Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Official Report 605KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Transport Strategies (PE1115)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions. PE1115, from Caroline Moore, on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway-station Again, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that national and regional transport strategies consider and focus on public transport solutions such as the reopening of Blackford railway station, which is identified as a priority action in the latest Tayside and central Scotland regional transport strategy, and in doing so recognise and support the positive environmental, economic and social impacts of such local solutions. Dr Richard Simpson is with us to say a few words. We also have a note from Liz Smith, who is unable to be present at the meeting but is keen to support COBRA. She has asked whether it would be possible to have a brief statement read out. Are members happy for that statement to be read out?

Yes.

The statement says:

“I have been a supporter of the COBRA petitioners for many years and know that they appreciate the support and positive feedback which they have received from the Public Petitions Committee.

The reason for my support is basically twofold:

1. All along, they have been keen to see the Blackford Station issue in the context of a wider strategic overview—while pushing their own case, they have not ignored the needs of other interested parties or the wider strategic needs of the Perth-Stirling A9 corridor which is seeing major developments in terms of demographic change.

2. Secondly, because they have been assiduous in undertaking a full cost-benefit analysis of the proposal and also consulting extensively with local people.

And not withstanding the current economic climate which, we all know, is particularly difficult, I share the petitioners’ concern that the current hierarchy for investment is being targeted on current stations and services in precedence to new or potential reopened stations. In the longer term, this area will have a vastly different demography with the resulting implications for movement of the working population and I therefore think it is important to consider this fact too. Indeed, it would be short sighted not to consider the business cases associated with all the options.

I think we should be mindful of the fact that the re-opening of Laurencekirk station in Aberdeenshire resulted in very much greater passenger usage than was first predicted, and think there is the possibility for this situation to develop at Blackford too. The on-going developments in ... Blackford/Gleneagles are considerable and I think it is important that the Scottish Government undertakes a very careful review of the potential benefits which re-opening Blackford Station could have on the environment, the local economy (Ryder Cup 2014) and local communities.

I believe it is vital that a balanced, strategic transport review for the whole area is developed which takes into account the need of all local communities including Gleneagles and very much welcome the initiative taken by COBRA in this respect.”

I have to say that that is the longest brief statement that I have ever had, but I am happy to have read it out. I now hand over to Richard Simpson.

I will try in my brief statement not to repeat too much of what Liz Smith has already said.

The committee has already examined certain important issues, but the Perth and Kinross access group has submitted further evidence. I stress that I am not trying to start a beauty contest between Blackford and Gleneagles stations, but I should point out that, with regard to the Ryder cup—which as we now know was highly successful when it was held in Wales; it attracted 40,000 visitors—disabled access at Gleneagles is appalling. There are questions about road access and there is no foot access. The committee will have seen a notice that was put up at the time of the Johnnie Walker championship—it said, “No Foot Access to Golf”—because the road system makes it so dangerous to walk in the area. Indeed, it is very difficult even for buses to access Gleneagles station. All of that presents major problems for one of the major events that are to happen in Scotland in 2014.

COBRA also questions the current costings for opening Blackford station. It feels that they are inappropriate for two reasons. First, the proposal has been judged to be far more expensive than it actually is—in light of evidence from Laurencekirk and Alloa, I support that view. Secondly, given that it was predicted that in its first year of reopening Alloa station would be used by 180,000 passengers when in fact it was used by 400,000, there seems to be a tendency to gross underprediction in such matters.

We should also recognise that the area’s major employer, Highland Spring, is increasing its investment in the area. A considerable number of its employees already travel in from both directions by car. Opening the station would allow workers to travel in by rail instead. And, of course, Highland Spring’s goods could be moved off the roads and on to rail.

On all those grounds, Blackford has a very strong case. As I said to the committee during my previous appearance, we now know that the UK Government has halved from £6 million to £3 million the provision for disablement funding to refurbish stations, which means that there will be much less potential to use that funding for Gleneagles station. Indeed, given that the costs of refurbishing Gleneagles for the Ryder cup will be in excess of £4.4 million, such a move will absorb a significant proportion of that fund to the detriment of many members’ constituents who are disabled and require access to stations that currently do not have such facilities.

