car park?
It is clearly not right for people to park there just so that they can do their shopping. A member of the portering staff could check that everyone who comes in has a permit or proof of why they are there.
So if someone did not have a permit, or something similar, they would not get into the car park.
I suppose that that would create a difficulty for people who were coming to visit patients.
In your petition, you make a point about staff who are not car owners working unsociable hours and having to go to the Govan Road bus stop, where they are potentially vulnerable. If you achieved concessionary parking, that would not eliminate the difficulty relating to public transport.
Absolutely. There are green issues that need to be addressed for reasons other than the petition. Public transport must be improved for everyone, in all walks of life. That must happen before we make it too difficult for people to take their cars anywhere.
In a previous life, I had the privilege during the summer of working as a gatehouse attendant in hospitals. We had a relatively straightforward boom system: if people wanted access, they had to demonstrate either that they had a visitor pass, because family members with long-term illness were in the hospital, or that they were a staff member. By and large, the system worked reasonably sensibly; its operation was part of the hospital portering staff's duties. Admittedly, that was a fairly long time ago and the volume of traffic is now markedly higher, but a modified version of the system, combined with the use of technology such as swipe cards, could be adopted. The reality is that people would still try to get around it to help their pals to get a parking space.
That would be a popular decision.
Should the health board pursue the issue while the review that the minister announced is under way?
It would be much better if the health board froze the position for the moment, given the difficulties that exist, until the review is complete.
I think that we should write to the health board to express concern about the fact that it is accelerating the discussion, given the review process that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has initiated. A number of major issues need to be addressed, including the issue of access. Do members agree?
I agree absolutely. I was a member of the Health Committee in the previous session, when it took evidence on hospital car parking charges. There are wide variations between health boards. The system with which I am most familiar is totally different from that which has been described this afternoon. I welcome the review that has been announced by the Government; we should ask to be kept informed about it. Clearly, there are such wide variations that the situation needs to be considered more equitably across the country. The suggestion of contacting the health board is good, and I would go along with that.
There is an issue in welcoming the review: is the health board willing to take notice of it? This Sunday, charges will begin in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area at the Southern general, Stobhill and one other hospital.
I know that the petition is quite narrow, but Chris Paterson has raised a number of important issues concerning the current public transport constraints. More important, she has raised the health and safety issues for staff who work in hospitals throughout Scotland and the problems and potential dangers that they may face getting to and from work or, as Chris said, waiting at a bus stop.
I wonder whether we could widen the discussion further. Two weeks after I was elected as a city councillor in Dundee—that was four years ago—we introduced a residents parking scheme. Anyone who knows Dundee will know that my ward, Ninewells, contained a large hospital and a lot of people who could not park outside their houses, because everybody else wanted to park there when parking charges were introduced at the hospital. That obvious knock-on effect needs to be explored.
People perhaps knew that that would happen, but there could be unintended consequences in neighbouring residential areas of squeezing on a hospital site. That issue has thrown itself up at one or two hospitals because of their locations.
The second point is about the broader definitions, which Chris Paterson raised in her petition. For some folk in the Parliament, it is a matter of principle whether there should be charges in hospitals at all, which will come up in the open debate on that. However, we should raise the idea of exploring all other options, because it strikes me that the punitive option has been taken. It will impact on staff during the daytime, never mind the complexities that many staff have in getting any transport other than their own personal transport or a taxi to hospitals in the evening, given the shift patterns that are worked.
I hope that that is a wee bit more progress for you, Chris. You have probably been sitting in tearooms, raging about the issue with your fellow staff members in the past six or so months. If there is a concern, the Parliament has to hear it. We cannot guarantee that we will resolve the concern for you, but we can guarantee that we will push the boundaries with the health board to try to raise the issues more effectively.
We will welcome any help that we can get. Thank you.
Thank you for your time.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
According to the agenda, the next petition should be PE1071. However, as a member of Parliament who is not on the committee but who expressed an interest in speaking to the petition has not arrived at the committee yet—he is attending another committee meeting—we will defer consideration of it until a bit later, to give him a chance to get here.
John Wheatley College (PE1072)
The next petition that we will deal with is PE1072, from Councillor Frank Docherty, on behalf of the East Centre and Calton local community planning partnership and the board of John Wheatley College. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to take steps to enable John Wheatley College to be able to comply fully with the charities test that was established under the terms of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005.
I was concerned by the problem that the petition raises. In my role in the SCVO, I was quite close to the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill as it passed through the Parliament and I certainly do not think that the Scottish Executive intended it to exclude colleges from charitable status.
