Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
We have quite a heavy workload this afternoon. There are 12 current petitions. PE1124, by Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, calls for a ban on snares. Members have a note from the clerk, which is paper 3, and submissions. I invite contributions from members.
This petition came before the committee a number of times in the previous session of Parliament, and it has tracked the legislation on snaring as that has gone through the Parliament.
That is a reasonable point. The clerk’s briefing paper points out that the new snares orders have already been considered. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to do that.
I accept what John Wilson says. However, in view of the fact that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has already considered the orders, I wonder whether we should close the petition. The impact of the new regulations will not be assessed until 2016 and I do not see that there is much more that we can do at this point. It will be open to the petitioners to submit a similar petition in 2016 if they do not like what they hear then.
I forgot to refer to the full paragraph in the petitioners’ submission. They are calling for an earlier review of the effect of the new snaring orders. Rather than wait until 2016, they want the Government to carry out an earlier review. The SSPCA did a review shortly after the introduction of the legislation and has identified 65 animals that have been trapped in snares—and those are only the ones that have been reported to the SSPCA; I am sure that many other incidents have never been reported or recorded. It might be worth passing on that information from the SSPCA to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, asking whether it would consider an earlier review. If the SSPCA can pull together that information in such a short period, I am sure that other information could be brought to that committee’s attention prior to 2016.
I accept that.
Are members happy with John Wilson’s suggestion that we formally refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee?
Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)
The second current petition is PE1179 from Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, on acquired brain injury services. Members have a note by the clerk—it is paper 4—and the written submissions.
I have read the papers and the recommendations. I suggest that we close the petition because the Government is committed to introducing legislation on the integration of adult health and social care, and some councils have already gone ahead with that. I note the petitioner’s concerns about the replies from local authorities, but I think that the replies that we got were full. We could ask the petitioner to participate directly in the gathering of evidence for the legislation.
Not at this point.
Okay. My recommendation is that we close the petition.
I agree with Sandra White, particularly as we have received confirmation from the Government that an acquired brain injury sub-group is undertaking work to move from a clinical network to a care network over the next two years. I think that everything is being done. It has been a good petition that has achieved its purpose.
I agree with those comments. However, it should be noted that the petitioner expressed disappointment that out of the 32 councils that were approached for responses only 12 replied. That is disappointing.
The petitioner is not alone in feeling disappointed. We have had problems in getting feedback from some local authorities.
I have now gathered my thoughts on the petition, and I would not want to see it closed at this point as the petitioner has made another three recommendations. Although the written submissions that we have received from local authorities are good, they show that there is no consistency in how the different health boards and local authorities deal with the issue. The petitioner has rightly made another three recommendations:
May I suggest a compromise position? As the Scottish Government has set up the sub-group, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 but refer the three recommendations that Mr Wilson mentioned to the Scottish Government and ask for them to be discussed as part of the sub-group’s analysis. In that way, we will achieve both objectives. Is that agreed?
I bow to the majority view of committee members.
I thank Mr Wilson for his Henry Kissinger-like diplomacy.
Youth Football (PE1319)
Our third current petition is PE1319, by William Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and the written submissions. Mr Smith is in the public gallery. I declare my interest in Scottish football and my directorship of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club.
I do not want to echo what the convener has already said, but I have been very interested in the petition as well. I have always been a football fan, but I did not realise what was going on behind the scenes. We should continue the petition. There is a working party review going on—that is a success that has come from the petition—and we will want to look at that. We should draw the working party’s attention to the evidence that we have received on the petition.
I agree. It is important that we continue the petition so that we get further evidence from the working party.
If we do that, it does not rule out our using other tactics in the future, such as looking at the subject in a bit more depth or having a fuller debate on it in a plenary session. It is a novel and interesting petition and I thank Mr Smith again for the trouble that he has taken to put it before us.
I thank Mr Smith again.
