Official Report 248KB pdf
Fire Control Rooms (PE765 and PE795)
Petitions PE765 and PE795 are grouped together and are about fire control rooms throughout Scotland. At present there are eight.
It would perhaps be wrong to pat ourselves on the back, but might we note in passing that the committee's deliberations have produced a happy petitioner and the outcome that he and his colleagues wanted? If we wonder on a Tuesday afternoon whether we will have any success, we can at least remember these petitions and tell ourselves that we scored 100 per cent.
At the risk of annoying relations of mine who are in the Fire Brigades Union, I must say that I never thought that I would see a happy firefighter. There is no doubt that the petition raised issues that needed to be addressed and that a solution has been found. I am sure that the deputy convener is keen on that.
If it is not bust, why try to fix it? The set-up has worked very well over the years. The control centres have provided a good service.
I thought you would say that.
Charter for Grandchildren (PE1051)
The next petition is PE1051, by Jimmy Deuchars, on behalf of Grandparents Apart Self-Help Group Scotland, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to make the charter for grandchildren legally binding to ensure that all public agencies and families recognise the rights of children and that those rights are enforced by law.
Has the fostering and kinship care strategy been published yet? If not, how imminent is it?
There was consultation on the strategy in December 2006. The position is that the Scottish Government is committed to publishing a strategy on fostering and kinship care. However, it is still to be published.
Do we have a time for that?
There is no clarity about the timescale.
Should we wait until the strategy is published before we wind up the petition?
I am relaxed about it: that is not an unreasonable request. It is a difficult matter, however. From what we have seen from the papers, the petitioners are committed to resolving the issues. We all know from our own case loads that there are anomalies for grandparents who have had to intervene and look after or access their grandchildren, mainly because of their sons' or daughters' addictions. The children might then be lost to them once the relationship changes, or when one of the partners decides to take the children away. The grandparents might not have any rights, even if they were, de facto, the principal carers. The petitioners are anxious about the matter, which is worth exploring. We have discussed kinship care in Parliament, which also needs to be addressed.
There seems to be general support for the charter for grandchildren, but it has no statutory basis. It will be interesting to see what the forthcoming strategy says.
Will we wait until we get clarity on the kinship care strategy and whether there are any issues that could be of benefit to the petition?
Independent Midwifery Services (PE1052)
The next petition is PE1052, on which we received oral evidence in the early part of the session. It is by Jayne Heron, and calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to promote the services of independent midwives and to ensure that such services continue to be available to pregnant women in Scotland. The papers are in front of us. Are there any strong views on how to deal with the issue? Points have been raised about insurance cover, the intervention role that the Scottish Government health directorates may or may not have and the associated guarantees. There are still some issues arising out of the petition that we need to explore. Do members feel the same? Are there any suggestions?
We could ask whether the Scottish Government has considered what is being proposed at United Kingdom level. It seems to offer a way out for those who provide good services, through the Albany midwifery practice model. I am not exactly sure how it works, but it seems to provide a way for independent midwives to carry on practising with a degree of certainty.
I will check with the clerk whether we have had any kind of response from the Government on the matter, other than what is contained in our papers.
I have no expertise in the area, but my impression is that if the Government will not act, nothing will happen. We should therefore press the Government on what it is going to do. At the point when the Government says that it will do something—or, perhaps more likely, that it will not do something—we will have an answer. I cannot see any other route.
I agree. If there was to be an independent organisation, it should be responsible for the consequences of any actions that are taken against it.
Did we agree to write to NHS Scotland on the matter?
I am in the hands of the clerk for that question.
If we did, did we get a response?
Responses from the Scottish Government often cover aspects of NHS Scotland's work.
Members have raised two or three issues. Let us explore them and keep the petition alive for the moment.
Broadcast Spectrum (Local Television) (PE1055)
PE1055, by Graeme Campbell, on behalf of Media Access Projects Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the 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 can receive the public service broadcasting channels.
It is ever so nice.
You will refrain from discussing that, John.
It only got 50 per cent of what was promised, but—
You are never happy, are you?
I suggest that we contact the Scottish Government and the Scottish Broadcasting Commission, asking for their views on the issue. We could also refer the petition to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, asking for its views.
Is the committee happy to accept those useful suggestions?
Deep Vein Thrombosis (PE1056)
PE1056, by Gordon, Jane and Steven McPherson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce mandatory assessment tools for all health boards for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis and to address a range of other issues relating to the treatment or recognition of DVT.
The papers state that the revision of the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guidelines will take 26 months, which seems quite a long time. I wonder whether we can get an update on how that is progressing.
Are there any other strong views? I think that we should seek further clarification of exactly how each of the agencies to which we have written is trying to make progress on the issues that have been identified in the petition, so that we will have a better picture than we have had to date.
I wonder whether we can use our influence to ask why it will take 26 months to revise the guidelines. An airport could be built in that time. There may be a good reason for it, but it seems an awfully long time.
Okay. I am happy to raise that issue. The committee is keen to assist the McPherson family, as this is part of the resolution process of their coming to terms with their loss. We also want to prevent the same thing from happening to any other young person or family.
