Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Official Report 429KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Gypsy Traveller Encampments (Guidance) (PE1364)

There are six current petitions for consideration today. The first is PE1364, in the name of Phyllis McBain, on clarifying guidelines on Gypsy Traveller encampments. Members have a note by the clerk on the petition. Two members, Alison McInnes and Nigel Don, have taken a great interest in the petition. Does either of them wish to make any initial comments?

Thank you, convener. I am very happy to do so. Wearing the constituency MSP’s hat, I guess that I should at least try to do so. As members will be aware, I have been involved with the petition from the beginning because I was a member of the committee when it first appeared before us. It seems like a very long haul and I cannot see it finishing any time soon.

However, I think that the story has moved on from where we started. The Government and local authorities now clearly understand that we cannot do anything to resolve the issues around Travellers unless there are enough sites. That has not happened, so I do not think that we need to have too much discussion about it. That is where we have now got to.

The particular issue that the petitioner brings to us today—I welcome her again and I think that her presence helps us to clarify our thinking—is the position of the private landowner who finds herself, quite simply, being invaded. The document “Guidelines for Managing Unauthorised Camping by Gypsies/Travellers in Scotland”, which is being reviewed, sets out what local authorities and the police should do, but it essentially speaks in terms of local authority land. The “Site Protection” section of the guidelines tells local authorities what to do if it is their own land, but it also states:

“Local authorities ... can advise private landowners how best to secure their land.”

However, local authorities have no responsibility to do so. Equally, the advice states:

“The local authority is seen as the lead agency in the management of unauthorised encampments including removals”

but

“Private landowners should take their own legal advice and action, where appropriate.”

That is as much as private landowners are left with, which I think is the nub of the problem.

I have said before—I am grateful to the clerk for reminding us, and the Government did respond to this—that local authorities could take some initiative here. The fact that Travellers are on private land does not change the fact that they are in the local authority’s area and the local authority understands the legal process. In fact, for the local authorities in question, this is standard practice. It would be easy for a local authority lawyer to go through the process of eviction or whatever, whereas it is difficult for a private landowner who has suddenly been invaded to do that when they have no experience of it.

The other point that I think the petitioner is making is that the local authority knows how to manage sites. I suggest that, when an unauthorised encampment arrives on private land, it would be sensible for the local authority to inspect it, to give it a temporary licence and to get some rudimentary organisation around it.

The final thing that I extract from the papers in front of me is the petitioner’s concern that the police struggle to deal with what are undoubtedly criminal activities on a site that are often to do with litter and damage. She recognises that, as I think that we all will, although it might be clear that somebody in the group did it, it is almost impossible for the police to decide which individual did it and therefore to bring charges under the current legal regime.

Those are the issues that are in front of us and that we must try to deal with. There are some suggestions as to how that might be done.

15:15

I endorse all that Nigel Don has said. I am here to support the petitioner, who is one of my constituents, too. Although the Government has set up a review, there are concerns about the transparency, speed and thoroughness of that review. I urge the committee to keep an eye on the petition for some time yet and not to give up the ghost just because a review has been put in place. There is no doubt in my mind that the local authorities’ role should be enhanced. There must be a way of harnessing their experience and expertise by providing clarity. That is the clarity that the petitioner seeks from the Scottish Government. We are looking for leadership from the Scottish Government on this thorny issue.

I will comment, just to make it a north-east trio, which Nanette Milne might make a quartet in a minute.

I agree that we should keep the petition open. I recall that we raised the issue of the responsibilities relating to private land when the committee discussed the petition previously, but the questions do not seem to have been answered in any meaningful way. I used the example of an area in Dyce that I represent as a councillor in Aberdeen and now as an MSP, where there is a section of public land with a piece of private land adjacent to it. A Traveller encampment arrived and spread itself across the two pieces of land, which are separated by a small access road. The private landowner and the public authority both pursued evictions, which happened at different speeds. The private landowner achieved the eviction in advance of the local authority doing so, but the Travellers who were evicted moved across to the public land and suddenly a new eviction process had to be considered because the size of the encampment had changed.