Institutional Child Abuse (Victims’ Forum and Compensation) (PE1351)
Our fourth current petition is PE1351, by Chris Daly and Helen Holland, on a time for all to be heard. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 6, and the written submissions. I invite comments from members.
The petition has been with us for quite a while. It is a very emotive subject. The petitioners should be praised for their stalwart work and the tenacity that they have shown. A lot of work is being done on the issue, and we have had evidence from ministers and from various groups. Given the amount of work that is going on, we should continue the petition and perhaps schedule a review of progress for the autumn.
We have considered the petition a number of times and taken evidence on it. The petitioners have raised a number of questions on how the petition should be progressed, which I think that we should take cognisance of. I suggest that we forward them to the Scottish Government and seek responses, because there are aspects of the questions that only the Government can respond to. I know that the petitioners have a number of concerns about how the process is being dealt with. There was an expectation that, once we had the Shaw commission report, the Government would move much more quickly than it seems to be moving, so we should ask it to respond to the issues that have been raised.
Do members agree to John Wilson’s suggestion?
Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)
The fifth current petition is PE1395, by Jan Culík, on targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at universities. Members have a note by the clerk—paper PPC/S4/12/11/7—and the submissions. This is another very strong petition. I welcome Hugh McMahon to the gallery—thank you for coming along again.
Members will be aware of the letters that have come in on the petition and the interest that I and others have in it, given that it comes from the University of Glasgow, which is in the area that I represent. The petitioner has asked that we look at the outcomes agreement that has been signed by the university and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and get an update on what is to happen. I suggest that we support the petitioners’ request regarding the outcomes agreement.
Is it within our competence to do that?
The clerks advise me that it is within our competence to write to whomever we wish to write. The point that I was making was that the request was made to me. The advice that I have been given by officials—which I think is the correct advice—is that it would be best that a committee decision be made on the matter, and that it is not a decision that I could make in my own right.
Can I clarify what we are being asked to do? I think that we are being asked to take a view on the education provision in an autonomous university, which would be a strange thing for the committee to do.
What we are being asked to do is outlined in paragraph 15 of paper 7.
I would be uncomfortable about the committee making such a recommendation.
I am happy to take further advice and get back to committee members. I am advised that it would be within our competence to act in the way that has been suggested.
My concern is that the request relates to a specific university, whereas the petition is much more general. That is why I asked whether it is within our competence to meet the request.
I think that we could write in more general terms, but still reflect the sentiments of the petitioners. I take the points that members are raising.
I am concerned about the committee taking that view. I think that it might be better to refer the matter to the Education and Culture Committee, which could look at whether that line could be pursued. If we act as has been requested, we will be going further than we should, given the evidence that we have received.
I take on board the concerns that members have expressed, but the committee has checked with the clerks that it is within our competence to write to the SFC. We would not be asking it to take specific action; we would be making a request. I know that Joe FitzPatrick is filling in for Mark McDonald, but the threat to Slavonic studies is a huge issue, not just in the University of Glasgow, although that is where the petition comes from. Courses in Slavonic studies and languages will be lost. It is not a tiny issue. I understand where Joe FitzPatrick is coming from, but the teaching of Slavonic studies as a whole will be affected, because such courses will be lost. Glasgow is the only place outwith London where such courses are available. If we lose those courses, anyone who wants to do Slavonic studies would have to go to London—they would not be able to do it in Scotland.
We need to act on this issue, as it has been raised as a huge concern not just by constituents in Glasgow but with the cross-party group on Poland. Moreover, having spoken to the West of Scotland Regional Equality Council, which runs a project in the department, I know that it, too, is concerned that, as Sandra White suggested, it might well have to go to London if course provision is done away with. The relevant population is very concerned about the matter.
At one level, the petition is not about one particular university, but about the strategic importance of lesser-taught languages. That is the key issue that we are trying to develop. I do not know whether Joe FitzPatrick has followed all our meetings, but we have received very good evidence on the matter.
