Official Report 262KB pdf
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee's sixth meeting in session 3. In particular, I welcome to the meeting representatives of the Petitions Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, who are here to observe our proceedings. We have already discussed with them issues relating to petitions in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that they enjoy today's session as much as we will and that they learn from our engagement in our petitions process.
Endometriosis (Research Funding) (PE1057)
I welcome our first oral submission this afternoon. Petition PE1057, by Andrew Billson-Page on behalf of the Save our NHS Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider increasing funding for research into endometriosis—I think that I got that right—and to consider ways of facilitating more effective diagnosis of the condition in light of the recommendations of the Kerr report on the future of the national health service in Scotland. I welcome Andrew to this afternoon's meeting. You have approximately three minutes to make your submission, after which I hope that we can have a shared discussion on the issues that your petition raises.
Thank you.
You have done so slightly, but do not worry about it.
I ask Andrew Billson-Page to clarify a comment that he made towards the end of his statement. Did he say that currently no research is going on in Scotland?
That is what Malcolm Chisholm said in 2003. He referred to a one-off donation of £201,000, which the Scottish Executive had made in 2001. There was no regular contribution.
Forgive me, but I am not clear about how things are done. Does the CSO commission research or does it respond to and fund research proposals from universities and other scientific establishments that do medical research?
My understanding, which is limited, is that a research proposal would have to come from the academic institutions. That is the difficulty. Endometriosis is a health issue, not a scientific issue—particularly for the 800,000 women in Scotland who will potentially suffer from the condition during their lifetime.
Have you asked scientific institutions whether they are willing to do the research that you talk about and to bid for funding for it? Do you know where they are at? I am not saying that you should know, but I ask because of your interest.
I am a medical student, so I have a medical understanding. When I put the petition together, I spoke at length with Dr Jean Turner when she was an MSP. Her then agent, Dr Robbie Robertson, is a retired general practitioner who has a keen interest in endometriosis. Through him, I tried to find statistics and some analysis of how funding was apportioned and what it was spent on in Scotland. Doing that was difficult. He gave me a contact at the University of Glasgow, of whom I asked many questions, but although that person is an academic in the field, they could not give me absolutely assured answers. We are in the early days, so I may exert pressure on academic institutions to request further funding.
Are you aware of research that is being done in other countries?
Research is being conducted in Iceland, but it seems controversial. Organisations in other countries refute some of the evidence that is claimed to have been unearthed there. I treat that research with suspicion at the moment.
I am not sure of the up-to-date position. I was first involved in the issue of endometriosis when I became an MSP in 2003. I was in contact with people in Aberdeen, where some research into endometriosis had been done or was continuing. Are you aware of whether that is still going on in Aberdeen?
Some research is still going on. My main point is that central Government has cut funding by a third. That is a concern, because the amount of research that can be done is limited by what central Government provides. Although £1.2 million might sound like a great deal, it is not a huge amount. Given that the Scottish Parliament's remit covers Scotland's health interests, I do not imagine that the UK Government will prioritise Scottish interests.
On a slightly different tack, I was under the impression three or four years ago that an application might be made to the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network for guidelines on endometriosis. I have not heard whether any progress has been made on that. Are you aware of any application?
I am aware of nothing of note since 2002, apart from the rather speculative claim from Iceland that endometriosis is exclusively genetic.
Do any self-help organisations in the United Kingdom deal with endometriosis?
Obviously, there are many self-help groups for women generally, but two major organisations deal with endometriosis: the Endometriosis UK foundation and the National Endometriosis Society. The society aims to do much more work on research, whereas Endometriosis UK is more of a support group.
Does either of those organisations fund research? I know that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has funded much research into MS. Is research being done through those organisations that you have not referred to?