There is also the issue of the revision of patient information leaflets—I think that the family were having an input into that—to ensure that health boards give patients the same advice. I would like to find out how that is going.
With those recommendations, are members happy to keep exploring the issues that have been raised by the petition?
Endometriosis (Research Funding) (PE1057)
The next petition is PE1057, by Andrew Billson-Page, on behalf of the Save our NHS Group. The petitioner gave oral evidence to the committee several months back. Members have in front of them the written submissions on the issue of research on endometriosis. I invite suggestions as to how we should deal with the petition.
I think that we should do that. I was involved with the issue when I first came to the Parliament, and I was disturbed to note—I think that it was in 2004—that no Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guidelines on the condition had been developed. That was disappointing, because as well as causing suffering to the women who have it, endometriosis is an economic issue, given that it results in people losing work time and so on. It is well worth exploring the matter further.
I accept that recommendation. We will explore some of the issues that have been raised by the submissions.
Supermarket Developments (PE1058)
PE1058, by Samer Bagaeen, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the traffic, environmental and sustainability impact of large 24-hour supermarket developments on existing communities in designated town centres. Following our discussion of the petition at a previous meeting of the committee, we have received written submissions. There a number of options that we should consider. We could close consideration of the petition on the ground that the process has been followed through, but there are still issues to do with local authorities' responsibility, when they consider planning applications, to take account of issues such as those that the petitioner has raised. Alternatively, we could seek an update once the Competition Commission's inquiry into the impact of supermarkets on the wider community has been completed. Do members have strong views on the issue?
I suggest that we follow the latter course and await the outcome of the Competition Commission's inquiry into the subject.
I will extend that point by referring to personal experience. As I said earlier, a supermarket was granted planning permission very close to a residential part of Dundee. The Scottish Office reporter who granted that permission forgot to include any constraints on when activities such as offloading could be carried out, with the result that lorries are offloaded at 2 o'clock in the morning, which plainly should not be happening. The making of an upgraded application for 24-hour operation has enabled us to seek the constraints that should have been imposed when the original application for limited-hours opening was granted.
I am happy to put that proposal in any submission that we make to the relevant Government department, official or minister.
Air-guns (Ban on Sale and Use) (PE1059)
PE1059, from Andrew Morton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to support a ban on the sale and use of air-guns, except for certified pest control purposes or for use at registered gun clubs. The committee has received an oral presentation on the petition, and I should point out that Andrew Morton and Sharon McMillan are in the public gallery today.
Requests have been made to the UK Government to devolve powers in this area, and a summit on the issue is due to take place under the auspices of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. As a result, I suggest that we ask for a report from the summit and hold off from considering the petition further until we receive it.
That is sensible. After all, the previous Executive, the new Government and others have been grappling with this complex legislative issue to find an approach that meets concerns that have been raised in Scotland. I am happy to explore on the committee's behalf the issues that John Wilson has raised.
I should say that I am rather loth to suggest that course of action, but the difficulty is how we progress this issue. It would be nice if we could compress the timescale for a decision, but the cabinet secretary has decided to go down that route. That said, I hope that after the summit we will get a speedy reply to our request and then be able to consider more positive action with regard to banning air-guns in Scotland.
It might be worth noting for the record that we had a parliamentary debate on the issue only a few weeks ago. Although there was—perhaps predictable—disagreement over certain structural aspects of how the matter should be handled, no one suggested that the issue should not be addressed. Everyone should be confident in the knowledge that we all want to find a way through it; it is simply a matter of finding a politically practical solution.
In his letter, the cabinet secretary says:
That might happen as a result of the summit. In its discussions on the petition, the committee highlighted the fact that it is difficult to deal with the issue because of the impact on the family involved. However, those who use air-guns very responsibly are getting caught up in the problem of their misuse, which occurs mainly in urban Scotland. Perhaps the summit can take a three or four-pronged approach, but I realise that MSPs are keen on a certain direction of travel on the mechanisms for delivering the petitioners' aims. A substantial majority of people want to do something about the misuse of air-guns in Scotland, and I hope that the summit will pick up on those issues. We will certainly refer the information that we have received to the appropriate agency or minister.
Lancastria Commemorative Medal (PE1062)
PE1062, from Mark Hirst, on behalf of the Lancastria Association of Scotland, seeks recognition of the lives of the individuals who were lost when the troop-ship Lancastria was sunk on 17 June 1940. Members have the various written submissions.
I want to put on record our disappointment at the Ministry of Defence's decision not to commemorate this disaster in any way, given its recent announcement that it is going to mark the work that the land girls carried out during the war by striking a badge for the surviving members of that group. We should congratulate the Scottish Government on its decision to mark the disaster appropriately.
A commitment to commemorate the disaster has been made. The timescale has to be considered. The relatives of the victims of the disaster should be kept informed about how work is progressing and when they are likely to see the commemorative medal.
We accept those comments.
