Official Report 217KB pdf
Victims of Crime (Financial Reparation) (PE914)
The first current petition is PE914, from Peter Fallon, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend criminal justice legislation to require criminals to make financial reparation to the victims of their crime. At its meeting on 22 February, the committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate and to the Scottish Executive. Responses have now been received and circulated. Do members have any comments?
Given that the matter is now being examined by the Justice 1 Committee, perhaps it would be appropriate to accept that committee's view that it would be happy to consider the petition as part of its further consideration of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps the Justice 1 Committee will consider amending the bill as suggested in the petition.
Are members happy to refer the petition to the Justice 1 Committee?
Criminal Law (Procedures) (PE935)
Our next petition, PE935, is from Ian Longworth and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend criminal procedures to ensure that, when a procurator fiscal does not consider it to be in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings, a full written explanation is provided to the alleged victim of the crime. At its meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the victim information and advice service, Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Executive. Responses have now been received and circulated. Do members have any views on how to proceed with the petition?
Hospital Patients (Spiritual Care) (PE923)
Our next petition is PE923 is from Ben Conway and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to promote pastoral and spiritual care in hospitals, to ensure that physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs are properly addressed. At its meeting on 30 January, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Inter Faith Council, Professor John Swinton of the University of Aberdeen, the Rev Chris Levinson of NHS Scotland, the Scotland Patients Association and the Scottish Executive.
Ben Conway is a constituent of mine. He has campaigned long and hard on this issue and it is very nice to see him in the public gallery today. Shortly, the committee will perhaps decide that it wants to write to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses that we have received. That might seem strange, given that he is here today, but we have to follow our procedures. The convener might wish to explain why we have to do it that way rather than simply asking him.
We should write to Ben Conway officially to get his views. All the points that Helen Eadie has raised can be considered when we receive his response.
National Bird (PE783)
Our next petition is PE783, which is from James Reynolds on behalf of The Scotsman. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the establishment of the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland. At its meeting on 18 January, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses that we received. His response has been circulated to members.
When the petition first came to the Parliament, I was not persuaded but, having read various newspapers and, like you, heard other people's views, I am coming round to the view that we ought to consider having a national bird. We should refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee as a serious issue for consideration.
Are members happy to do that?
Forth Road Bridge (PE943 and PE942)
Our next petitions are PE943 and PE942. Petition PE942, from Bill Cantley, on behalf of the ForthRight Alliance, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to desist from spending taxpayers' money on preparing for the construction of a second Forth road bridge before having at its disposal all the facts regarding the condition of the existing Forth road bridge, on the grounds that any such expenditure would be both environmentally irresponsible and fiscally imprudent. Petition PE943, from Mark Hood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider the need for a new Forth road bridge. The committee agreed previously to link consideration of petitions PE942 and PE943 and to write to the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, Fife Council, the City of Edinburgh Council, Architects and Engineers for Social Responsibility, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received and members have seen them.
We should write to the petitioners to ask for their view of the responses that we have received. However, in doing so, would it also be possible for us to invite the Cockburn Association to attend a presentation on the condition of the Forth bridge? Last week, when I attended a presentation at the Fife Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise, I spoke with the bridgemaster and saw what a grave condition the Forth bridge is in. If the Cockburn Association and others saw the state of the bridge, they might be persuaded at least to listen to the arguments. I have always been of the view that we should have a second crossing anyway, but we are now talking about a replacement bridge. The whole of the north of Scotland depends on the bridge—it is a lifeline and part of a trans-European route. It would be devastating and catastrophic for Scotland if we did not do something about the bridge.
We will write to the petitioners and get their views on the responses, before we discuss the issues further.
Could we suggest that the Cockburn Association attend such a presentation? I could arrange that.
You could take that up with the petitioner. I am not sure whether the committee could do that.
Right—that is fine.
If you do so, the petitioner could comment on the presentation when they respond to us.
Forth Road Bridge (Tolls) (PE921)<br />Tolled Bridges (PE925)
Next, we will consider two more connected petitions, PE921 and PE925, which concern tolled bridges. Petition PE921, from the Rev Ross Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive not to increase the tolls on the Forth road bridge. Petition PE925, from George Campbell, on behalf of the National Alliance Against Tolls Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive not to extend the tolling regimes on the remaining tolled bridges—the Erskine, Forth and Tay bridges—but instead to take over the bridges and their approaches as part of the national road system and to remove the tolls forthwith.
We should write to the petitioners with the responses and get feedback from them.
We will have to do that in the context of the decision that has been made to extend tolling on the Forth bridge to 2010 and the decisions that have been made on the Erskine and Tay bridges.
I add the caveat that I have a draft proposal for a member's bill on the abolition of the tolls on the Forth bridge. The rumour or the information on the street is that tolls will be removed from the Tay bridge. If so, it would be a total inequity to continue to have tolls on the Forth bridge, as it would then be the only tolled bridge in Scotland. We should get the petitioners' views on the responses.
Okay. I am happy to do that, if members agree.
Solvent Abuse (PE580)
The next petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the serious problems with solvent abuse in Scotland and to introduce preventive safety measures to help combat it. At its meeting on 30 January, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and a response has now been received and circulated to members. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?
Shall we get the view of the petitioner again?
Okay. We will write to the petitioner and await his response. We can then consider the petition again. Is that agreed?
Coastal and River Erosion<br />(National Strategy) (PE878)
The next petition is from James A Mackie and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider the need for a national strategy to address the impact of coastal and river erosion in Scotland. At its meeting on 22 February, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the previous responses received. Those views have now been received. I ask members for suggestions about what, if anything, we can do with the petition in light of the petitioner's response. I do not think that we can do anything with it. We have the views of the petitioner and the Executive. We can only agree that no further action should be taken.
Local Democracy (PE880)
Our final petition this morning is from Iain D Skene, on behalf of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde association of Burns Clubs, calling on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the issue of local authority democratic accountability and in particular the accessibility of local elected representatives. At its meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the responses received. Do members have any views on the petitioner's response? Is there any more that we can do with the petition?
I do not think there is.
So we will just agree to close the petition.
That concludes our consideration of petitions and we now move into private session.
Meeting continued in private until 12:14.
Previous
New Petitions