The National Endometriosis Society has a stated aim of researching endometriosis. Unfortunately, it concedes that because of the economic restrictions that it finds itself subject to, it cannot do research at the moment. That is a difficulty. The society is a national charitable organisation that depends on public money. It had a gift of £25,000 from the Government in 2004 to facilitate research, but it cannot achieve its stated aim because the money from the Government is limited. As far as I am aware, the society has had no further funding from the Government.
I take your point about Iceland. Iceland's population is quite small—it is roughly that of Aberdeen—so the sample is rather too small to draw conclusions from.
I was present in the chamber when Annabel Goldie led the members' business debate on the subject in 2001—a lot of women MSPs were there. Part of the purpose of her raising the subject was to highlight what is a real problem for many women in Scotland. It is regrettable that, since then, the light that Annabel Goldie allowed to be shone on the condition has not resulted in the research that all members hoped for. I agree with Robin Harper and others that we must not lose sight of the condition.
Andrew, you mentioned that you are a medical student. Is the condition part of the area that you are specialising in, or is it just an issue that you feel strongly about?
I have been strongly affected by it. I would like to have children, but my wife is not able to. That is not an endometriosis issue but, from there, I came into contact with women of child-bearing age with endometriosis and became aware of what a problem it is for them. That is where my interest stems from. It is largely personal, and the issue is emotive.
That is fine—I am not criticising that. If such a number of women are affected, why have we not been able to get key players to give the condition more priority? In the world that we live in, there will never be enough money for all the things that we want to do, no matter how much we ask. If the issue is important enough, how do we raise the debate to ensure that the CSO, health boards, academic and medical specialists and others engage properly to find solutions to something that seems not to have been explained well enough so far? What are the barriers right now, which might prompt the Public Petitions Committee to ask more questions?
When the public think about health, they mainly think about hospitals, as I am sure you, as MSPs, will appreciate. The public tend also to focus on life-threatening illnesses. They want money to go into cardiac or cot death research. To be honest, endometriosis is not considered particularly sexy. It does not kill people. Most women suffer in silence, and it is not something that people want to know about.
With that discussion and those suggestions, I have now heard from members on the matter. We would like to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on the issue. Given what Andrew Billson-Page said, I think that we should contact the CSO and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. I also heard somebody mention SIGN.
The National Endometriosis Society was mentioned as a voluntary organisation interested in the scientific research. It would be good to write to it for information, as well as to Endometriosis UK, which has support groups.
Do members have any other suggestions?
I raised the SIGN guidelines issue because I knew that there were no guidelines for dealing with endometriosis. There is a process to follow, which I thought was undertaken three years ago, but clearly that did not happen. I would like to get in touch with SIGN. I also wonder whether it is worth making contact with universities, such as the University of Aberdeen, where we know research is on-going, to find out what is happening and how much money is going towards endometriosis research. I also wonder whether the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists might have any advice to offer.
More will happen at the next stage, but those are good and sensible suggestions from members—I hope that the clerk noted all of them. We will write to those organisations and await their responses before the next stage, when the petition will return to the committee, about which Andrew Billson-Page will be forewarned. We hope to progress some of the issues for you, Andrew.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for your time today.
Democratic Process (Young People) (PE1065)
Our next petition is by Rajiv Joshi, on behalf of Young Scot, calling on the Scottish Parliament to use the Microsoft government leaders forum Europe to promote the use of new and emerging technologies to enhance the engagement of young people in the democratic process and to encourage Parliaments throughout Europe to do the same. I welcome Rajiv Joshi and Alison Hardie to the meeting this afternoon. You have three minutes to present your petition and a question-and-answer session will follow. Good luck.
You might not realise that Earth has its own planetary ring. From space, the thousands of satellites that orbit this planet have transformed the way in which people communicate. Information and communications technology has changed the world. Use of the internet has grown by 245 per cent in the past six years alone. In Scotland, 70 per cent of young people regularly use the internet for day-to-day communication.
Would Alison Hardie like to add anything?
Not at the moment. I am happy to take any questions.
The younger members of the committee should go first.
That will be me.