Thank you. I now seek members’ views on the petition.

Our information is that

“Transport Scotland has confirmed that in relation to the Ryder Cup it is currently working with several local authorities and agencies to develop a transport plan and that Scottish Ministers will decide on future resource allocations for this project as part of the Spending Review later this year.”

Notwithstanding that, I think we should continue the petition because I believe that Dr Simpson, and Liz Smith in her written evidence, have asked questions that we need to pose again—or pose for the first time—to the Scottish Government.

I entirely take Dr Simpson’s point about the disablement fund. He also made a very good point about underprediction of usage if Blackford station were reopened and cited the experience of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine route, for which there was a very strong case and which has been a roaring success.

The point about investment by Highland Spring and the probable switch from road to rail has to be raised again.

I do not think that we should close the petition simply because Transport Scotland is saying that it is doing its very best. As far as we can, we should exert pressure and maintain the profile of the campaign to get Blackford station reopened, or at least say that there are still questions to be answered.

I take Dr Simpson’s point about Gleneagles station not being fit for purpose for the Ryder cup in 2014. Given that the Perth and Kinross access group and Dr Simpson said that the cost of refurbishing Gleneagles is almost equivalent to what it would cost to reopen Blackford, which is much better in respect of disabled access, bus access and so on, we should keep the petition open.

I agree with Bill Butler. I do not know the area at all, but Liz Smith cited the opening of the Laurencekirk station, where usage is 80 per cent greater than was predicted when it was opened. There is little doubt—I see it myself coming down in the train—that there is now a much greater move to using the railways. If a station is in a position to service the community that lives beside it, that is all to the good—that is why I am trying to get Kintore station opened. A very good case is being made, particularly given that such a big event as the Ryder cup is fairly imminent.

I agree entirely with the two previous speakers. We know that getting people to use the railways has many advantages, although we would rapidly have an even bigger problem with rolling stock.

Does Richard Simpson want to add something briefly?

I just want respectfully to suggest questions that the committee might want to consider asking. It might want to ask VisitScotland, which is the other side of the team on the Ryder cup, exactly what is happening. Some of the people who have visited the station at Gleneagles have been appalled, and they are really worried about how Scotland will be perceived unless it is radically altered for the Ryder cup. Such alteration might be even more expensive than is being suggested.

It might also be worth asking Perth and Kinross Council for its view, because it is another partner in dealing with the tourism effects of the Ryder cup.

Thank you. That is helpful. Do we agree to continue the petition in the meanwhile?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)

The next petition is PE1124, by Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and the Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue Trust. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 by introducing provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. I seek members’ views on what we should do to take the petition forward.

I seek clarification from the clerk—through you, convener—on when the report that has been commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is likely to be published.

We do not have that information. Like you, I have been a bit concerned about that.

I think we should suspend consideration of the petition until such time as the report is published. Then, we can seek clarification from the Scottish Government as to how it intends to respond to the report. We are debating the matter without full knowledge of the report that has been commissioned by the UK Government, and it would be useful to get responses from the Scottish Government based on that report. We cannot ask the Government any further questions on the matter until the report has been published.

To be consistent, I should state that the time it is taking the Scottish Government to respond to letters from this committee—a committee of the Parliament—is ludicrous. By my calculation, it has taken almost seven months to draw up a three-paragraph response. That leads me to question whether the Government takes this committee—a formal committee of the Parliament—and our deliberations on the petitions that come before us seriously.

I absolutely agree. I am not sure whether we should consider doing something about the matter. The committee has the option of referring the petition to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. As John Wilson said, the issue has been running for a long time and the Government has been round the houses on it. I understood that legislation was to be proposed. What is the timing of that?

I am not sure about the timing of any legislation. I return to the point that John Wilson made. We have been speaking to Scottish Government officials to try to get an indication of when the report might be published. We do not want continually to put a petition back in front of the committee when there has been no action. If we had had an indication from the Government of when the report will be published, we would have left the matter.

