Public Petitions Committee, 21 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Monday, September 21, 2009

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

For the benefit of members of the public who are present, let me say that current petitions are those that have already been submitted to the Public Petitions Committee—we are attempting to explore some of the issues that they have raised. The petitions are at different stages; some are on issues on which we have received updates, and we may decide after our discussions that we want to continue with them. We might have reached the end of the road with other petitions because we have, within our structure, explored the issues as far as we think is possible in trying to resolve or address them, or because the matter is being addressed more appropriately through other committees or structures of the Parliament or through the agency on which a particular petition expresses a view.

We have 16 current petitions, a number of which have been in our system for a while, so we will progress through them. We will, when the students arrive, return to petitions PE1274 and PE1275—although, as a former teacher, I get the feeling that the longer the wait goes on for those students, the less likely it is that the students who are present will have to return to two hours of physics, chemistry or mathematics. I understand their desire to keep the meeting as long as possible, so I will do my very best to help.

---

National Planning Policy Guideline 19 (PE1048)

The first current petition is PE1048, by Kitty Bell, which calls on Parliament to alter national planning policy guideline 19 in order to correct an anomaly to ensure that the precautionary approach applies to pre-school children and to all children at play, thereby giving them the same protection from telecommunications masts as their older brothers and sisters have while at school.

Do committee members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition? It has been before the committee for a while; we have explored many of the issues that it raises, and we have received a number of responses.

It is obviously a very serious issue, which the committee has done its best to explore with the Scottish Government and others, but I do not believe that we could make any further inquiries that would be of assistance. The Scottish Government has said on several occasions that no anomaly exists because the precautionary principle applies to pre-school children. It has made it clear that the precautionary approach applies to all children, irrespective of their age, so I am at a loss to see what useful further action the committee could take.

The petitioner has responded to the Scottish Government's consultation on the issue, and it appears from the information that we have that the Government has taken on board some of the petitioner's comments. We have, as Bill Butler rightly said, exhausted what we can do; we have examined a number of avenues. Although it might not be exactly what the petitioner wants, the Government, local authorities and installation companies will hopefully take on board the views that have been expressed and ensure that there is no conflict involving radio masts or other antennae that are located at nurseries or primary and secondary schools.

It is a very controversial issue and I do not think that it will go away, but I cannot see how the committee can take the petition any further. It has been made clear that applications for planning permission that involve antennae must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation comply with the guidelines on public exposure to radiation. Perhaps the regulations are not perfect and perhaps science will move on—I do not know. However, given the current state of knowledge, and that everything is being done to comply with the current regulations, I honestly think that the committee can do no more with the petition.

I think that the committee is clear where we are with the petition, given the information that we have, the assurances that have now been put on public record and the recommendations, information and guidance that have been made available to local authorities. I presume that there is pressure on all local authorities about the siting of any such installations. There is now a clear level of awareness about the issue, which I hope will reassure the petitioners as much as possible in respect of their original concerns. The evidence may change, depending on what emerges from research on medical impacts.

There is massive pressure from the public, who want access to mobile phone use, but there is uncertainty about the long-term medical impact of that, particularly for young children. That is one of the challenges that we must face. However, on the basis of the information and assurances that have been provided to us, I think that we should close the petition. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE1076, PE1163, PE1186, PE1190 and PE1212)

The next five petitions, which have been grouped together, are PE1076, PE1163, PE1186, PE1190 and PE1212. I will explain them for the benefit of members of the public. We have had a series of petitions over the past couple of years relating to different experiences that members of the public have had with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which is the complaints body for citizens in Scotland who feel that they have not been treated well by a public body or agency.

Petition PE1076, by D W R Whittet, calls for an appeals tribunal to review final decisions by the ombudsman when a complainer so requests. The other petitions relate to the effectiveness of the SPSO. For example, PE1186 calls for the abolition of the SPSO, and PE1190 calls for the Government to ensure that local authorities provide the SPSO and the complainant, at the point that it is requested, with all information that is deemed relevant to any investigation. Petitioners have raised a range of issues about the SPSO.