Yes, on you go. It says a lot for the committee if Tricia Marwick is the youngest.
Absolutely.
The point is interesting. It is important that young people understand Scotland and its Parliament. For us, it is important to develop the infrastructure to enable participation. Parliament has a role in helping to remove barriers that prevent that infrastructure from being developed and in thinking about investing resources in that infrastructure so that the technology that Scotland's citizens have for participation and that young people have for participation locally as citizens stays at the cutting edge. Engaging with the Parliament to try to put the right resources in place is important.
One question that we talked about in our discussion with members of the National Assembly for Wales was the use of texting as a communicative model. The ageing process takes me over regularly, so will you explain how that would work?
Young Scot is about to do a consultation with NCH Scotland that will use SMS technology to ask young people, and particularly hard-to-reach and excluded groups of young people, what the Parliament's priorities should be in the new session. Groups of young people throughout Scotland will be asked to vote on their priorities for the Parliament, using mobile phones. It will be interesting to see what comes back from that.
When you discuss that option with young people, what do they say about how they feel? Is that more likely to encourage them to participate than conventional methods?
Yes—that method has helped. The number of young people who have participated by using SMS technology has been encouraging. Young people see that as a positive way of participating in democracy. Our experience has been positive and young people are keen to use that technology.
Will you offer courses in text speak for those of us who are a wee bit behind the times?
Yes, if you need that. We have a text speak dictionary.
"C U soon," whatever that means.
I am just coming into the information technology age. My wife asked me why I never texted her and I said, "Because I can't make it work," so she has patiently introduced me to the intricacies of predictive texting—I did not realise that that was why I never got the letter that I wanted.
I can exclusively reveal that Robin Harper is our pre-radio member.
You mean pre-wireless.
I described difficulties that people of my age face, but young people are well versed in such technology and can take full advantage of it. Could the Parliament's education service make use of the facility? MSPs visit schools a lot and thousands of young people are shown round the Parliament. That activity could be carried on through many of the instruments that you explained to us.
Is the Microsoft government leaders forum the best forum for the Parliament to use to make progress? Are there any alternative approaches? Might it be an idea for the Parliament to work with organisations such as Young Scot to find another solution? Perhaps I do not know enough about the forum, but it seems a bit distant. Should we start something closer to the grass roots, together with organisations such as yours?
I am sure that Young Scot would be happy to provide support or training in that kind of technology. The aspiration when the Microsoft government leaders forum came to the Scottish Parliament was that Scotland could lead Europe in developing forms of participation to inspire participative democracy, using technology that engages young people and helps Scotland develop a democracy far ahead of anything else in Europe. It would be amazing to achieve that.
So it is not as if the same thing is happening somewhere else, and we can go and find good practice there. You are saying that we should actually devise the system and lead the rest of Europe.
Yes.
If you were to project ahead by five or 10 years, how would you envisage engagement with elected members? I am asking about a reciprocal relationship—we need to consider how we engage with our electors. We are all on different learning curves, and we have different resistance levels. Clearly, the situation is evolving—the news on the radio this morning was about certain products and space being bought by major global companies so that they can communicate directly with the 18 to 30 spending age group. They have an economic interest in doing so and wish to secure such catalysts for their own development. How do we ensure that those companies do not dominate exclusively, and that there is a progressive voice on accessibility and the sharing of information, rather than controlling it? That is the big concern that I have.
That is a big challenge for us in Young Scot. We always want to protect young people. We have a database of young people throughout Scotland, but that is to be used to help their interaction. Private companies obviously look for ways to communicate with young people. I will give an example of where things can work well and develop. Before I came here today to present the petition, I was able to go on to the Scottish Parliament website and learn about each member here, so that I could understand your backgrounds and where you come from. You all have videos available online. That does a lot more for me in connecting with each of you than simply being able to read a biography.
Do we look better in real life?
You have some interesting stories. It is important that young people can access information online about their MSPs.