Obviously I have not been here for all the evidence sessions, but I am concerned about suggesting that the outcomes agreement contain specific reference to one topic and feel that we might be almost trying to direct an autonomous educational institution to treat it differently from everything else. I understand the concerns that have been expressed and the importance of the issue, but I wonder whether there is a different way of addressing the situation or whether we should ask the Education and Culture Committee to take a wider look. I simply think that we are taking a very narrow approach. I know that the petition refers to one particular subject but I am not sure that we should recommend that it be specifically covered in the outcomes agreement.
While acknowledging Joe FitzPatrick’s point about our recommending that the outcomes agreement specify that Glasgow University should maintain Slavonic studies, I wonder whether we should write to the funding council and the university itself to ask whether Slavonic studies has been specifically included in the outcomes agreement between both—and if not, why not—and what other option or provision is available to students in Scotland who wish to study the subject. We would not be directing the university or the funding council, but simply asking the questions.
We will also be asking in general about Czech, Polish, Russian and Slavonic studies.
That is right.
That sounds like a very useful compromise. Do members agree with that approach?
Thank you again, Mr Wilson.
Staffordshire Bull Terriers (PE1396)
PE1396, by Ian Robb on behalf for Help for Abandoned Animals (Arbroath), is on overbreeding and abandonment of Staffordshire bull terriers. The committee has a note from the clerk and various submissions. I invite comments.
I do not think that we can take the petition any further. The Government has written to COSLA; however, given that it has not yet received a response, we will need to hold the petition over until we hear what that response might be.
Do members agree with that suggestion?
I realise that the clerk’s note says that the Government wrote to COSLA on 17 May, but I think that, instead of leaving the matter hanging, we should write to the Scottish Government to ask when it expects to get a response from COSLA. I know that it will have the summer recess to respond but it will be useful to find out if and when COSLA intends to respond.
So the suggestion is to continue the petition and to write to the Scottish Government to ask when it expects to get a reply from COSLA. Are we agreed?
Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)
Our seventh current petition is PE1400, by Libby Anderson, on behalf of OneKind, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 9, and the written submissions. I invite comments from members.
This has been a useful petition. The Scottish Government has said that, due to high-priority work, it is unable to do any work on the matter before winter 2012. As Nanette Milne suggested about the previous petition, can we schedule consideration of the petition for the end of the year?
Do members agree?
We will continue the petition and schedule it for consideration again at the end of the year.
Access to Insulin Pump Therapy (PE1404)
Our eighth current position is PE1404, by Stephen Fyfe, on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland, on access to insulin pump therapy. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 10, and the written submissions.
Yesterday’s meeting was extremely useful as it explained quite a lot about some of the things that we had concerns about.
That is a good point. I suppose that we are looking at the profile of the ability of health boards to achieve the number of pumps that the Scottish Government laid down, which was emphasised in the chief executive’s letter. In the case of Glasgow, for example, we are talking about a huge shift. I think that it needs another 99 pumps for under-18s. As members know, the target is 25 per cent for under-18s who have type 1 diabetes. Looking at the past trend, my gut instinct was that there was no way the board was going to achieve that, and I think that it is fair to say that the board agreed on that. The good thing is that it accepts that there is an issue and it is moving up to achieve that target.
I thank the committee members who were able to come along to the meeting, and I thank the clerks for setting it up. I found it very interesting. The convener mentioned NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s ability to meet the 25 per cent target that the Government has set. It has to be put on the record that the reason why the board is having to work at that is that it started from a low base of supplying the pumps.
Sandra White makes a good point about self-funding of pumps. I think that we all agree that there should not be a vox pop whereby people can say that they want a pump and just get it. We all accept that it must be decided through a clinical judgment. However, if people are self-financing after there has been a clinical judgment, that must be reassessed and the consumables—the cost of insulin and so on—should be paid for by health boards. We might need to write to the minister to clarify that issue.