We have tried to deal with the petitions, knowing that there are avenues through other parliamentary committees for dealing with the ombudsman's role. However, there has been a change at senior level in the office of the ombudsman—which is one of those words that, given contemporary attitudes, we feel awkward saying. The newly appointed SPSO has given a number of commitments about carrying out a review of the organisation, which I think will take on board many of the issues that the petitions have raised.

I invite committee members to make observations or comments on the petitions. I know that every committee member will have had anguished letters from constituents about their experiences of a body that is meant to resolve their concerns about another body that is already messing them about, so it would be helpful if members had comments.

I am sorry that that took so long, but I thought that it would be helpful for members of the public to know what the issues are.

I tend to agree with you, convener. I feel that the committee has carefully and fully considered each petition. We have had assurances from the newly appointed ombudsman that procedures will be improved and that the backlog of petitions will be dealt with. Furthermore, criticisms of the way in which complaints have been processed have been acknowledged, and the SPSO will try to deal with the lack of confidence that the public has expressed about particular procedures. Given those reassurances and that the committee has, in my view, done all that it can to consider carefully the criticisms, I think that we should close the petitions, because the committee can do nothing further.

Are there any other comments or observations? Mary Scanlon will become a fully paid-up member of the committee shortly.

I am sorry—I do not have the background information that other members have, but in the early days I was one of the worst critics of the office of the SPSO, which I found to be dismissive and high handed. As well as taking a long time to respond to people, it would often conclude its consideration of a complaint without even having a word with the person who had made it in the first place. I think that the Public Petitions Committee has made quite a difference. I put on the record that I think that the SPSO's office has improved in recent years, and I have no doubt that it has been affected by the many petitions about it that have come the committee's way.

In the light of those comments from members, we acknowledge the responses that we have had and close the petitions. We hope that the issues that have been raised can be resolved through the review process and perhaps by the SPSO adopting a different way of working.

---

Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)

The next petition is PE1089, by Morag Parnell on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network Scotland, which calls on Parliament to urge the Government to investigate any links between exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and in the workplace and the rising incidence of cancers and other chronic illnesses. I invite comments from members.

I know that our consideration of the petition has been going on for quite a long time, but it would be good to continue it for a while longer—at least until we find out the outcome of the meeting with the Minister for Public Health and Sport. It is important that we wait for that. We should also try to get responses from the Food Standards Agency Scotland and from Mr Mike Palmer to the points that the Women's Environmental Network Scotland has made in its letter.

I am happy to agree to the member's request. We will continue our consideration of the petition and follow up on the points that Marlyn Glen made.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

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

For the benefit of members of the public, I will explain that there are two aspects to the petition that continue to be an issue. The first is specifically about resource allocation to a hospice in the west of Scotland. The second is a broader point about the distribution of money to hospices in general, and the share of their resources that they have to raise through private donations and charitable contributions. The petition has been considered by the committee on a number of occasions and has received fairly high-profile support from representatives of the archdiocese and elected members at local level. That is the background.

As the convener said, consideration of the petition has been on-going for some time. It is clear that the petition centres on funding for St Margaret's hospice and that the committee cannot have a locus in individual cases. However, because the Government is to review the current guidance on funding for the adult hospices, following a recommendation from the Public Audit Committee, I would like us to keep the petition open, at least until we hear what the Government thinks should happen regarding the guidance.

St Margaret's hospice is not in my constituency, but it is only a stone's throw away. It does a tremendous job, as I am sure we all acknowledge. I agree with Nanette Milne that we should await the Government's response to see what it contains. I accept that we cannot intervene in the case of a particular hospice, but we need to await the Government's response on funding. The people who have put so much into the campaign for St Margaret's and its funding would expect nothing less from us. We should not close the petition until we get the last word from the Government.

Is it in order for us to write to the cabinet secretary asking for a date for the proposed meeting with the Scottish hospices forum?

We have received a communication from one elected member—it is briefer than other contributions that some elected members make—

Name that member.

It would be unfair to do that.

The member has identified a couple of areas where there is support across the main political parties to explore the issue. He asks us to continue the petition. My view is that it is sensible to continue the petition on the grounds that have been set out. Hopefully, that will enable us to get an immediate response from the minister and relevant health board on how they are tackling the broader issues that the petition raises. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Epilepsy Specialist Nurses (PE1182)

PE1182, by Allana Parker, on behalf of Epilepsy Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the number of epilepsy specialist nurses and to ensure that all national health service boards provide adequate epilepsy services for adults, children and people who have disabilities. Do members have comments?