We are happy to have a further discussion with the Government and to pass on the comments and concerns that members have raised. The minister gave evidence on the petition earlier this year. We would be happy to assist should the convener wish to write to the minister again about the issue.

What about referring it to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee? What are the possibilities there? I do not know what the workload of that committee is like at the moment. Like everybody else, I think that the process has taken far too long. A lot of people have major concerns about the issue; we need to get some movement on it.

The option to refer the petition is always open to the committee. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has two bills before it just now. I am not sure that anything in its work programme is directly related to the petition. The position of the Public Petitions Committee in the past has been to keep petitions going under circumstances of this sort, as this committee can be best placed to take the matter forward. There might not be anything in the work programme of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that could easily accommodate the petition at this time and take the matter any further forward than this committee can achieve. The option of referring the petition is always available to you, however.

I do not know what the committee thinks about this, but would it be possible to have a quick look at the petition again at our next meeting? We do not have in front of us the information that would allow us to make a full decision about where we should go with it. We must bear in mind the workload of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the proposed legislation that might be coming through. Is that okay?

We are saying that we are awaiting the outcome of the report that has been referred to. Are there other options for the committee? Do we have to wait for that report to come out? The use of snares in England and Wales is being considered, but is there anything to stop us deciding that we are fed up with waiting and pressing on ahead regardless of the report?

There is a danger of just going on and on rather than putting pressure on the Government to do something. There has been discussion and consultation on the matter for long enough.

We are all frustrated at what is happening with this petition, but there is a problem. I agree with John Wilson that we should suspend the petition for three or four months. We are trying to find not a hook on which to hang the Government but a way of saying, “In light of the report that has been produced in England and Wales, what action will the Scottish Government take?”

At the moment, the Scottish Government has a fixed position that I do not think commands support, although it has never been tested. I think that what the petitioners are asking for commands support. However, we cannot state that with certainty. I do not think that we should refer the petition to another committee—time is short; there are only about six months left of this session. Rather, as soon as the report is published down south, it would be appropriate for the clerk to write to the Scottish Government to ask for its view on the matter.

Two views are emerging: one is that we should suspend the petition; the other is that we should try to push the issue forward.

I would prefer to suspend it until we see the report.

I have a slight issue with Bill Butler’s assertion that there is no support for snaring, as there is clearly some support for it to remain an option for the keeping down of what are called vermin.

I support Bill Butler’s suggestion that we suspend the petition for four months, but I think that it should come back to us for further consideration regardless of what has happened with the report down south. Bill Butler is right to say that we cannot keep on delaying discussion on this matter. It would be useful if we could get some resolution to the petition. We should suspend consideration for four months and move forward at that point, regardless of what else has happened.

Does the clerk have something to say about the period of four months?

The committee will meet again on 9 and 23 November. If the committee agrees, we could prepare a letter for the convener to send to the UK minister at DEFRA to outline the concerns that members have raised and try to get more specific information about when the report will be published. I could aim to get that update back to the committee for 23 November. Any information that we could get about when the report might come out could help us to timetable further consideration of the petition in a more precise way than saying that we will come back to it in four months’ time.

That is an excellent suggestion. I withdraw my suggestion in favour of that suggestion.

The only point that I would make is that the suggestion is good provided that DEFRA responds timeously, unlike the Scottish Government. Going by the time the previous response from the Scottish Government took, we might be six months down the road before we get a response from DEFRA.

I agree. We should write to the Scottish Government in strong terms about the lack of response, the lack of progress and the time it has taken to progress the issue.

Can I ask a question? You said that, in that period, the minister gave evidence—is that right?

No, that was at the beginning of the year.

Oh. I thought that it was after we sent the letter, which would mean that we have had a response, because we have had a minister before us to give evidence on the petition.

No, it has been dragging on.

---

Independent Vehicular Ferry Routes (PE1192)

The next petition is PE1192, by Donald Ewen Darroch. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to state how it is supporting and promoting independent vehicular ferry routes between the islands and the mainland and how the planning system is playing a constructive role in supporting the economic and social future of such routes. I seek members’ views on how to take the petition forward.