New technology also has a role to play in engaging young people who are excluded for whatever reason—the young people who are not in education, employment or training. I am thinking of things such as podcasting, which are important if government is to offer a universal service.
That is particularly the case in rural communities. Many of the young people on Orkney and Shetland with whom we work say, "Technology is great. We can e-mail our MSP." They cannot travel from one of the smaller islands to the mainland to visit their MSP. It is important to try to get the technology to them.
I am interested in your engagement with difficult-to-reach young people. You keep referring to podcasting, texting, and the need for access to computers. Is there really such a proliferation of materials and technology that young people can use? You said that 6,000 young people in North Lanarkshire participated in the Scottish Youth Parliament elections, but I understand that much of that took place within North Lanarkshire Council school structures.
Certainly, when Young Scot consults young people, we try to ensure that we strike a balance between offline and online activity. We do a lot of advocacy and street work to try to ensure that we include as many young people as possible. We also have an e-roadshow team, who go out and about with wireless laptops and iriver technology. They can record podcasts, which we make available to young people. However, we are limited in our time and resources, which means that we cannot include everyone in the way that we would like to.
Okay; PE1065 raises many intriguing issues. The entire range of government—whether at national or local level—is reviewing its communication strategies to assess the two-way process that is required and ways in which to enhance the use of technology.
An interesting conclusion of the Gould report is that the voters were the last people to be considered. The election seemed to have been organised by the political parties for the political parties—I am paraphrasing. That brings me back to the question I asked Rajiv Joshi about who should take responsibility for doing what he suggests. Should Parliaments and Governments take a top-down approach, or is the issue everyone's responsibility? Should Young Scot have more input than the Parliament or the Government?
That is an interesting suggestion. We will see whether it goes down well with other committee members.
This suggestion is off the top of my head. When petitions are taken further, we tend to refer them to other committees. However, given that the Public Petitions Committee acts as a gatekeeper for the Parliament and is concerned about how people access the Parliament, perhaps we could undertake an inquiry on the issues that PE1065 raises. We could take the petition on and run with it. The Public Petitions Committee has a duty to do that for the Parliament and the Government. We can take soundings from other organisations, but there is a strong possibility that we could work with Young Scot and other organisations to develop the ideas in the petition. Given the subjects that the Public Petitions Committee deals with, we are always stepping on other members' toes and having to refer petitions to other committees. However, the issues in PE1065 are in our remit.
That is a useful suggestion. I do not know what other members think. The challenge that faces a petitions committee—whether we are talking about the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament or the Petitions Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, members of which are present—is that we cannot say, "This is how things are always done". The world around us is changing rapidly, particularly when we consider people's engagement with decision making, even locally—or their disengagement, which is clear from electoral returns, never mind anything else.
I agree with the suggestion that has been made, but we should seek views more widely. The convener talked about how other public bodies use new technologies and Rajiv Joshi talked about how people can text their local authority to report that a streetlight has gone out. New technology can open up accountability in all democratic processes, not just in the Scottish Parliament but in local authorities. Many local authorities have a good working relationship with young people and do much outreach work. We must also consider how we engage people in wider society in the democratic process. It is not just about turning out to vote once every four years; it is about other processes.
The committee agrees in principle to further exploration of the issue. We can ask the clerks to produce a paper on the best way to make progress, perhaps in discussion with the petitioners. We could talk to Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, who has engaged with young people through surveys. John Wilson is right and we should take his suggestions into account.
I take on board what John Wilson said, but I am more in tune with what Rhoda Grant said. As a first step we could involve young people's organisations and people who work with young people. For example, we could talk to the Lothian Association of Youth Clubs and the Parliament's education service. The Modern Studies Association, which is a teachers' organisation, might be interested in developing the work, because it likes to involve young people in research in the Parliament. I am sure that the systems that Rajiv Joshi talked about would provide an exciting opportunity for the young people who are studying what happens in the Parliament.