Legal System (Fee Arrangements) (PE1063)
PE1063, by Robert Thomson, calls on the Parliament to investigate an apparent conflict of interest between solicitors, advocates and clients under the present system of speculative fee arrangements—no win, no fee arrangements, in common parlance—and to urge the Scottish Government to overhaul the existing speculative fee arrangement framework and procedures to make solicitors and advocates more accountable to their clients.
I seek your advice, convener. The petitions falls absolutely in the Justice Committee's area of interest. As far as I can see, it raises no peripheral issues but is simply about how the legal system works. On that basis, should we refer it to the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, to see whether it has views or wants to take it up?
Okay. There are no other views on the petition. When the Justice Committee starts to complain about the other onerous duties that it has, you can defend the decision to refer the petition to it—you might need a hard hat. Given the legal detail of the petition, I think that we are right to refer it to the Justice Committee.
Debating Chamber<br />(Scottish Parliament Symbol) (PE1066)
PE1066—I wondered what it would be about when I saw the number—by John Thomson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the displaying of the current symbol of the Scottish Parliament in a prominent position in the debating chamber.
I support your assertion that we should take forward the petition. We should write again to the SPCB and say that we are disappointed with its response. We need to show the logo somewhere in the chamber, so that people watching parliamentary television in the wee small hours of the morning know which Parliament they are watching. Not everyone is aware of the architectural beauty of our chamber. It would be useful if the logo could also be displayed. There is some irony in the cost argument, given the amount that the building cost. Is the SPCB saying that the design cost might be more than the cost of the installation of a symbol in the chamber?
I do not want to upset the consensus, but I have some sympathy with the corporate body's point about the design of the chamber. The petitioner states:
Members of the committee will probably have different views about whether it is important to display the symbol. When I read the papers, I thought that it is strange that we do not display it. I know from my visits to national Parliaments elsewhere in Europe that a symbol of the state is usually displayed. We could do that.
There might be a need for a symbol, but I am not convinced that the Parliament's logo would be the best one to use.
When members put together their letterheads, they are keen to include a symbol that has authority. There is no doubt that the public respect that. When someone looks at the historic House of Commons letterhead that they get when an MP writes back to them, they always think, "That's an important letter." I am sure that all members are keen for their letterheads to have such status. There is a debate to be had, rather than the SPCB simply saying, "Thank you, but we really don't want to do this." We should discuss and explore the matter with the corporate body.
I have no strong feelings either way, but I take on board what you say, convener. The point that struck me in the SPCB's letter is the difficulty of incorporating the logo in the chamber, rather than the cost. The design would be crucial. Some further discussion on what is possible would be worth while.
Okay. We will probably get knocked back with a flea in our ear, but let us try, anyway.
Scottish Prison Population (Catholics) (PE1073)
PE1073, by Tom Minogue, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate and establish the reasons for the apparently disproportionate number of Catholics in Scottish prisons. I have done my best to avoid detection and getting caught by the police, but there we are. Members have copies of the written submissions that relate to the petition, as specified in paper PE/S3/08/2/2. John Wilson made some points when we discussed the matter previously. I wonder whether he wants to comment again.
It is clear from the petitioner's response that he has taken on board my point that, although the petition focuses on one particular religious group, there is an opportunity to widen it out. If we are to do some analysis of the religious beliefs of those who are in prison, we should consider other religions as well. The petition came to the committee shortly after a report declared that the proportion of Muslims in the Scottish prison system is almost 100 per cent higher than the proportion of Muslims in the general population. The petitioner has accepted that point.
We need to try to get to the bottom of those issues, for everybody's benefit. John Wilson has made a recommendation. Are we happy to pursue the matter with the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and ask them to see what the research base is and what evidence they have to explain the situation?
The SPS's response throws up one valid comment, which is that we may not be comparing valid statistics. There is no point comparing apples and pears. We must have valid figures, otherwise they are not useful.
We will keep the petition alive and explore the issues that have been raised.
Scottish Civic Forum (PE1082)
The final petition, PE1082, by John Dowson, calls on the Scottish Parliament and the Executive to undertake an urgent review of their consultation and participation practices, to consider a proposal to reinstate funding to the Scottish Civic Forum at a level of at least £250,000 per annum and to adhere to the guidance on participation published in the Scottish Parliament's "Participation Handbook".
Although I express disappointment at the Scottish Government's response regarding funding for the Scottish Civic Forum, my understanding is that the Government has indicated that it will continue to investigate and consider ways of improving engagement with community organisations throughout Scotland. We should ask the Government to keep the committee apprised of any developments that are taking place and how it intends to improve the civic engagement that the Civic Forum provided for the Parliament in the past.
Is the intention that we close the petition but ask to be kept advised of progress?
I was suggesting that we keep the petition open until we are advised on progress. If we close it, the Government may be of the view that, as far as the committee is concerned, the matter is closed. We should continue to consider the issue, because the Government's response stated that it would seek ways to continue engagement. The Government keeps in regular contact with certain organisations, but it would be useful to get details on what it intends to do to engage with civic organisations throughout Scotland.
We are almost saying that we should have a national conversation about it.
Previous
New Petitions