There is an issue with the way in which the judicial process works for public bodies and private individuals. It does not always work at the same speed or in a joined-up way. We need to highlight that and clarify the situation. Perhaps in circumstances in which a boundary is crossed, we need to have one responsible individual or authority so that, rather than having two applications for eviction, there is a single eviction application, which would make the process simpler.

Aside from that, we all recognise that the Traveller community has rights, but we must ensure that we provide sites for Travellers so that we do not have situations such as those that have been experienced by Mrs McBain and others. That is another aspect that I am keen to tease out in the review. The problem that we found in Aberdeen was that everybody thinks that a site for Travellers is great, but nobody wants it where they are. Squaring that circle is a problem. How do we get people to accept not just that we need sites, but that we need them in particular locations? That is another issue that we should explore.

I will indeed make us a north-east quartet.

I agree with everything that has been said so far. We know that a review has commenced and that the Government agrees that the guidance is out of date and needs to be changed. According to our papers, officials will meet with COSLA to agree an approach to updating guidance and, thereafter, there will be wider liaison with stakeholders, including people such as Mrs McBain. The “thereafter” bit concerns me, because the stakeholders should be an integral part now and not thereafter. The petitioner has asked what the terms of reference for the review are. We should know that. The issue should be opened up for public debate. We have the papers before us that set out what the petitioner would like. I totally agree with her requests. I suggest that we write to the Government in fairly firm terms suggesting that people such as Mrs McBain—I am sure that there are other private landowners in the same situation—should be involved as stakeholders in formulating what is important guidance for their future.

I will throw my tuppenceworth in as someone from the Glasgow area. I found the evidence from Nigel Don and Alison McInnes very helpful because I am not involved in the issue as closely as they are. From what they said, I wonder whether the Government’s recommendations for new guidelines go far enough.

I very much agree with what Nanette Milne said about stakeholders, and about taking the issue further and involving the petitioner and others. I thank Nigel Don and Alison McInnes for their evidence, which enlightened me about what is happening up in the north-east. We should continue the petition.

Although I am from the central belt and not the north-east of Scotland, I live quite close to a former Gypsy Traveller site that was closed by the local authority some years ago. I am at a loss about the wider debate because we hear that there are not enough sites for Gypsy Travellers, yet local authorities are closing down sites in central Scotland. It raises the question of how Gypsy Traveller sites have been identified in the past and how the resources could have been used to more beneficial effect. Where I live, a number of Gypsy Traveller families have moved into residential properties with land at the back of them. Some of the land is being used by individuals who would see themselves as part of the Gypsy Traveller community.

The petitioner has put down in black and white the kind of issues that the Government should be considering. The committee should send the petitioner’s latest submission to the Government and ask it to address all of the issues raised. There are many practical solutions to the problems that are faced by landowners, Gypsy Travellers and others in relation to the management of sites.

I support other colleagues who have said that we need to know what the remit of the review will be. There is no point in carrying out a review if it does not cover the issues that have been identified by the petitioner, and others throughout Scotland who face similar problems. It would be useful if we could urge the Government to give us sight of what will be in the review and what the criteria for the review will be.

I thank members for their contributions. We have a unanimous view on the importance of keeping the petition open. Members have raised a series of questions that remain unanswered, not least on the issue of site development. Members will know that we have had a letter from the minister, Michael Matheson, saying:

“Officials have written to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), to set up a meeting early in the New Year to agree an approach to update the Guidance and to link into any other work that is being progressed. Following this, a wider liaison with stakeholders, including the petitioner ... will be undertaken.”

It is a good suggestion that the petitioner’s latest comments should be forwarded to the minister. There is a series of unanswered questions. It is a very difficult issue, but it is vital that we continue the petition and keep an active interest in it.

