Official Report 262KB pdf
Blessing Oneself (PE1005)
The next agenda item is consideration of a series of current petitions. Those are petitions that are in the system, that the committee has previously considered and on which we are following up with further information. The committee has had late submissions on a number of the petitions, which I will identify.
I would be happy to close it.
That is okay, given that we have had assurances from the Crown Office. The petitioner was concerned about the representation of a faith issue and whether it was considered inappropriate to bless oneself. We have now clarified that matter under Scots law, which is helpful. We will close the petition.
Local Planning (PE1009)
The next current petition is PE1009, by William and Angela Flanagan, which calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to assure justice in local planning matters by providing an advocacy service to represent third parties who are seeking redress and financial recompense through the regular court system when planning authorities have acted in error.
I was not a member of Parliament at the time, but I had been under the impression that the third-party right of appeal was well considered and discussed when the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill was before Parliament. That happened so recently that it would be wrong of us to reopen the issue. I therefore suggest that we close PE1009, although I am willing to listen to other points of view.
I am not sure that PE1009 is primarily about the third-party right of appeal. It is about a third party being able to take the planning authority to judicial review because they believe that the authority has not carried out its duties properly. The petitioner is seeking financial assistance through legal aid or advocacy services to allow third parties to take such cases through the courts. The petition is not purely about the third-party right of appeal—it is about the decision-making process and whether cases can go to judicial review. We should ask the Scottish Government whether it intends to reform the planning process further. However, I am mindful of the fact that we received letters about the issue from various bodies. Perhaps we have gone as far as we can on the issue.
This is not a declaration of interest, but I was keen on having a third-party right of appeal accepted by the previous Executive. That did not come to pass, but the point of the proposal was to get fairness for people who are involved in planning disputes. There are other ways forward, some of which should be incorporated in regulations and advice. However, advocacy and mediation, which have already been mentioned, are being left out. I would like to refer PE1009 to the Executive as an example of how much better the situation might be if proper mediation services and advocacy were available to people in such disputes.
How clear are we on what we wish to do?
I am not particularly convinced by the arguments that Tricia Marwick and Robin Harper have made. I stand by my comment that the planning process was scrutinised recently and I do not see how we can take PE1009 further. We need to let the changes that have been made bed in and thereafter to address any issues that arise. The Government would not be keen to reopen the matter so soon.
I am inclined to agree with Rhoda Grant. The planning legislation is new, and we should see how it works. Is it in order for us to close PE1009, but to suggest to the Scottish Government that the issue be considered as part of post-legislative scrutiny of the operation of the new law?
The clerk informs me that we can close PE1009 and bring it to the attention of the Government or anyone else to whom we wish to refer it, although they may ignore us. Are members happy with that course of action?
We will close the petition but draw the Government's attention to the issue of mediation.
Alcohol Exclusion Zones and Dispersal Orders (PE1010)
The next petition is PE1010, by Ron Rose, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce or enhance devolved legislation to empower local authorities to enforce powers to apply alcohol exclusion zones and dispersal orders under a fast-track system, thus enabling police and local councils to implement measures more expediently to rescue communities such as Aberfeldy from "death by due process".
According to a later paper, Perth and Kinross Council is already considering the introduction of a byelaw in Aberfeldy. I wonder whether we should, bearing in mind that everything that can be done is being done, close PE1010.
That would be a sensible course of action. If we close PE1010, and there are no developments that would be of assistance, the petitioner is perfectly at liberty to submit another petition.
Scheduled and Listed Buildings (Management) (PE1013)
The next petition is PE1013, by Niall Campbell, who calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the arrangements for managing scheduled and listed buildings, such as Rowallan old castle, to ensure that when owners have made suitable and sensitive plans for restoring such buildings in a way that will allow public access, such developments are encouraged to proceed.
I should declare an interest, having worked in the past for somebody who was in a very similar situation. It is far enough in the past that it is not a registrable interest, but it colours my views on how we should deal with the petition. It is horrendous that a Government agency can put a dead hand over a community and stop any kind of development, and that it can, without consultation, when a property is for sale, say that it will not consider any planning proposal. That is what an agency has done in this case, and in the case in which I was involved.
I should declare an interest: I served for a time as the minister responsible for some of the review process. I wanted to put that on record—although, if I am honest, I cannot say that I influenced Historic Scotland much.
We need a clear pronouncement on where the powers fall. Government ministers make decisions on planning applications that have been called in, but if a Government agency has already made a pronouncement on a particular planning application, a conflict arises. Historic Scotland does not deal with such conflicts properly.
We will keep PE1013 open and seek further explanations. Monuments are a difficult and sensitive issue, so we will have to tread carefully.
Antibiotic Resistance Campaign (PE1019)
PE1019 is by Imran Hayat. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, or Government, to start a nationwide health promotion campaign to raise patient awareness of the proper use of antibiotics in order to combat antibiotic resistance. We have received responses from the various agencies that we contacted.
I have not worked in the health service for a long time, but I should perhaps declare a past interest in health promotion. Overprescription of antibiotics is a serious issue. However, I agree with the health professionals who have commented: I doubt whether the sort of campaign that the petitioner is asking for would have the desired effect.
That is a sensible suggestion.
A90 Deceleration Lane (PE1020)
The next petition, PE1020, is by Councillor Paul Melling on behalf of the constituents of Portlethen South—ward 60 of Aberdeenshire Council. I am not sure how old the petition is, but are we talking about the old ward boundaries? Yes, we are—we are talking about the good old days.