I thank Rajiv Joshi. As we say in Glasgow, that's quite a result the day. Well done.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Members will note that two additional MSPs—of the older generation—have joined us. They have missed out on the important debate on information technology and so on. Anyway, there are a couple of petitions coming up shortly that Gil Paterson and Brian Adam wish to comment on.
Schools (Class Sizes) (PE1046)
I declare an interest in the next petition, PE1046, in that I am a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, which submitted it. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to support significant reductions in class sizes in Scottish publicly funded schools during this parliamentary session. Members will note that the petition has attracted 78,790 signatures. I do not know whether text signatories were included in that total, but we might find out shortly.
The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee is considering this issue as part of a wider debate. I suggest that we simply refer the petition to it.
It might seem a bit cursory, but the policy committee is going to have a good examination of the issue. I imagine that it will be an interesting issue for the political parties to deal with over the next few years—it forms part of the cut and thrust of the political system. That is a reasonable suggestion. Are we happy to refer the petition to that committee?
Coastal and Marine National Park Process (PE1047)
The next petition is PE1047, which is from Mark Carter, on behalf of the Hebridean Partnership. It calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the failure of the existing coastal and marine national park and marine environmental protection process, and the extent to which that failure is due to pressure from those individuals and industries that have a vested, affiliated or commercial interest in that sector. I invite members' suggestions on how to deal with the petition.
We need to get an update from the Government on how it proposes to develop the management of coastal areas. It is almost the case that if we do not manage coastal areas properly, we will simply need to farm them. The debate on the marine national park created more heat than light, but we need to pursue the issue. Local management of fisheries is important in parts of the area that I represent, as it helps to sustain communities.
The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 contains one line that allows for marine national parks to be set up and I think that it is regrettable that further progress has not been made on that. I feel strongly that local fisheries control is not necessarily incompatible with the establishment of local marine parks. We should never think of them as being incompatible—in fact, they must go together. I am strongly in favour of the petition being more than simply noted.
Rhoda Grant's suggestion was to write directly to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on its observations on the issues relating to the management of the coastal and marine environment. We can contain within that inquiry some of the points that committee members have made. Robin Harper has identified the need to try to find a greater compatibility and synchronicity between marine parks and local fisheries management, rather than seeing them as being in opposition to each other. I am happy to do that, as we want to continue to explore the issue. We will see what response we get from the Government. Are members happy with that suggestion?
National Planning Policy Guideline 19 (PE1048)
Gil Paterson has asked to address the next petition, PE1048, which is from Kitty Bell. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to alter national planning policy guideline 19 to correct an anomaly in paragraph 21 and ensure that the precautionary approach that is mentioned there also applies to pre-school children and all children at play, thereby giving them the same protection from telecommunication masts as is available to their older brothers and sisters while they are at school.
Thank you for allowing me to speak to the petition. Kitty Bell was faced with the possibility of a mast being installed about 80m from a designated play area for children where toddlers played. Fortunately for Mrs Bell and the children who play there, that is no longer an issue because the phone mast company decided not to go ahead with the project. Nevertheless, Mrs Bell thought that young children and toddlers in Scotland needed protection like their older siblings. Her attitude is commendably public spirited.
Thank you. Do members have comments?
I have a simple question. Do we need primary legislation? Could the change be made under regulations?
Regulations would work perfectly well.
I have much sympathy with the proposal. If the guideline applies the precautionary principle in relation to older children, it is anomalous that it does not cover younger children, who appear to be relatively more at risk, if we assume that a risk exists—I know that there is a lot of debate in the scientific world about whether masts are damaging. We should take the petition forward, perhaps with the Health Protection Agency, the Government and whatever other bodies we can think of.
We do not need primary legislation or regulations. The guideline comes directly from the Scottish Executive, so I see no reason why we cannot just ask the Executive whether it intends to close the gap and ensure that youngsters who are under five are given the same protection as those who are over five. That is a simple matter of writing to ask the Executive what its plans are.
