Official Report 227KB pdf
School Holidays (Standardisation) (PE747)
Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2004 of the Public Petitions Committee. The first item on the agenda is the consideration of new petitions, the first of which is petition PE747, in the name of John Macleod. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to standardise school holidays throughout all local authority areas in Scotland throughout the year. I welcome John Macleod, who is present to give evidence in Gaelic in support of his petition. He has three minutes to make his opening remarks, after which members will ask questions on the issues that he raises.
Tha an athchuinge seo ag iarraidh air Pàrlamaid na h-Alba ìmpidh a chur air Riaghaltas na h-Alba a bhith ag obair còmhla ri Co-chruinneachadh Ùghdarrasan Ionadail na h-Alba—COSLA—ag amas air bun-tomhas a thaobh làithean-saora nan sgoiltean tron bhliadhna le gach ùghdarras ionadail ann an Alba.
Thank you, convener and committee members. The petition requests the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to work with COSLA to aim for standardised school holidays throughout the year in all local authorities in Scotland.
Madainn mhath, Iain, agus tha mi toilichte gu bheil thu a' toirt seachad nam beachdan agad ann an Gàidhlig. Is e rud ùr a tha seo, tha mi cinnteach, airson na comataidh agus tha e a' toirt mòran toileachas, chan ann dìreach dhòmhsa, ach dha mòran ann an saoghal na Gàidhlig.
Good morning, Iain. The fact that you have expressed your opinions in Gaelic gives me and many people in the Gaelic world much happiness.
Tha mi a' ciallachadh gum bu chòir, gu ìre mhòr, na h-aon saor-làithean a bhith aca fad na bliadhna. Tha cuid a bhios a' gabhail dìreach deireadh seachdain anns a' Ghearran agus cuid eile a bhios a' faighinn fad seachdain. Ann an aon suidheachadh, bha fèis againn ann an Dùn Èideann a mhair fad seachdain anns a' Ghearran, agus bha cuid ann an sgìrean eile air feadh na h-Alba nach b' urrainn a thighinn chun na feise sin seach nach robh iadsan a' faighinn na h-aon saor-làithean. Aig amannan, bidh a' chomhairle ag atharrachadh nan saor-làithean gus am bi iad nas giorra, agus tha sin a' fàgail duilgheadas an uair sin: cuin a chumas sinn an fhèis anns a' bhaile mura h-eil fad seachdain againn? Mar sin, saoilidh mi gum bu choir, gu ìre mhòr, na h-aon amannan a bhith aig na sgoiltean dheth—anns a' Ghearran, as t-samhradh, san Dàmhair agus aig àm na Nollaig.
I meant that, as far as possible, the schools should have the same holidays all year. Some take only a long weekend in February and some get a whole week. In February, there was a fèis, or festival, in Edinburgh that lasted a whole week, but some children from other areas of Scotland could not come because they did not get the same holidays. Sometimes, the council shortens the holiday and, if the festival is a week long, that causes us problems with deciding when to hold it. All the schools should have the same holidays in February, in the summer, in October and at Christmas.
Tha thu a' tuigsinn gu bheil feadhainn dhe na sgoiltean anns an roinn phrìobhaidich. Leis an sin, dh'fheumadh iad a bhith a' tighinn a-staigh còmhla nam biodh atharrachadh a' dol a thachairt, agus dh'fheumadh na beachdan acasan a bhith air a thogail cuideachd, agus is dòcha gum biodh sin na dhuilgheadas.
I understand that if there were to be a change, some of the private schools would have to come on board. However, we would need to get opinions from them. That could cause problems.
Bhiodh sin fìor ceart gu leòr. Cha do ghabh mi sùim dhe na sgoiltean prìobhaideach. Bha mi dìreach a' sealltainn gu coitcheann ri sgoiltean na stàite air feadh na h-Alba.
That is true. I did not really think about the private schools; I was thinking generally about the state schools throughout Scotland.
Tha mi cinnteach gu bheil ceist ann mu dheidhinn dè na beachdan a tha aig an Riaghaltas agus aig buidhnean mar ChOSLA. A bheil eòlas sam bith agad mu dheidhinn sin? A bheil thu air a' cheist seo a chur ri leithid ChOSLA no an Riaghaltas? Dè na freagairtean a bha iad a' toirt seachad?