I understand that the petitioner welcomes the new NHS Quality Improvement Scotland standards and that, under the monitoring that is to ensue, the NHS will try to ensure that there is adequate care of people with epilepsy in each NHS board area. Given that we have done all that we can do, I suggest that we close the petition.

As the petitioner indicates in her letter, although Epilepsy Scotland is not totally satisfied, it is satisfied that the new QIS standards will be put in place. She says clearly that a failure by any health board to apply the standards will be monitored closely. The petitioner will return to Parliament if problems arise in delivery of epilepsy services around Scotland. We have done what we can—I am sure that the petitioner will come back to us at a later date if she feels the need to do so. We should close the petition.

I declare an interest as an office bearer of the cross-party group on epilepsy, which is an extremely active cross-party group—indeed, I think that it has the biggest membership of all the cross-party groups. In the light of the proposed monitoring, we can close the petition. I have no doubt that if things do not go according to plan, the cross-party group will revisit the issue.

The recommendation is to close the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

St Andrew's Medal (PE1232)

PE1232, by Alasdair Archibald Walker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a national civic award, the St Andrew's medal, to recognise people who commit extraordinary or outstanding acts of bravery. Do members have comments?

I understand that the Government will undertake a scoping exercise on the petitioner's demand. We should continue the petition, but put it on the back burner until we get the results of the exercise.

In the response from civil servants, I note that ministers are

"committed in principle to taking forward action in this area"

and that

"detailed thinking is being developed".

We should write to the Government asking how long it will take to complete the scoping exercise and when ministers' views will be known. We should give the Government a nudge in that direction. It should give us an answer sooner than later—the sooner the better. I am in favour of suspending the petition, but not for too long.

Do we agree to suspend the petition, while taking on board John Wilson's suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Great Britain Football Team (PE1233)

PE1233 is by Craig Brown, the former Scotland team manager. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider what impact the creation of a Great Britain football team at the Olympics, or other sporting events, would have on the promotion and support that it and other public bodies such as sportscotland provide for football as a means of encouraging healthy lifestyles as well as generating economic and social benefits. Do members have any comments? Events, good and bad, have probably overtaken the petition.

Last week, we had a good debate on the Health and Sport Committee's report on its inquiry into pathways into sport. I was pleased to speak in that debate. I believe that you opened the debate for your party, convener. Although the report did not deal with the first matter in the petition, it dealt with issues that relate to the second matter—the question of what public bodies and the Government are doing to encourage healthy lifestyles and so on.

I understand that this morning's meeting has a consensual tone, but I hope you will forgive me if I put on record the fact that I and many others were disappointed by the Government's response at the end of that debate—I hope that its actions will be more positive than that response was.

The debate was a good and thorough one, and the report received the support of members of all parties.

Are there any other comments? We cannot replay two important football matches, John.

As much as we would like to, convener.

We were kicking every ball, but they did not go in.

The football associations of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have made their views known about having a team GB at the Olympics. The Scottish Government has taken a view, but it is not alone in that view. The football associations that I mentioned feel that the creation of a team GB might be a step too far in terms of keeping the national identities of their national teams.

We should close the petition, but we should be aware that it was not only the Scottish Government that lodged real objections to the proposal. No doubt we will reopen the debate from last week.

Football is never a divisive issue, as you know, John.

As John Wilson said, it was not only the Scottish Government that objected to the proposal. People of all parties and none—myself included—did so, too. I did not feel that we were given enough comfort that the proposal would not have hampered the continuation of Scotland's own football team. I know that others in my party take a different view, but we are a broad church.

The assurances from FIFA remind me of what Sam Goldwyn said about verbal contracts not being worth the paper they are written on.

I always love the equanimity of a Partick Thistle supporter's contribution.

As I said, the petition has been overtaken by a series of decisions that were made by football authorities. We believe that the position that the Scottish Football Association arrived at was designed to protect the integrity of our national football team and to help it to do the best it can in qualifying for major competitions. I hope that the youngsters who are here today might one day see the Scottish football team getting to the finals of the European championship and the world cup, which those of us who are of an older vintage saw in the 1970s and later.