I agree that we should do that, but sometimes reviewing a planning policy guideline takes time. The petition is more to do with how the guideline is interpreted. The spirit of the guideline is that masts should not be located near where children congregate, although that is not spelled out. How people interpret the guideline should be changed. The Scottish Government could do that without a review of the whole guideline by clarifying to planning authorities that, in the spirit of the existing guideline, they should not consider granting planning permission for masts in places where young children are concentrated.
We will write to the Scottish Government about the NPPG and about ensuring parity—what is okay for older schoolchildren should be okay for under-fives and children at nursery.
The issue is almost an oversight.
We will see what happens. The response may throw up issues, but we will return to the matter.
I thank the convener and the committee.
No problem—thanks again.
Unadopted Open Spaces (Maintenance) (PE1049)
PE1049 is from Karen Shirron, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take responsibility for the maintenance of unadopted open spaces, including footpaths, lanes, kerbs, car parks and roads, such as those in Heathryfold west, Aberdeen, where responsibility for the maintenance of such spaces was previously a matter for a Government agency, such as Scottish Homes. Brian Adam, who is the relevant constituency member, has expressed an interest in the petition and will address the committee.
The background to the petition is that, all over Scotland, Scottish Homes had a series of estates, some of whose soft and hard landscaping was never transferred to local authority responsibility. The petition concerns hard landscaping. Several developers are in that position under the planning system. The committee might wish to consider asking the appropriate parliamentary committee to examine whether we should allow developers—whether in the public sector or the private sector—to pass on maintenance responsibilities for soft and hard landscaping to tenants or owners.
Do members have any questions or observations on the petition?
Coming from the Aberdeen area, I agree with what Brian Adam has said as I know that the issue has caused a lot of heartache locally. We should follow through on Brian Adam's suggestion.
I agree that we should seek the views of the Scottish Government. As Brian Adam suggested, it would be worth while finding out from Communities Scotland what the problems were with the hard landscaping being adopted when the transfers took place. Clearly, it is unacceptable if Communities Scotland or Scottish Homes transferred stock but left the ownership of the soft and hard landscaping to residents or to the successor landlords.
Could Mr Adam explain why the state of the roads was such that the local authority could not adopt them when Scottish Homes was wound up?
The reason is that Scottish Homes had not maintained the roads to a proper standard. Indeed, Scottish Homes took the view that, as many of the properties had been sold to sitting tenants, the responsibility for the roads had also been transferred. The problem arises throughout Scotland, but it is particularly bad on the Heathryfold west estate, where the scale of the charges is exceptionally high and residents face costs that are severalfold those that are faced elsewhere.
The reason I asked is that there are parallels with the wind-up of the new town corporations—I know the case of Glenrothes Development Corporation extremely well. We had no such problems when the housing stock in Glenrothes was transferred to Kirkcaldy District Council or when the roads were adopted by Fife Council. Scottish Homes was a Government agency but, in the development in Aberdeen, it did not repair or keep up the roads to a standard at which they could be adopted. I take John Wilson's point that we cannot continue to put burdens on local authorities, but somebody will have to be responsible. Given some of the points that Brian Adam and others have made, we should refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee for that committee to have a good look at it and to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That would at least allow us to find out from COSLA the extent of the problem throughout Scotland, rather than simply deal with one area in Aberdeen, important though it is. The problem might be much wider and may need to be addressed.
My point follows directly from Tricia Marwick's point. It is clear how depressing it is for people who rent or buy flats in blocks that are surrounded by a virtual wasteland but which are otherwise pleasant. I recall an instance in which a developer built a brand new block but then walked away from the landscaping. The set-up of the development allowed the developer to do that. I hope that the problem is not enormous, but there might be a general problem that is worth investigating about landscaping involving all sorts of situations.
Brian Adam may make a final comment.