Thank you. I remind members that Councillor Paul Melling has actively campaigned on the issue for four years. The campaign has been entirely locally produced and is entirely on a road safety issue. Paul has the backing of the local community, Aberdeenshire Council's local area committee—of which, since the elections in May, he is now chair—and Aberdeenshire Council itself. As members will be aware, the problem is that a huge number of accidents have occurred on this extremely dangerous section of trunk road. Unfortunately, since he lodged the petition, there has been a fatality involving a motorcyclist, who died as a result of his injuries after an accident on the road.
Do members have any comments or observations on the petition?
I know well the area that Mike Rumbles is talking about. There is a strong argument for having a 50mph limit on the road until it reaches Stonehaven. I am all for taking the issue further.
Obviously, Transport Scotland has the key responsibility. I do not know whether that road is included in its infrastructure investment programme, but the local members have probably been advocating that meetings should take place with Transport Scotland on that. Essentially, we want to know what Transport Scotland's strategic assessment is of the road's suitability and what improvements might be made. Even if we do not get an immediate decision one way or the other on a deceleration lane, we should find out what measures Transport Scotland is putting in place to address the immediate public safety concerns. That might be one way of dealing with the petition.
I certainly agree that we should get in touch with Transport Scotland. There are many junctions on the A90 that have caused problems and serious accidents over the years. Transport Scotland would probably accept that most junctions on the A90 need treatment of some kind, so it is a question of priorities. Clearly, the Porthlethen junction is not up the priority list. We should bring the petition to Transport Scotland's attention so that it realises that the matter is of serious concern.
We shall write to Transport Scotland to highlight the discussion that we have had today, to raise a specific question about what measures are being taken to improve the road's safety and to ask whether a deceleration lane is part of Transport Scotland's potential investment programme. Are members comfortable with that?
Convener, when I attended the committee meeting at which the petition was originally considered, I understood that the committee decided to write to Transport Scotland on those issues. I had assumed that the committee would have received a response. Is that not the case?
Out of courtesy to Mike Rumbles, as he will not have a copy of the letter, I will read out from the response. It states:
Or the timescale.
Indeed—or the timescale. We will say that we do not know whether the conclusions will fit in with the capital resources that will obviously be available in the new Scotland for whatever we want.
Solicitors (PE1021)
The next petition, PE1021, by Bill Alexander, calls on the Parliament to investigate the availability of solicitors who are prepared to act against other solicitors in cases of negligence or inadequate service, the role of the Law Society of Scotland in such cases and the impact, both physical and financial, of such cases on the complainer.
I suggest that we close consideration of it because I believe that the problems that the petitioner flags up have been dealt with by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.
As there are no other views, the recommendation is that we close the petition because we feel that the 2007 act should be able to address some of the immediate issues raised in the petition. There is also a review process of all legislation by the Government, so we may come back to the petition if there are difficulties. With that recommendation, can we close the petition?
Television Coverage of Scottish Football (PE1026)
The next petition is PE1026, by a gentleman called Stuart McMillan—where is he now? The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to exert all its powers on BBC Scotland to ensure that the corporation provides television coverage of every Scotland national football team match, and notes the sporting and cultural importance of the national team, which should ensure that this issue is highlighted every time that the Scottish Executive meets with BBC Scotland.
It may be asked to do that. For the record, I was seriously cheesed off that the Scotland games were not carried live on the BBC. The response from BBC Scotland was that it could not afford to do that. However, the England versus Russia game was live on the BBC.
Great game.
It was, and presumably the BBC found the money to show that game. I cannot be the only one to be more than cheesed off that the only way to see the Scotland game was to pay money or go to the pub. I think that we should refer the issue to the Scottish Broadcasting Commission for its consideration, and close the petition.
I have a further suggestion. I broadly agree with what you said. We are all keen to watch Scotland because we are doing better than we have done for a long time—I hope that that will continue. However, there is the issue of the role that the Scottish Football Association should play in this debate. It is important that BBC Scotland and the United Kingdom BBC take the responsibility for addressing the matter, but there is also a commercial issue.
Bus Services (Funding) (PE1027)
The final petition is PE1027, by Kristina Woolnough, on behalf of Blackhall Community Association, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, in the interests of social inclusion, to increase public funding for bus services, particularly in communities where such services are already limited, and to ensure that, when bus routes and timetables are to be axed or changed, members of the community are properly consulted.
I would be happy to close it, noting that the service that is mentioned in the petition has been restored. Perhaps we should also forward the correspondence to the Scottish Government and highlight the need to ensure that there are effective ways of consulting local communities on the provision of bus services. That could be achieved through local transport forums or other means at local authorities' disposal.
I agree with that. In rural areas, there is a duty on local authorities to consider funding rural transport schemes; in urban areas, it is more difficult. If only the lucrative or economically viable options are taken into account, some of the most deprived areas will suffer from a lack of transport options, and those are possibly the areas that need them most. We should flag that up when we pass the papers on for consideration and information. We need to find ways of ensuring consideration of communities that cannot stand up for themselves in the same way as Blackhall Community Association has done. Perhaps that should become a pillar of the consideration of service delivery.
Bus companies need to be reminded that they are expected to provide a service, not simply to run a profitable operation.
As there are no other comments, we will close the petition. We should note that the service that was highlighted in the petition and was the driver for the debate has been re-established. When we write to the Government, we should ask about the development of bus quality partnerships and mention that it should involve a communication strategy on the nature of services and decisions on them.
Meeting closed at 16:18.
Previous
New Petitions