I agree with Sandra White that we must keep a careful eye on the issue. I hope that, when we see the action plans for all the health boards, we will have a clearer picture of how things stand across the country, which is important for us to know.
I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government on the issue and that we should continue the petition, given the evidence from yesterday’s exceptional meeting. As well as asking the Scottish Government about sanctions that may be imposed for not meeting the targets, we should ask the Government what support it might be able to offer NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, given the increase that we heard about.
There are also concerns about training issues, because appropriate nurses cannot be invented overnight. I appreciate, too, that in a big, complex organisation, moving someone from one area to another will affect other aspects of healthcare. However, it might be worthwhile to clarify those issues with the Government.
The issue is important, and I know that the convener has a long-term interest in it. I wonder whether it would be worth while to get the minister to come to the committee, because that might help to drive the issue forward. It is not good enough just to have targets. They must work in practice so that people get the pumps and so on. Given that we have a number of questions on the issue, it would probably be helpful to both the minister and the committee if the minister came to give evidence.
In fairness—I should probably not say this—I have had the sense over the years that Nicola Sturgeon is keen to ensure that there is a higher outturn of insulin pumps. I know that the term “postcode lottery” is a cliché, but there is one in this case. It is of huge concern that some health boards have a figure of 8 per cent for pumps but Glasgow’s figure is 1.3 per cent. Mr MacDonald, who is from the Western Isles, will note that the figure is even lower for that health board area, unfortunately.
Do members have any further points?
I have a point that I just remembered. We heard that specialists from Yorkhill hospital were going to the Western Isles for a meeting. It might be useful for us to do the same or to get some information from that meeting. I think that they are opening a hub in the Western Isles, or working towards that.
The clerk has that in hand. Members will recall that we agreed to decide at our planning meeting during the recess what visits to make, and the Western Isles was identified as an area to be considered in that regard.
Ferry Fares (PE1421)
The ninth current petition is PE1421, by Gail Robertson, on behalf of the Outer Hebrides Transport Group, on fair ferry fares. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 11, and the submissions.
Yes. Thank you, convener. I appreciate the committee’s consideration of the petition. I ask the committee to keep it open until the economic impact study has reported, which will allow the committee to review that report. If the committee decides to do that, there are two issues that I am keen for it to look into further in the meantime.
To be clear, are you suggesting that those questions should be addressed only to the Scottish Government or that we go down some other route as well?
They could go to the Scottish Government to start with. However, it might not be aware of the retendering. The chamber of commerce and some of the haulier companies themselves will obviously be aware of whether companies have been able to recoup any of the additional costs and, if not, how long they will be able to absorb them before they are forced out of business.
Perhaps we could ask the Road Haulage Association those questions.
Yes.
The first issue is whether we should continue the petition. As we heard, an economic study is being carried out. It would seem sensible to keep the petition open until we know the results of that. What are members’ views on that? Angus MacDonald has some experience from the Western Isles.
Yes. Given the points that Rhoda Grant raised, it is only fair to continue the petition. It is also fair to say that, in my experience, the Outer Hebrides Transport Group does not represent the majority view of island residents or, indeed, all the hauliers in the Western Isles. It is therefore clear that there is more investigation to be done.
It is certainly worth while to continue the petition until there is a report back on the study. However, I wonder whether it would be appropriate for Rhoda Grant MSP to ask some of the questions that she has raised in her capacity as a regional member.
I have raised them. As I said, I lodged a question. It is unclear to me whether the Government looks on the routes as having had the RET removed from them or whether it is still treating them as RET routes. The petition is about fair ferry fares. Obviously, it is unfair if some hauliers are getting an additional 15 per cent discount whereas others are not qualifying for that. That issue needs to be raised, and it would be helpful to have it dealt with with the petition.
It is important that we continue the petition, given that we are waiting for the results of the study. Also, the questions raised by Rhoda Grant have not been answered—as a committee, we can ask the Scottish Government those questions.