I take the points that Robin Harper and Tricia Marwick have made. Undoubtedly, the situation in Aberdeen is not unique—the principles that are involved arise in the public and private sectors. In the Aberdeen case, it is particularly disappointing that a public sector agency failed to maintain roads and footpaths in the first instance and to bring them up to a standard at which they could be transferred to the local authority. It is a good idea for the petition to go to the committee that deals with community matters, because there is a housing issue. However, given the principles that are involved, which are fairly wide, the petition ought to go to the local government committee and any other committee that deals with planning. If we want to prevent such situations from arising in the public or private sectors, we must put in place legislation so that developers from either sector cannot pass on maintenance costs to individuals, as things are much better done collectively, with everybody paying up front. We cannot expect local authorities to pick up costs that ought to have been picked up by developers.
The clerk will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the procedure is that if we refer a petition to a committee, we cannot instruct that committee on how to deal with it. We need to know the views of the successor body, Communities Scotland, and to find out whether the situation that is mentioned in the petition is anomalous. There may be different grades. There may be 25 or 30 cases that are relatively small and manageable but three or four absolutely bad cases, of which the one that the petitioner has highlighted may be one. The committee should write to Communities Scotland and contact the Scottish Government about the planning framework and the adoption process under planning law. We need to know whether the law is clear about what must be concluded before such land transfers to another public agency or private ownership, or is adopted by a local authority.
We are doing that.
I understand that. With such unity of purpose, we can make a genuine difference on the issue.
Thank you very much.
Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)
The next petition is PE1050, which was lodged by Councillor Ann Watters on behalf of Kirkcaldy Civic Society—is that an oxymoron? It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to provide better protection for common good sites, such as Ravenscraig park in Kirkcaldy, and to ensure that such assets are retained for their original purpose for future generations. It has gained 67 signatures on the e-petitions system. Do members have views on how we should deal with it? Does the member for Central Fife have any comments, given the proximity of Kirkcaldy to the area that she represents?
Claire Baker and I were just discussing whether Annie Watters was still a councillor. In fact, she ceased to be a councillor before May.
Rub it in.
No—my point was that that shows how long it has taken the committee to deal with the petition.
I support Tricia Marwick's suggestions and note that the constituency member, Marilyn Livingstone, has been supportive of the campaign. People in Kirkcaldy obviously feel strongly about common good sites.
It is an important issue Scotland-wide because we do not have a proper register of common good land. The fact that some councils do not have proper registers means that it is quite possible that, in the past, councils have acted illegally in their dealings with common good land. I strongly urge that we do not just write to COSLA but seek a legal view from the Local Authority (Scotland) Accounts Advisory Committee and recommend to the Government that it take an overview of the issue.
Rather than asking the Government to take an overview, it might be worth asking it for its views as well because I do not think that it is just local authorities that hold property and land that, historically, public benefactors or groups of people have clubbed together to buy and which has subsequently been transferred to them to maintain. The issue goes a bit wider than just common good funds, so we should ask the Government for its views on the whole issue, rather than restricting our inquiry to common good funds.
That is a slightly different proposal. Do members have views on it?
Changes within the set-up of our local authorities—when new local authorities took over from old ones—led to problems. Things were lost in the mists of time. For example, a library in north Fife was to be closed, but the local authority was told that it could not dispose of the library because it was common good property. A community trust is now being set up to keep the library going, after decades during which trustees had not been appointed. The community is taking over the library as a trust.
It is not only common good properties but common good assets. Robin Harper asked earlier whether local authorities were acting illegally in the transfer of some land and assets. Court judgments have been made on the ownership of common good land. I am thinking in particular of the Hamilton palace grounds that the local authority transferred for retail development. The transfer was challenged and the case went to court, but the court decided in favour of the local authority. Local authorities have since taken it as a rule of thumb that they have the right to dispose of common good assets or land.
Committee members seem to be suggesting that we want an overview from the Scottish Government, and that we want the issue of the management and planning of assets to be raised with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am happy with that.