There is a question about the Executive's and COSLA's opinions. Has the issue been raised with COSLA and the Executive before now? If so, what answers did they give?
Chan aithne dhomh gun deach sealltainn ris a' chuspair roimhe seo idir. Rinn mi fhìn beagan rannsachadh le bhith a' cur fòn gu naoi de na 32 comhairlean agus fhuair mi a-mach gun robh eadar-dhealachadh mòr eatorra. Is ann air sgàth sin a chuir mi a-steach an athchuinge, ach chan eil eòlas sam bith agam an deach sealltainn ris a' ghnothaich roimhe.
I do not think that the issue has been considered before now at all. I did a little research: I phoned nine of the 32 councils and I found that there is a very big difference between each of those councils. That is why I submitted the petition.
Tha mi fhìn air a bhith a' cluinntinn bho chionn iomadach bliadhna gearanan mu dheidhinn nam puingean a tha thu a' togail. Bha mi dhen bheachd gun robh còir aig rudeigin tachairt a bhiodh a' dèanamh ciall dhe na làithean-saora, gus am biodh iad a' tuiteam air an aon latha ge brith càit an robh an sgoil. Mar sin, tha mi a' cur taic ris na beachdan agad agus tha mi an dòchas gun cuir a' chomataidh taic làidir ris na beachdan a tha thu a' cur air am beulaibh.
I have been hearing the same complaints over many years and am of the opinion that something should happen to make sense of the holidays and ensure that they fall on the same day regardless of where the schools are. Therefore, I support your opinion and I hope that the committee supports you strongly as well.
In response to the question about whether the issue has been considered previously, I point out that, on 11 May 2001, there was a written answer from Jack McConnell, who was then Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, in which he said that he was considering further the detailed responses to questions that had been put to COSLA and the local authorities about the matter. There has been no progress since then, but the issue has been raised with the Executive before, and we should take that on board when we are considering the matter. We are three years on from a written answer on the point that Mr Macleod is making to us today and there is still no progress on it.
I am concerned about the specific needs of particular areas. For example, when I lived in a holiday resort, the practice was that the summer school holidays were shorter but the October break was extended so that traders and their families could have a two-week holiday then.
Tha mi a' tuigsinn gum faodadh atharrachaidhean mar sin a bhith ann air feadh na dùthcha, agus is e dùthaich gu math beag anns a bheil sinn beò. Aig an ìre seo, tha 32 comhairlean ann, an taca ri ochd mar a bha ann bho chionn grunn bhliadhnaichean air ais. Mar sin, cha robh an suidheachadh cho duilich aig an àm sin 's a tha e an-diugh. Saoilidh mi gum feumar sealltainn air a' chuspair agus feumalachdan ionadail a ghabhail a-steach far a bheil an leithid dha-rìribh ann. Mar a thuirt mi, tha mi a' tuigsinn gum biodh e iomchaidh gu leòr nam biodh latha no dhà de dh'eadar-dhealachadh ann bho sgìre gu sgìre, ach chan eil mi a' tuigsinn carson a dh'fheumadh làn seachdain de dh'eadar-dhealachadh a bhith ann tron bhliadhna.
I understand that such changes could be made throughout the country. Ours is a small country and, at this point, there are 32 councils; some years ago, there were nine regional councils and the situation was not as difficult as it is today. We must examine the situation and consider local needs if there are any. I understand that it is appropriate to have odd days of difference from region to region, but I do not understand why there should ever be a week of difference through the year.
The petition has set my memory racing. Although it will definitely date me, I can recall the time before the October holidays were standardised. I used to get the tattie howking holidays—the week in October for the potato picking. Although I did not live in a rural area—I lived in Perthshire, just on the outskirts of Dundee—the city schools did not get the holiday.