I note Joe FitzPatrick’s distinction between a member’s regional role and questions related to the petition. Obviously, I have an interest as well, but I think that the questions are relevant to our understanding of the petition and to our getting more information. I was not aware of some of the details in the questions, and that detail will be useful in understanding the petition. The Government will give us an official view, which will help us to understand a bit more how to deal with the petition.
I am concerned that the questions come from one particular angle. My feeling is that it is better that they are dealt with by Rhoda Grant as an MSP rather than by the committee. We should continue the petition until the report is out, but I would say no to the suggestion that the committee should write the proposed letters.
I take on board Joe FitzPatrick’s point of view, but the committee is listening to the evidence that we have received so far on the issue. Rhoda Grant, as a local member, has come along to the committee and made us aware of other issues that might be affecting the area. It is up to the committee to decide whether it wishes to proceed with the petition and take on board the issues that she has raised. If we are to give the petition full consideration, we have to do that.
Is that a reasonable point?
I am not going to oppose that.
I thank the member for that and I thank Rhoda Grant for coming to the meeting.
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE1422)
The 10th current petition is PE1422, by Wendy Barr, on the inequality of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 12, and the submissions.
The question is whether to continue the petition or close it on the basis of the evidence that we have. Having read it and the various recommendations, I think that we have given it a fair amount of time. A lot of good replies came back. I recommend that we close the petition given the point in Scottish Natural Heritage’s submission that
I thank the petitioner for her lengthy response to the written submissions that we received from other organisations and to the SPICe briefing. The petitioner indicated in one of her latter responses that there are two sides to the story. Clearly, she has a particular view and various organisations have a different view. As the petitioner has raised no new questions, I support Sandra White’s suggestion that we close the petition.
As no other member wishes to comment, do we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7, for the reasons that Sandra White identified?
Public Sector Staff (Talents) (PE1423)
The 11th current petition is PE1423, by Gordon Hall, on behalf of the Unreasonable Learners, on harnessing the undoubted talents of public sector staff. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 13, and the submissions. Do members have any comments?
I would like to keep the petition open. I note the disappointment that the petitioner has expressed with some of the responses. The petitioner comments that, although great effort is being invested in moving the public sector forward, it will not make much progress because new initiatives and methods tend to be layered over the old command-and-control thinking. That is probably a valid comment.
That is a good idea, but I have a question on scale. Are you suggesting a meeting in a committee room or a discussion on a larger scale, perhaps in the chamber?
I had not thought that far ahead, but why not have it in the chamber? Gordon Hall has suggested a number of people to me and I have spoken to one or two others. For instance, the former MSP Jim Mather, whom I happened to meet recently, is interested in the thinking in the petition and he would make a significant contribution to such a discussion. There are a number of other people.
If members agree to having a round-table discussion, we will need to do some work behind the scenes on the numbers. If a committee room is required, the discussion will be at a committee meeting, but if a larger meeting is required, we will have to approach the Conveners Group about that. We can certainly pursue the issue.
I would like to include some of the petitioners, too.
Yes. We can discuss the details at our business planning day in August.
It is too late now, but the issue would have been a fantastic subject for the festival of politics. Maybe next year we could include it, but we have missed the boat this year.
I do not think that the issue will go away any time soon, so it might well be an issue for a future festival of politics.
As no other member wishes to comment, do we agree to continue the petition so that we can set up a round-table discussion, the details of which we will organise at our August planning event?
Remote and Rural Areas Transport Provision (Access to Care) (Older People) (PE1424)
The final current petition is PE1424, by Joyce Harkness, on behalf of the road to health team, on improving transport provision for older people in remote and rural areas. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 14, and the submissions. I invite comments from members.
Like most members, I support the petition. I suggest that we take action 1 in the paper from the clerk, which is to keep the petition open pending the publication of the report of the working group on healthcare transport.
Do members agree to that suggestion?
Previous
New Petitions