We recognise that there are various perspectives on the merits of having a team GB at the Olympics, but do we agree to close the petition, which has been overtaken by events?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sheltered Housing (Self-funded Tenants) (PE1245)

PE1245, by John Wood, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider how it will ensure the continued independence of self-funded tenants of sheltered housing whose funds and savings are being eroded by increased costs, for example through the supporting people programme. The petition deals with a relevant issue that all members will have had experience of at constituency level. Before I invite comments from members on how we should proceed, I welcome Rob Gibson, who is a Scottish National Party member for the Highlands and Islands, who has joined us for today's meeting.

Do members have any comments on PE1245?

The issue is important and of some concern, so we should continue with the petition. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask what guidance is available to local authorities to help them to ensure that those who live in sheltered accommodation are aware of the charges that they face. We should also ask the Scottish Government what impact, in its view, the reshaping care for older people programme will have on those who currently live in sheltered accommodation. Colleagues will no doubt feel that a number of other issues should also be considered.

I know that the problem has vexed many sheltered housing residents for quite a long time. When people enter sheltered housing, they are often not aware how the charges that they face might change with time. A number of residents have been really alarmed by the charges. Also, people's financial circumstances can change. In writing to the Government, we should ask whether it will consider introducing a requirement for regular—perhaps annual—financial assessments, so that any changes in people's circumstances can be picked up as soon as possible so that they do not suffer financially.

The reshaping care for older people programme, which Bill Butler mentioned, will be consulted on not this year but next year. I feel that we need to inject some urgency into that process, because people in sheltered accommodation are worried about charges now. There seems to be a lack of movement in dealing with care for older people, so it seems in order to ask the Scottish Government a more general question about what it plans to do immediately for older people.

From an equal opportunities point of view, age refers to not just younger people but older people—I have gone into teacher mode—and it is one of the strands that we are obliged to consider. It would be good if the committee reminded the Scottish Government of that obligation.

It is important that we write to the Government now, given that several local authorities are reconsidering their position on the use of sheltered housing wardens. It is imperative that the Government responds by carrying out a scoping exercise to find out what local authorities are currently doing and what they intend to do in the foreseeable future. When people move into sheltered accommodation, it is crucial that they are secure in the knowledge that the accommodation will continue and that charges will be levied at the same level by the sheltered accommodation provider. We need to get a better idea of what is coming through the local authorities, which are often responsible for delivering sheltered accommodation.

Do members have any other questions?

Have we covered the question about the consultation that takes place when changes to sheltered accommodation charges are mooted? We should ask whether the people concerned are consulted properly.

We will take all those points on board. Obviously, there are several ways in which people want to map out what is happening to older people's services, given the changes to how such services are managed and funded. Do members agree that it will be helpful to try to follow through on those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

We will take those comments on board. We will no doubt return to the petition in the near future.

---

Smoke-free Mental Health Services (Consultation) (PE1246)

PE1246, by Belinda Cunnison, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review its consultation "Achieving smoke-free mental health services in Scotland: a consultation", which the petitioner claims contains factual inaccuracies, thus making the process fatally flawed.

Do members have any comments? We contacted the Government about the petition and it made clear its response.

Given that the Government made clear that it has no plans to review the consultation, I do not see what the committee can do to develop the petition. We have tried to explore every aspect of the matter that we can reasonably be expected to explore, but we have come to the end of the road. I do not know what colleagues think, but I think that we should close the petition.

If there are no other comments, can we accept the recommendation to close—sorry, Marlyn Glen wants to speak.

I was just going to agree to close the petition. It has been covered really well and we have a lot of information that was not available to us when the petition was lodged.

Okay, we have agreed to close the petition.

---

Football Stadia (Safe Standing Areas) (PE1248)

PE1248, by Stephen A Taylor, on behalf of Pars Supporters Trust, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to re-introduce safe standing areas at Scottish Premier League football stadia to give professional clubs the option of having seated or standing areas at their football grounds. The petition has been in front of us before and the petitioners have spoken to us at committee.

Do members have any comments?