Gifted Land (Public Recreational Use) (PE1077)
PE1077, from Jennifer McKay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to ensure that the original conditions pertaining to gifts of land to private and public bodies or owners be honoured where they provided access and benefits to the local community. This petition raises a similar issue to the one raised by the previous petition, but the details are different.
Broadcast Spectrum (Local Television) (PE1055)
PE1055, from Graeme Campbell, on behalf of the media access project Scotland—MAPS—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to seek clarification on the ownership of electromagnetic broadcast spectrum in advance of the proposed spectrum packaging and award process, and to seek assurances that capacity will be reserved on the digital multiplexes to enable local and new Scottish television channels originating in Scotland to be broadcast to Scottish viewers who receive the public service broadcasting channels. The petition attracted 58 signatures on the e-petitions system. How should we deal with it? Is the issue in the Scottish Broadcasting Commission's remit, or could it be drawn to the commission's attention?
It could be.
Yes, but we do not know whether it is part of the commission's remit at the moment. The commission has a broad remit, although it may address specific issues, of course.
The issue seems to fall within the commission's remit.
We could refer PE1055 to the commission and seek a response from it. Do members have any other suggestions?
It would also be helpful for us to get the Scottish Government's view on the Office of Communications's consultation document, "Digital Dividend Review". The commission may consider PE1055 if we ask it to, but the Scottish Government should have a view on the consultation so we should ask what that view is.
Could we pass PE1055 on to Ofcom for consideration as part of its consultation? Broadcasting is a reserved issue, so there is little that the committee can do with the petition. However, it might be worth our feeding it into the consultation. I am not sure whether the committee can do that.
This is an issue that transmits across different levels. That was my gag for the day.
Bridge Replacement (PE1064)
PE1064, from Bruce Whitehead, on behalf of Queensferry Residents Against Another Forth Crossing, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reconsider its decision to replace the Forth road bridge and to await pending studies on the feasibility of repairing it; to consider Forth Estuary Transport Authority's proposals for road user charging; to invest instead in improved public transport with new bridge tariffs to reward vehicle sharing; and to endorse the previous Prime Minister's declaration that
The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is looking into the issue and has visited the Forth bridge. It is important that we refer PE1064 to that committee and ask that it be dealt with as part of its in-depth inquiry. There is little point in our gathering information on the issue when the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee can include it in its findings.
Robin, I presume that that is what you are going to comment on.
Indeed. If you want six reasons for sending PE1064 to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, I can give them to you. They are from the National Trust for Scotland's submission—the ink is hardly dry on it—to Transport Scotland's consultation. The reasons are as follows: the case for the additional crossing has yet to be made; climate change is the most important issue to consider; increasing road space for private cars conflicts with Government policy; major improvements to all forms of public transport are essential; we need greater clarity on the future of the existing road bridge—we simply do not know what is happening with that yet; and the corridor C tunnel options could have unacceptable environmental impacts. Those are six cogent reasons why the discussion should be continued and the petition considered by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.
It will not surprise the convener to hear that I disagree with PE1064 for a number of reasons. Nonetheless, the matter will be considered by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee as part of its scrutiny of the proposal for a new crossing and it is entirely appropriate that the petition be sent to that committee so that it can form part of its consideration.
That is the appropriate course of action, given the thoroughness with which the issue needs to be explored. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has a big responsibility. The proposal is controversial, irrespective of its progress through different Governments, and the debate needs to be aired clearly at that committee. If what Rhoda Grant says about a visit to the bridge is accurate—as I presume it is—that indicates that the issue will be scrutinised seriously. We should recommend that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee deal with PE1064. To reassure the petitioner, I expect the members of that committee to interrogate the issue rigorously, irrespective of their starting positions. Other members—perhaps even members of this committee—will articulate their views on the issue to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee when appropriate and when they can.
Next
Current Petitions