I get the impression that the letter from the ferries division in the aviation, maritime, freight and canals directorate of Transport Scotland is helpful. First, it appears to relate to the subject and, secondly, it gives us a timetable, which is wonderful. Ms Locke tells us that the consultation closed on 30 September and that Transport Scotland will give the committee an update by the end of the year. I therefore suggest that we suspend further consideration of the petition until we have received the update, which essentially means until the first meeting of next year.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Tail Docking (PE1196 and PE1230)

Petitions PE1196 and PE1230 are being considered together.

PE1196, by Michael Brander, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 as a matter of urgency to allow for the tails of working dogs to be docked.

PE1230, by Dr Colin Shedden, on behalf of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 to allow prophylactic tail docking of working dogs under tightly specified circumstances. I seek members’ views on the two petitions.

I believe that we have a timescale from the Government on this one. It will decide within the next two months whether to commission further research in light of the report that has been published. We should again suspend consideration of the petition until we get that decision and hope that the Government sticks to the timetable that it has given us.

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Youth Volunteering Policy (PE1278)

The next petition is PE1278, by Kimby Tosh, on behalf of Project Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate how it supports national youth volunteering opportunities, which deliver skills development for all young people in Scotland, and to develop and implement a national youth volunteering policy for Scotland. I ask for members’ views on the petition.

Colleagues will remember that the petition originated in the discussions that were had in Parliament and outwith it about Project Scotland and the future or otherwise of structured, paid volunteering for young people aged 16 to 25.

Project Scotland is a marvellous organisation and its record stands up to even the most severe sceptical examination, but it is clear that the Scottish Government does not feel that it is right to provide a separate national programme of financial support for young people who are volunteering. I regret that decision—it is disappointing, wrong-headed and a mistake—but the fact remains that, at the moment, it is the Scottish Government’s position.

Members will see from the clerk’s note that Project Scotland continues to serve as an independent organisation and that it is securing alternative financial backing from various sources as a result of the commitment, dedication, hard work and lateral thinking of Ms Watt and her team.

We have to be realistic and say that, at present, the committee cannot do anything else. There will certainly be an election on the first Thursday of May next year and I know—not to be overtly party political—that my party will make a commitment to structured youth volunteering. We will see what the electorate says but, at the moment, there is, regrettably, no option other than to close the petition.

Does the committee agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning (Protection of National Scenic Areas) (PE1295)

PE1295, by Flora Dickson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how sites that have been identified as areas of national scenic value can then be considered as suitable locations for the building of crematoria and other developments; whether allowing under the planning system for applications to build crematoria and other developments runs contrary to the reasons for sites being designated as such; and whether the promotion and protection of our natural heritage should merit that a full and robust environmental impact assessment is conducted for any planning applications that are made. I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition.

We could invite the Scottish Government to respond to the petitioner’s questions. Alternatively, as the Scottish Government has confirmed that Scottish Natural Heritage will produce in the autumn guidance to accompany its report “The Special Qualities of the National Scenic Areas”, we might wish to suspend the petition. However, perhaps it would be best to ask the questions and continue the petition.

Rather than suspend the petition, we could write to the Government and ask when it expects that guidance to be published. We could continue the petition. As well as asking the questions from the petitioner, we can ask when the guidance is expected to be produced.

Do members agree to those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Haemochromatosis (Screening) (PE1298)

PE1298, by George Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote and support the introduction of national screening for and a science-based diagnosis of haemochromatosis, or iron overload, within NHS primary care. I seek members’ views on the petition.

To a large extent, the petition has achieved its aim, in that the Government has suggested that the Haemochromatosis Society consider the scope to provide awareness sessions at general practitioner practice training sessions. The Government has confirmed that a grant application has been made to the chief scientist office for further research on the issue. The Government has given a commitment that it is willing to meet the petitioner again to take forward the work on raising awareness. I think that the petitioner would be reasonably satisfied if we closed the petition.

Do members agree that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Myoclonic Dystonia (Care Standards) (PE1299)

PE1299, by Geraldine MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set national standards of care for all myoclonic dystonia sufferers and to issue guidance to local authority social work and housing departments to ensure that they provide adapted service provisions and environmental adaptations to sufferers, based on a fair assessment of their condition. What are members’ views on how to take forward the petition?