Perhaps I should not comment, given that the petition was lodged by Dunfermline supporters and Partick Thistle roundly thrashed Dunfermline 2-0 on Saturday. However, I will not mention that.

It was reasonable to raise the subject of the petition, but there were doubts about it. There are no safe standing areas because of tragic incidents that I do not need to go into, because we are all aware of them. Given that the Health and Safety Executive and the police do not support having standing areas, we have done as much as we can humanly be expected to do, so we should close the petition.

I do not disagree. As a student, on Saturdays I used to stand regularly at Pittodrie supporting the once-renowned Dons. I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt safe there. However, as Bill Butler implied, things have moved on and there have been some serious incidents about which we all know. The solution to such incidents was thought to be stadia with seating only. We have to go on advice from the HSE and the police who are at the front end of assessing what happens in football grounds. I accept that we should close the petition.

There is another problem with requiring all-seated stadia—the constraint on smaller clubs progressing through the league system. However, given the responses that we have received, there is no other option but to close the petition, although I hope that we will be able to review at some point in the future standing spaces in football grounds.

I was hoping for a wee chink of light from members so that I would not have to abuse my position as committee convener. I recognise where we are with the petition. It is suggested that we close the petition, which I accept. My issue is that in champions league matches in other countries, the fans behave perfectly well in designated standing areas, although I know that they have to be managed.

I know the reasons for not having standing areas in Scotland, particularly given what happened in a cup final a long time ago, and various other incidents, as well as some recent developments in top-flight English football. There is real concern about those things.

To be fair to the fans who raised the issue, they are genuine and recognise the financial pressure on clubs such as Inverness, Partick Thistle and Dunfermline, which have been in the premier league before and which, if they have a good season, might be back in it again. It is extremely difficult for those clubs to meet the criteria, which might be unfair on them, given that other clubs have greater resources.

I think that we should reluctantly agree to close the petition, but we should keep our eye on the issue, because fans might wish to continue to pursue it in a different fashion over the coming period.

I am not disagreeing with you, convener—I said earlier that we should close the petition—but perhaps we could write to Pars Supporters Trust, which lodged the petition, to say that although we have to close the petition, if there is any change, we will be more than willing to consider it. We cannot bind a future committee, but I am sure that a future committee would consider the issue seriously.

It is all very well talking about Europe, but you see standing areas in Rome. At a fairly recent serie A game there were running battles between the two sets of supporters, with the police caught in the middle. It is a difficult one.

Okay. We agree to close the petition and take forward the suggestion from Bill Butler to write to Pars Supporters Trust to see whether it wishes to pursue some of the issues through other avenues.

---

Free Public Transport (PE1107 and PE1174)

The final two current petitions are PE1107 and PE1174, which we have grouped together. PE1107, by Robin Falconer, on behalf of Highland Youth Voice, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to reduce public transport fares for all under-18-year-olds in full-time education and to make provision for young people with no income to either travel free or pay only half the adult fare. PE1174, by Juliana Wolkow, on behalf of Holy Cross high school fourth year pupils, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide free public transport for all under-16s who have no income.

I invite comments from members. If it is okay with the committee, I suggest that the young students who are present should be able to contribute to the discussion. I know that it is intimidating, because we are sitting here with big microphones and so on, but there will be roaming microphones, so I invite the high school students to share their experiences.

I suggest that we suspend the meeting for a moment, because I know that other pupils will be joining us. It might be easier if we pose the question to a bigger audience. There might be issues about transport links during the day, never mind the public transport issues that the petitions raise.

Okay. We will take a brief break to allow the young students to arrive. We will then consider these two petitions, and the other two that were lodged by young people.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

We resume our consideration of PE1107 and PE1174, both of which are about approaches to transport for young people, and one of which specifically mentions the cost of transport in the Highlands.

Do members have any comments? I reiterate that I also invite comments from any of the young, or not-so-young, students in the audience who have views on the petitions.

Do any of the students want to tell us what benefits free or reduced-fare transport for under-18s would bring them? Would such a thing benefit people up here? Is anyone willing to take up the challenge?