The reason for introducing the new charity legislation was to reduce the conflict that seemed to be arising from the lack of clarity between bona fide charitable organisations and organisations that declared themselves to be charitable organisations for the purposes of exempting themselves from certain conditions.
That is an important point. The issue must be thoroughly investigated to ensure that this sort of unintended consequence does not happen the next time a similar circumstance arises.
Paul Martin has a constituency interest in this matter as well. He has had a busy afternoon.
As the convener said, John Wheatley College has recently relocated to the Haghill area of my constituency. The work that the college has done over the years has been a good example of how colleges should operate.
It is helpful to note that "Principles and Priorities: The Government's Programme for Scotland", which was published in September, says that the Government will
Kinship Carers (PE1085)
PE1085 is from Caroline Garrett, on behalf of You Are Not Alone, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive or Government to provide total recognition for kinship carers.
I was impressed by the letter from YANA, which details the research that it did in Dumfries and Galloway this year. It is interesting to note the high percentage of kinship carers who qualified for the grant that was provided and how many of them were senior citizens, or certainly over 52 years of age. YANA should be commended for doing that work.
I remember from my time in the children's hearings system—things will not have changed—that the children's panel can specify that a child should be moved into the care of a family member rather than into foster care or other forms of care. If the children's panel can make that decision, it is bizarre that kinship carers have no legal status. The petition merits further consideration.
I know that the former First Minister explored the options. In the past two or three weeks, unless I am mistaken, the Labour leader asked a question of the First Minister, Alex Salmond, who said something constructive on the matter. I am sure that I heard him say that the Government wants to move forward on kinship care. Maybe Alasdair Morgan can confirm that.
Yes. Thank you, convener. You are quite right in all that you say. The matter is not just about giving money to carers who look after children, although that is obviously an important mechanism. It is about ensuring that a certain proportion of our children are not disadvantaged compared with their peers in relation to the clothes that they wear, the educational experiences of which they can take advantage, and other normal things that the rest of their class can access because they have more funds. The quote that says all that we need to hear on the matter is from a 16-year-old:
I will sum up. There is a positive consensus on trying to progress the issue. I think that there has been cross-party support in the chamber on the matter, but obviously a legislative framework and, more important, a resource allocation must now be found. I would certainly not quibble with what Alasdair Morgan has said, and I presume that committee members assent to it and are comfortable with it.
Primary Schools (Visiting Specialist Teachers) (PE1071)
We return to PE1071, which is from Ruchelle Cullen—I hope that I have pronounced that name correctly—on behalf of Lochinver primary school parents and teachers association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all primary school children, especially those in remote and rural areas, have adequate access to visiting specialist teachers of music, art and physical education.
I am in danger of repeating what I have said in the Parliament on various occasions over the past eight years. It is sad but true that specialist teachers of music, art and physical education are often the first to suffer from cuts if a local authority needs to trim its budget. Those teachers are, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other people, essential to the education of our young people. Music, art and drama should be thought of as core subjects rather than additional subjects. It is simply wrong to deny children in their early years access to specialist teaching and the wonderful experiences that that teaching brings. Something needs to be done.
The petition calls for more visiting teachers, particularly in rural areas—that is its gist. Under the previous Administration in Edinburgh, all sorts of promises were made about additional visiting teachers. Quite significant numbers were discussed, but not much has happened. The petitioners are trying to redress the balance.
I echo the comments that others have made, particularly Robin Harper. I do not see how we can leave these specialist subjects out of education. At this point, I should perhaps point out that I was a music teacher in a previous incarnation. To me, it is a basic issue. I have one memory of my earliest school. Do not ask me how long ago that was, but I remember banging a drum—and I have been a noisy soul ever since, as most people who know me will verify. These subjects are crucial. They are not something to be cut. We just need to bang the drum.
Mind you, banging a drum can cause a few stushies here and there in my constituency—but there we are.
I was going to suggest that. The petition comes from a rural context but, as other members have said, we need to widen out the issue to the whole of Scotland. It is not just in rural areas that specialist teaching staff are unavailable. It would be useful to get the views from COSLA's membership on what councils are doing to carry things forward, including in urban schools, in light of the previous Executive's commitment.
Okay.
Are you suggesting that we contact the Educational Institute of Scotland?
I am suggesting COSLA, but it would be useful to contact the EIS, too.
We should contact the local authority and the two major quango organisations, the Scottish Arts Council and sportscotland—whatever happens to either of them. Oops—sorry, that was a wee bit of politics, there.
Did you mention Highland Council?
Yes—so that you can send your irate letter to them, John.