I suspect that this is an afternoon for suspension. This is another petition that we could legitimately suspend, because health boards are meant to be implementing NHS Quality Improvement Scotland standards for neurological health services, but so far not all of them have done so. We could suspend the petition until that work has been undertaken and then bring it back to the committee.

Is it agreed that we suspend the petition until we get that information on implementation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Water (Executive Bonuses) (PE1300)

PE1300, by Drew Cochrane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue a direction to Scottish Water under the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 to discontinue the practice of paying bonuses to its senior executives. Do members have any views on how to take forward the petition?

I wish that I had a bright idea about how we could continue the petition, because frankly I agree with it. However, it seems that the Scottish Government has stated more than once why it will not issue such a direction to Scottish Water. The Scottish Government has made a commitment to monitor the water industry closely to achieve maximum efficiency and cost savings, but that is not the same thing. That seems to be all that we will extract from the Government. If colleagues have a bright idea about how to continue the petition, I would be delighted to hear it. I think that the petitioner is correct, but perhaps I am being less than objective.

Like Bill Butler, I will be less than objective about the issue. I, too, agree with the petitioner’s assertion that we should end bonuses for Scottish Water. In the current economic climate, there is a wider issue around paying bonuses to senior executives when we are talking about potential redundancies for many low-paid workers throughout Scotland. The practice is abhorrent.

However, Bill Butler is right to say that the Government has said that it will not change current practice. It is unfortunate that it has taken that view and continues to hold to it.

I seek guidance through you, convener, from the clerk, because I am not sure whether we can do what I am about to suggest. Can we write to the Government again and ask whether there would be any circumstances in which it would reconsider the payment of bonuses to senior executives in Scottish Water, particularly in the light of the economic situation in which we find ourselves? Can the Government continue to justify paying substantial bonuses to senior members of staff when there might be redundancies in the industry?

Do members agree? Are there any other views?

Let us have another go, but I fear that we know what the response will be. We might as well. John Wilson wants us to ask whether there are “any circumstances” under which the Government would change its mind; given that that is a new question, let us have another go and hope that the Government sees sense.

There is a bit of wry smiling going on. Do we agree to do write to the Government again?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE1310)

PE1310, by Jean Gerrard, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to abolish the overuse of compulsory treatment orders for non-violent mentally ill patients, and to provide a process that allows patients and their representatives to challenge any perceived errors in the CTO report that can lead to misdiagnoses, faulty speculation and the administration of unwarranted forms of treatment. I seek views from members on how to proceed with the petition.

The petitioner is quite happy so far, because the Government has taken positive steps on the issues that she has raised. However, she raises a lot more questions and it would be fair if we were to keep the petition open and put those questions to the Government.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Honest Politicians (PE1316)

PE1316, by Matthew Goundry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all individuals who seek election to local or national public office, such as councils and the Scottish Parliament, are subject to enhanced disclosure. What are members’ views?

I think that we have exhausted the questioning on the issue. Some members will remember that, when the petition was first presented to the committee, I raised concerns about the practicalities of carrying out enhanced disclosure on all candidates for public office and what that information would be used for. To date, we have received responses from the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party regarding their procedures for selecting candidates. I am aware that, in certain circumstances, when people are elected to public office, they may be subject to disclosure checks by the local authorities and other bodies anyway, before they can take up certain committee positions in those organisations. I think that we have exhausted the line of questioning that we can pursue with the petition and I suggest that we close it.

The responses that have been received from the Scottish Labour Party and the SNP address the questions that were asked by the committee and identify some of the procedures in the process of selecting potential candidates for election with the overarching goal of ensuring that candidates are of the highest probity. That allows us to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders. Are members happy to close the petition?

Forgive me, convener, but although the responses address the issues that the committee raised, the petition is about enhanced disclosure. I admit that I have forgotten where we got to on that. Did we draw the conclusion that it was not possible to do that?

I am struggling to remember.

I am trying to get back to the petitioner’s original point. I am reading the words of the petition and asking whether we have addressed the specific issue that the petitioner put in front of us.