Can I do my old teaching practice? Even if pupils did not put up their hands, I would make eye contact and some poor soul would be asked the question. Would any of the students like to be more active and more able to move about? What practical inhibitions face youngsters in terms of transport, particularly here in the Highlands? Are any of the young students brave enough to have a go? I cannae believe that youngsters here are too shy. Any comments?

Andrew, since I know you—[Laughter.] Thanks very much—it is an old tactic. As a young man in the area, what are some of the problems that you and your pals face?

Time is definitely a problem. We have to wait half an hour for a bus to get somewhere, whereas in Edinburgh buses go every five or 10 minutes. That is quite annoying. The prices are also a problem.

Say you decide to go for what you tell your mother is a quiet night out with your friends. What do you have to put into that equation cost-wise? What would it cost you to be able to go somewhere?

Now that we are over 16, we have to pay adult prices, so we are looking at a fare of £6 return to go to Inverness. On top of that are the costs of getting something to eat and buying t-shirts and things, so the costs can add up.

Okay. We saw a venue—was it the Ironworks? [Interruption.] Yes, it was—that was me trying to understand youth culture. So cost is an issue.

Are there any comments from other young students about the transport problems that they have had? Andrew was brave enough to break the ice, so surely someone else will comment. Do any of the youngsters from Dornoch want to speak? I was talking to them earlier. I ask the clerk to take the microphone to the young gentleman who was nice enough to talk to me earlier. He is in sixth year, so he feels confident enough to speak, he says.

I basically agree with Andrew Danet. [Laughter.]

That is a good start. Well done. Keep going.

The prices can be really bad. From Dornoch it can be about £10 return, so if you want to buy something in Inverness, you can spend about £50 a day.

Okay. Can I get a quick show of hands? In terms of broad principle—it is probably an easy question to answer—do most of you think that it would be worth considering free transport for youngsters who are in full-time education? Would that be generally supported? As politicians, we will all have to face some pretty difficult budget decisions over the next period, so now might not be the best time for such petitions to be under discussion, given that there are other, broader spending challenges ahead.

I invite members of the committee to comment. If any of the youngsters want to come in, just show that by indicating with your hand, okay?

I think that we have a former teacher from the high school here.

Yes, indeed. I used to teach in Alness academy. The issue in the Highlands is in areas that are furthest from the main bus routes. Despite what we heard about the price, buses run from Dornoch to Inverness every hour or so. There is a far greater issue for people on the west coast and the north coast who want to go to Inverness, for example. A lot of schools and youngsters are much more disadvantaged than those in the inner Moray Firth area. It would be worth while for the committee to keep the matter under consideration, despite the costs, and see whether it can take it somewhat further.

I do not know whether everyone has one, but when you turn 16, you get a card that gives you a third off adult bus travel. However, those who go to after-school activities usually have to go to Inverness, which costs a lot—it is about £8 return, which is really expensive. We do not get a third off the return with the card; we have to buy a one-way ticket, so even with the card the price is quite high.

Living in the Highlands is quite hard. There is not a lot to do in the area, so we have to travel into Inverness or somewhere else to attend after-school activities. It adds up to a lot of money.

I appreciate that. Are there inconsistencies in how much bus companies charge different age groups, such as young people? I do not have experience of that, obviously. Is it the case that you can get on one bus okay but, on another bus, you are charged full price?

Fatally, the youngster who was nodding has my approval.

It is inconsistent. It depends which bus driver is on. If somebody looks over a certain age, they will charge the adult price. Sometimes I do not have identification on me so I cannot prove my age. It depends which bus driver is on and what mood he is in.

I do not think that you have a problem: you look about 13 to me.

Do the students have any more comments on the issue? They will not often have a chance to make their thoughts clear to elected parliamentarians.

Nanette Milne wishes to comment.

Do any of the young people feel that the financial consideration would be a disincentive if they wanted to go on and do a further education course?

I will add to that question. Do the young people feel that they are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting weekend work? Emma Danet indicated how much she spends when she goes into Inverness. What are the employment opportunities for young people who have to pay an £8 return fare to get into Inverness for a weekend job? Are they economically disadvantaged by not being able to take up employment opportunities that exist in the larger areas such as Inverness?

I will ask the hard question that I imagine anyone who has the purse strings, such as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, would ask: given what we know of the budgets ahead for everyone—local councils, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government—should free transport for teenagers be a priority?