Electricity Transmission Lines (Underground Cabling) (PE1087)
PE1087, by Nancy Gardner, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate using underground and, where appropriate, undersea cabling for any new electricity transmission lines, such as that which is proposed between Beauly and Denny. The petition, as well as having been lodged, was hosted on the e-petitions system, where it gathered 232 signatures. The petition is relatively clear. I invite views on how to deal with it. I know that consultation is continuing. In fact, the inquiry into the matter is now on-going.
There is a lot of interest in what is happening and a lot of criticism about what has been proposed. I suppose that we must wait for the results of the public inquiry, which I think is drawing to a conclusion. The local population on the route of the Beauly to Denny line are certainly objecting strongly. All the local authorities, from Highland to Stirling, have also objected. There is a lot to happen yet.
I was going to suggest that we do not wait until the inquiry has reported its findings, as certain issues need to be addressed. This petition might well have raised another—how to transmit the electricity that is produced—on which it would be worth while for the committee to seek the views of the Scottish Government and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. After all, the petition might give them an alternative that might not have been considered in the inquiry and that they might think about before they go ahead and put up the pylons and cabling from Beauly to Denny.
A week and a half ago, I attended a conference in Dundee with people involved in establishing sources of renewable energy and in exploring how to transmit across Scotland the electricity produced. All the issues raised in the petition are topmost in the experts' minds, so I do not think that it will tell them anything that they have not thought about already. Of course, that does not stop us writing to the Government or anyone else on what the current position might be.
Are members happy with those recommendations?
Further Education Lecturers <br />(Pay and Conditions) (PE1088)
PE1088 is from Dr Robert Leslie, on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland North Glasgow College branch, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the salary levels and employment conditions of further education lecturing staff, who are at present seriously disadvantaged compared with university lecturers and schoolteachers. Do members have any views on this rather straightforward petition?
I find it interesting that on the very day that we have discussed John Wheatley College's charitable status we are considering this petition. My understanding is that many further education lecturers' terms and conditions have come about as a result of changes in the further education sector—including the move towards charitable status—that were made a number of years ago. It is a worthwhile issue for consideration and we should seek the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the Association of Scottish Colleges and the University and College Union to find out what went wrong and what can be done to redress the problem. After all, many colleges face cash restrictions. As we pointed out in our discussion on the petition on car parking charges at hospitals, one of the first things to happen in this kind of situation is that workers' salaries get squeezed. The same might well have happened in the further education sector over the past decade.
I should declare an interest as a member of the EIS. The petition's broader point is that we seek the views of the agencies that John Wilson mentioned on the issues involved. However, such issues should, of course, form part of the union's direct negotiations with the employer.
I am aware that particular difficulties have emerged in the negotiations between individual colleges and unions. Indeed, in some cases the union's rights in these pay negotiations have been derecognised. This petition goes much wider than has been suggested, convener, and the bodies that I have suggested we seek information from might well flesh out some of the issues that it raises.
Do members agree to that course of action?
Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)
PE1089 is from Morag Parnell on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network in Scotland, which 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. Since the petition closed on the e-petitions system in late October, the petitioner has gathered 91 more signatures of support.
Let me try to lead us through this. Obviously, the petition is wide ranging and general but it makes a fair point. Unfortunately, synthetic chemistry has given us all sorts of molecules that were not there originally and we are paying the price.
One organisation that has been suggested is the occupational and environmental health research group at the University of Stirling. It might be worth exploring the issue with that group, with appropriate Government departments or ministers and with any other organisation that deals with health-at-work issues.
We should perhaps write to the Health and Safety Executive.
In view of the fact that just about everything that we buy and eat seems to have chemical additives of one kind or another, it might be worth asking the Food Standards Agency for its input and knowledge.
At the moment, human beings in the western world do not seem to be threatened health-wise—apart from by obesity—and we now live longer than we did before. However, I am concerned at the sheer number of chemicals in the environment. We should ask whether any research has been done on the cumulative effects. We might not be able to identify those clearly at the moment, but such effects might occur through exposure to a cumulatively large amount of various chemicals. For example, I know that WWF has carried out some research on the chemicals that are collected in house dust. It is pretty frightening to see how many different chemicals exist in the average vacuum cleaner-load of house dust. I urge that some research be focused on that issue. Instead of considering just individual chemicals in minute quantities, we need to examine how the different chemicals relate to one another. Under the current regulations, certain levels of chemicals are allowed and a huge number of additives can be put into the processed food that we buy—the additives listed on a packet of dried fruit can be quite concerning—but those additives would not normally be present in food taken straight from the ground.
If members have no other additional comments or recommendations, we will approach those organisations for further information. Do members accept that course of action?
Next
Current Petitions