When the committee first considered the petition, on 15 March, the first questions that we put to the Government were:

“Will it take steps to ensure that all individuals seeking election to local or national public office (council, Scottish Parliament) are subject to enhanced disclosure? If not why not?”

We asked a specific question. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the response that we received from the Government to that question. That was considered the last time that we looked at the petition. We have certainly asked the question.

My problem is that I cannot remember the answer either. My recollection is that it was not possible to do that, but I have not got that lodged with a reason somewhere in my mind. If we are clear that the question has been answered, I am happy to close the petition, as I do not think that it will go anywhere. However, if that were not the case, we owe it to the petitioner and the general principle of why we are here to ensure that we have addressed that specific question.

The underlying question is about who would apply to carry out the enhanced disclosure. I understand that, according to the Disclosure Scotland procedures, an organisation or individual would have to apply to receive an enhanced disclosure. The Government has said that

“the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 established a framework to ensure that the highest standards of behaviour were maintained by local authority councillors and members (such as board members) of certain public bodies.”

Elected members would be covered by the provisions in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. However, at a rough estimate—I tried to do the calculation earlier today—the Scottish Parliament elections next year will involve something in the region of 1,000 candidates putting themselves forward for election. The local government elections in 2012 could involve 3,000 to 4,000, or possibly 5,000, candidates. Who would perform those enhanced disclosure checks and, ultimately, who would pay for them?

At the moment, any organisation that brings people into contact with children or vulnerable adults has to pay for a disclosure or an enhanced disclosure on someone applying for a job or to be on its board. Who would hold the information on individuals seeking public office? If an organisation that would hold and monitor such information had to be set up, would it be subject to freedom of information requests for other information that might be provided publicly to individuals with an interest and/or information on enhanced disclosure that might be used to a candidate’s detriment?

17:15

Having listened to John Wilson, I think that the committee has gone as far as it can go with the petition. We should simply state as much and, as the convener suggested, close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School-age Workers (PE1317)

Our second last petition is PE1317 by Paul Dryburgh and Ellen Cummings, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take the necessary action to ensure that the rights of school-age workers in part-time employment are protected so that employers cannot impose excessive working hours to the detriment of the workers’ academic studies and to bring about greater transparency in the distribution of tips to young workers in the hospitality trade. Do members have any views?

First, we should congratulate the petitioners on what they have achieved. Indeed, we did so when they gave evidence to the committee, and they did an absolutely brilliant job in raising certainly my own awareness of the issue. I am not sure whether this is directly related to the petition, but the Scottish Child Law Centre has produced a leaflet on the rights of workers under the age of 16 that covers UK and Scottish regulation. Moreover, the Scottish Government is prepared to meet the petitioners to discuss what more it can do to raise awareness of the rights of workers under the age of 16. The petitioners have done—and will continue to do—a terrific job, but I do not think that the Public Petitions Committee can do anything more with their petition and, as a result, I suggest that we close it.

Are members agreed that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Leisure Facilities (Free Access) (PE1318)

PE1318 by Ronan Buist, Megan Lumsden and Daniel Swaddle, who are all pupils from Waid academy in Anstruther, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give free access to all publicly funded leisure centres, including swimming pools, for all school-aged children across Scotland. Do members have any suggestions on what to do with the petition?

I think that, under rule 15.7, we should close the petition on the basis that we have taken it as far as we can. For a start, the Scottish Government has stated its continuing commitment to encouraging local authorities to provide free or reduced cost swimming to help achieve a number of objectives in the single outcome agreements. Moreover, local authorities’ experience is that granting free access to leisure activities does not necessarily guarantee an increase in participation and that, for most people, cost is not seen as the only or most important barrier to their participation in physical activity and that the main issues are general interest and prioritisation of time.

The petitioners, who, as you say, are Waid academy pupils, should be congratulated on raising these issues so eloquently and in a mature way that impressed the committee. However, we have taken the petition as far as we can and I suggest that we close it.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sure that the committee will join me in thanking the pupils from Waid academy for their work on the petitions and their achievement in coming before the committee.