We should involve the petitioner now rather than waiting until further down the line.

Nanette Milne made the point that we ought to see the terms of reference for the review. It would be good if the Government were open about that.

That is a good point. I am sure that the clerk will take that on board when writing to the Government.

I thank members for the discussion and thank our two guests for attending.

---

Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)

We come to the second current petition, which is PE1384, in the name of Kim Hartley. It is entitled “Giving Voice—speech and language therapy transforms lives”. Member have a note from the clerk. I invite contributions from members.

The petition has been with us for a wee while. The Government says that the matter is the responsibility of NHS boards and it is still consulting on the allied health professions national delivery plan. It has said that it will involve the petitioner in that consultation. We can close the petition because it is the responsibility of NHS boards and the Government has said that it will include the petitioner in discussion of how to improve access to therapy and support for people with communication difficulties.

I do not want to disagree with Sandra White, but I would like to keep the petition open almost for the same reasons that she has given for closing it. We have the Government’s assurance that it will deal with the petitioner and also that it is consulting on the AHP national delivery plan, but I would like to be a bit further down the road, to see what the outcome of the consultation is and to see what the petitioner’s involvement has been before we close the petition. I would like to keep it open a little bit longer just to make sure.

There is merit in keeping the petition open until the plan is published. We could consider it again at that stage, which will probably be the point at which we can decide whether to continue it or close it.

I am quite happy to go along with what the other two members have said.

In a great spirit of consensus, the committee agrees to continue the petition and seek further information that it considers necessary, as suggested in point 1 of the clerk’s recommendations.

---

Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)

PE1395, in the name of Jan Culík, concerns targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at universities. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions on the petition. There was a useful debate when we had an evidence-taking session on it some time ago.

I would like the petition to be continued. Some questions have arisen not only since we took evidence but from looking into the background.

As the Scottish Government has given more money to the universities, I would like to ask them whether they would be able to use that money to continue foreign language teaching.

Some of our papers mention the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which used to give money to support language teaching. They say that that funding was ended because of devolution, but it was not ended until fairly recently and devolution started in 1999. I would like to find out exactly when and why that funding was ended.

Foreign language teaching is extremely important and the petition has been supported by everyone to whom I have spoken, including various organisations. We desperately need foreign language skills in Scotland. Therefore, I would like to ask the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council why it is not prepared to continue funding for it, particularly given the extra money that is going to universities.

We have a response that is headed “Petitioner Letter of 2 February 2012” and signed by Hugh McMahon. I understood that the petitioner was Jan Culík. I seek clarification of whether the committee is content to accept petitioner responses from someone other than the person who launched a petition with the committee.

Hugh McMahon has been closely involved in the petition and is authorised by the petitioner to make the response.

I wanted to get that on the record, so that is clear to people. If there is an agreement between Jan Culík and Hugh McMahon, that is fine.

That is a legitimate point and I am glad to be able to reassure the member on it. It is clear that the petition is important. I recommend continuing it and following the clerk’s first recommendation, which is to await the outcome of the “Putting Learners at the Centre” consultation. It is important that we are seen to support the petition as much as we can. We can consider it again when we have the outcome of the consultation. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner and Mr McMahon for their attendance.

---

Scottish Cancer Drug Fund (PE1407)

PE1407, in the name of Jamie Walker, is on a Scottish cancer drug fund. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I invite contributions from members.

This is another important petition. Before the meeting, I read all the submissions carefully, which took me quite a long time. The thread that runs through them all is that things have improved with individual patient treatment requests, but the system is not working perfectly and inequalities have arisen, which is partly because of the cancer drug fund south of the border. Most of the people who have written to the committee do not seem to think that a Scottish cancer drug fund is the way to go, mainly because they are looking to the future—to value-based pricing, which is due to happen by 2014. The Scottish Government is looking at that along with the Westminster Government.