Dh'aontaichinn leis an sin. Dh'fhaodadh làithean dheth Dihaoine agus Diluain a bhith ann aig amannan eadar-dhealaichte ann an diofar sgìrean. Ged a bhiodh sin fìor, chan eil mi a' smaoineachadh gun toireadh e cus buaidh air a' phrìomh phuing a bha agam, gum biodh na prìomh shaor-làithean—as t-samhradh, as t-fhoghar, aig a' Chàisg agus aig àm na Nollaig—cho faisg air a chèile agus a ghabhadh a bhith. Ach, mar a thuirt mi agus mar a thuirt thu fhèin, dh'fhaodadh e a bhith comasach gum biodh eadar-dhealachaidhean fhathast ann—dìreach Dihaoine is Diluain, a' toirt a-steach deireadh seachdain.
I agree that Friday and Monday holidays could be held at different times in different parts of the country. Even though that might be the case, it would not have too much of an effect on my main point that the main Easter, summer, autumn and Christmas holidays should be held on dates that are as close together as possible.
I agree with Mike Watson's point that we should distinguish between main holidays and local bank holidays. When I was a Fife Council councillor, I received many representations from parents who were unhappy about the differences in school holiday arrangements between different local authority areas. For example, a husband who worked in Fife might have holidays that were different from those of his wife who worked in the Lothians. It is very often the case in Fife that, by the time Easter arrives, the schoolchildren are back in school.
Feumaidh mi ràdh nach do choinnich mi ri riochdairean ionadail sam bith. Tha mi dìreach mothachail air an t-suidheachadh a tha ann agus air an fhiosrachadh a tha agam fhìn air tachartasan ann an saoghal na Gàidhlig. Bha mi cuideachd mothachail air a' chonaltradh a tha a' dol air adhart ann an Comhairle Baile Dhùn Èideann a thaobh shaor-làithean, agus bha mi airson na draghan a tha agam a thoirt fa ur comhair mar chomataidh Pàrlamaid gus feuchainn ri rèiteachadh fhaighinn air an t-suidheachadh gu farsaing aig ìre nàiseanta.
I did not meet any representatives at the local level. I am simply aware of the situation and the difficulties that arise as a result. I have information on events in the Gaelic world that are affected by holidays. I am also aware of the City of Edinburgh Council communication about holidays. In submitting the petition, I am trying to get some kind of settlement of the situation at the national level.
I sense a general feeling of support for the petition. Mr Macleod has raised an issue of practicality that would help a lot of people. The Executive has considered the issue previously, but it is obvious that not much progress has been made. What should we do with PE747?
We could write to the Executive asking for its view on the subject. At the same time, we could write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek its views on the issue.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention, Mr Macleod. We will let you know what the responses are.
Mòran taing.
Many thanks.
Livestock Improvement Scheme (PE748)
Our next petition is PE748 by Netta MacKenzie, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to retain the livestock improvement scheme that is administered by the Crofters Commission on behalf of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department. Netta MacKenzie is here to give evidence in support of her petition, accompanied by William Morrison.
My colleague Willie Morrison is secretary of the North Country Cheviot Sheep Society. We thank you for agreeing to hear our petition.
I express my thanks to the committee for letting us come here to present our case.
I thank you both very much. Members will now ask questions.
The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development sent a letter to Maureen Macmillan. I want your opinion on the bit of the letter that states that the ram purchase scheme was not effective and did not deliver measurable improvement or value for money. For how long did the scheme run? You may have mentioned that, but if so I missed it. Did it run for long enough to see whether there would be effective improvement? Do you think that there was improvement and that it would have been worth while carrying on with the scheme?
We definitely think that it would be worth carrying on with the scheme. There was not the facility to monitor and measure improvements. I mentioned Dr Annemarie van Heelsum's research. Monitoring and measuring improvements could be done by measuring the lambs' weights or simply by considering the average of what the crofters received for their lambs at the sales and sorting out changes in value. That could be done, but has not been. It should probably be pointed out that improvement can be shown by using better quality rams and getting better lambs. I think that we have mentioned that the drive of the whole matter is to ensure that the lambs meet the specification for market needs.
To consider the matter from the other end, what is the potential effect of not having such a scheme?
I think that the potential effect would be disastrous. A lot of money has gone into the marts. I have pointed out that the new mart in Dingwall is a fantastic facility, but its annual report shows that it made a loss of £8,000 last year. The effect of any reduction in the throughput of such marts will be considerable and we reckon that between 50 and 55 per cent of the stock that goes through those marts is from crofters. Furthermore, if we consider all the downstream industries that are associated with sheep, it is imperative that we preserve the sheep industry in the north.