They are nodding their heads.

As the youngest here, John, what do you think?

I look it, don't I?

There is unanimous agreement: I saw most of the young students nodding their heads.

We have two petitions; one is fairly relaxed about what happens—it calls for reduced fares for everybody under 18—and the other asks for free travel. I understand that anybody between 16 and 18 who is in full-time education already gets some sort of travel pass that gives them a reduction in their fares, but somebody in that age group who is not in full-time education does not get that benefit. They have the same difficulty in getting around as the rest of us do, so that is rather unfair. The second petition, which calls for free transport, merits consideration.

I invite comments from any young people in the audience. Perhaps taxpayers in the audience might have a comment on the petitions. They might be thinking, "Okay, it's free but what would that cost me? I already pay a lot for basic things such as council tax."

Part of growing up is learning to budget. If somebody gets pocket money and wants to go into Inverness at the weekend, it is surely beneficial for them to budget and think about how much they need for bus fares. A good reduction in the bus fare for under-18s or under-16s who are still in education might be beneficial.

I have a free bus pass, even though I do not look as though I should. Free bus passes have meant a tremendous increase in bus travel. For any sensible person considering ecological issues in Scotland, such as pollution, trying to get people out of their cars and on to the public transport system has been an immense success.

I cannot understand any 16 to 18-year-old sitting here who would not go for free bus travel for themselves while they were young, to get them out of their parents' cars and on to the public transport system. It is a no-brainer for all sorts of reasons, but especially because of pollution. We need to get people out of private transport and on to public transport. We have to view the success of the over-60s scheme as empirical evidence; it is a fantastic scheme.

I had never thought of the possibility of being able to remove my 17-year-old son from the car regularly as an incentive for having such a scheme, but it would be tremendous because he just clutters things up.

As elected members, we all know about the amount of mobility and activity that is generated by free bus travel for older citizens—the best euphemism for whom is "people who qualify". The scheme makes a real difference to how they mix and socialise. I am sure that there would be an equivalent impact on young people if a similar scheme was introduced for them. There is awareness that it may well be a socially good measure to implement.

We now want to think about how we will deal with the two petitions that are before us. I invite committee members to comment on how they wish to progress the petitions.

Following on from what Marilyn Murray said, and given that the Scottish Government has just published a review of the Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older people, it might be an idea to ask the Scottish Government to consider the two petitions in relation to the analysis that it is carrying out of the existing young persons' scheme. We could establish what its view is of the requests contained in the two petitions for free and/or reduced fare bus travel for young people under the age of 16 and for those between the ages of 16 and 18. It is obvious, given fares of £6 return to Inverness—or a £10 return from Dornoch—that this is a pressing issue for younger people. The committee should write to the Scottish Government in those terms.

I support Bill Butler's suggestion, but if we write to the Scottish Government we should ask it what considerations it has given, or will give, to people in rural areas, given the issues that have been raised about the frequency and availability of transport in such areas, in addition to the cost. When we raise the issue with the Scottish Government, it is perhaps important to highlight the specific issues related to transport in rural areas and the cost of travel. One or two speakers have pointed out that in some urban areas it is easier and cheaper to get public transport, but in rural areas it is more difficult and more expensive to get around. I hope that the Scottish Government can be encouraged to consider the issue when it produces its final report on young people and transport.

As other members have indicated, given that we are in straitened financial times it might be difficult to achieve a satisfactory solution at this point, but it is worth bringing everything that we have heard today to the Government's attention. I assume that we will do so by sending it the Official Report of today's meeting.

Many people leave this area to go to university and only a small percentage return after graduation to stay here. The issue is not just one of equity but one of social inclusion because many young people of school age cannot even afford to see a film in Inverness or enjoy the many cultural aspects of the Highlands. That means that they leave this part of the world without having had the opportunity to travel around and enjoy the huge amount of culture that we have, much of which is centred in Inverness. If those young people had more opportunities to enjoy the culture of the Highlands, I suspect that that would contribute to encouraging them to come back to the region after graduation, which is a serious issue for the area.

Do we accept the recommendations of members of the committee and agree to keep the petitions open so that we can explore the points that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.