The Scottish Government has decided that improvements could be made to the provision of some cancer drugs. The chief medical officer and the chief pharmaceutical officer have been asked to review processes, with a focus on ensuring that the Scottish Medicines Consortium considers requests timeously.

I would like to keep the petition open. We should write to ask the Scottish Government for an update on its timetable for issuing further guidance and to ask for detail on the work that has been undertaken or is planned with the Department of Health south of the border on developing and implementing value-based pricing.

I do not disagree with Nanette Milne. She and I had a long conversation about the petition before the meeting, because it is important. However, I do not support her recommendation of keeping the petition open. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy has confirmed that the Government has no plans to reconsider its policy on a Scottish cancer drug fund, that it has improved access to all newly licensed medicines, that further guidance will be issued and that it is working with the Department of Health to develop and implement value-based pricing.

We have confirmation from the Scottish Medicines Consortium that it does not support a cancer drug fund. Macmillan Cancer Support, Myeloma UK and the Rarer Cancers Foundation do not support a cancer drug fund. The experts have said that the Scottish Government is going the right way. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, continuing the petition could give the petitioner false hope. We should close the petition.

I agree with Sandra White. The responses to the petition are fairly unanimous. They point in the direction that the issue will go no further. Keeping the petition open would be disingenuous, as it is never likely to go anywhere. We should close it.

I support Mark McDonald and Sandra White. In the conclusion to his letter about the responses that we have received, the petitioner takes the petition in a completely different direction, as he asks for a

“Review of SMC practices”

and a

“Review of contracts with pharmaceutical companies”.

As has been said, the responses from a number of organisations and from the cabinet secretary outline clearly the Government’s position, which the majority of practitioners who work in cancer-related fields seem to support.

I will not go to the wall on this. I think that I have more or less said what the others have said, namely that there is clearly no appetite at the moment for a cancer drug fund. I had hoped that we could keep the option open until we knew the further guidance, which will be issued early this year. It has been promised, so I would like to keep an eye on it.

I remind Nanette Milne and the petitioner that, if the report, which will be produced later this year, raises concerns, they will have the opportunity to return to the committee with another petition to highlight the issues, if he feels that those have not been covered. Although we will close this petition today, the petitioner will have another opportunity to present a petition if he feels that the review does not go far enough. If the review’s findings do not concur with what he wants to achieve, he can return to the committee at a later date.

That is why I am happy to agree with the majority view of the committee.

We have consensus. Members will be aware that petitioners need to wait a year to bring a petition back on the same terms. Do we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7, in line with the clerk’s fourth option?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Uniforms Policy (PE1411)

PE1411, in the name of Luca Scarabello, centres on reforming uniform policy in all Scottish local authority schools. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

I think that we should continue the petition. I note the Scottish Youth Parliament’s submission, which says that, if it had had more time, it would have been able to consult its members. It has offered to undertake a consultation, so it would be interesting to continue the petition and wait for the SYP to get back to us.

I agree. I have been disappointed to see unfortunate headlines on this issue in some of the tabloid press. Frankly, they have demeaned the issue and highlighted exactly the kind of discrimination that exists towards young people with gender issues. It is important that we all debate such things maturely. The press has an important role to play in creating a perception in society of gender issues, and I hope that it will reflect on that. We should continue the petition to allow for the SYP to undertake a survey of its members, which might inform further discussion and give us an indication of how we will progress.

That is a good point. Are we agreed that we will continue the petition in order to seek further information, specifically the SYP’s feedback on its survey?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Bond of Caution (PE1412)

Our final petition is PE1412, in the name of Bill McDowell, on bond of caution. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

I would like to continue the petition and write to the Government. Given that the issue was included in the Scottish Law Commission’s 2009 report due to an overwhelming demand that the topic be examined, it would be prudent for us to write to the Government and continue the petition until we receive a reply.

Do we agree to write to the Government, in line with the clerk’s first option?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their contributions. As we agreed in item 1, the committee will now move into private session for the final item.

15:39 Meeting continued in private until 15:50.