I am trying to understand the overall effect of the scheme, as I am not involved with the matter in my area. You are saying that if such a level of assistance does not go directly to the crofters, it will not then feed through the rest of the markets.
That is right.
I would like to add something about the effect on the crofters themselves, as well as on the sheep. Many crofters live in fairly remote communities and the ram sales are mostly on the mainland. Most crofters are part-time workers—they will work part time on the croft and will have other jobs. Going to a sale will certainly be a two-day job, or often a three-day job for them. Therefore, things are difficult for them.
Jamie Stone has indicated an interest in the subject and has joined the meeting. I invite him to make any comments or to ask questions.
I thank the committee for allowing me to join the meeting. I have some questions.
As far as I am aware, HIE has looked at the livestock improvement scheme, but most of its attention has been focused on the bull scheme, which is being continued in an altered form. To my knowledge, it has not shown a great deal of interest in the ram purchase scheme to date.
What about marketing? Could the scheme have been better marketed? Is that an opportunity for the future?
Yes. One thing that we suggest for a revised scheme is its effective promotion so that clients, customers and crofters know exactly what is on offer. There is scope for improvement in that respect.
On turnover, I presume that if more of the scheme is sold, that will make it still more cost effective.
Yes.
Good morning, folks.
There was very little. The Crofters Commission issued a consultation document on the whole crofting grant scheme in November or December last year, I think, to which we responded. We said similar things to what we are saying today.
I understand that part of the argument against the scheme was that it was not providing value for money and that there were no measurable improvements—I think that that was the wording. What measures were in place to determine if there were improvements in stock?
Perhaps that was a weakness in the scheme. The SAC report says that there were no measurable improvements, but that is not the same as saying that there were no improvements. The general perception in the farming industry is that the bull and ram schemes have both made a substantial improvement to the quality of lambs and calves from the remote areas. There is no doubt about that, and that is why the report's findings are so surprising to us.
It was surely remiss to make that statement if no trouble was taken to record improvements in stock quality over a period of years.
That is a weakness in the management of the scheme and is why, in future, there must be on-going internal evaluation to check that things are happening as they should, and external evaluation to ensure that from the Executive's point of view there is value for money. Any improvement would be more easily measured if recorded rams were used.
The point is that there were considerable improvements in stock quality to be seen if SEERAD had recorded them, which it did not. Is that correct?
Yes, exactly.
The other point on which I would like some clarification is the claim that the scheme does not comply with state-aid rules, which is part of the argument that has been presented against it, although as far as I know, there has been no legal ruling on that. Do you have any information on that point?
I must confess that I am not an expert on state-aid rules—I know absolutely nothing about them—but I take the view that rules are guidelines and it should not be beyond the abilities of our administrators and managers to find a way to counteract them.
In your view, if the ram scheme, which has supported the crofting community over many decades, is to stop or be curtailed, what effect will that have on the well-being and viability of the crofting communities, particularly those that are trying to eke out a living from sheep husbandry?
It will be disastrous; many people will go out of sheep and will finish. Anecdotally, we already know of people who have done so, and as HIE figures show, the sheep numbers are going down year on year. I contend that we need this support for sheep production to help the industry and the spin-offs that we get from the industry. After all, the landscape and the activities that the tourists like are there because the land is managed. In many areas, especially Skye, where we have the virtuous circle that I mentioned, it is the landscape that comes from sheep rearing that interests tourists, who like to see animals and people in an area. If it is just swathes of green forests, it will not be half as interesting for tourists.
Thank you. At the outset, I should have declared an interest, because, in the past, I have taken advantage of the scheme that is under discussion.
You surprise me, John.
I am interested in learning a little more about how your industry and the crofters association are structured. What size is the association? Are you representatives on an official executive of the association? Given that the state-aid rules are Europewide and that people in other European countries will be similarly affected by the issues, what discussions has your industry had with partners throughout Europe?
I do not represent a crofters association; I am simply a sheep producer in the Highlands who considers that a wrong decision has been made. It is vital that the issue is addressed and properly discussed. I am sure that the Crofters Commission had many responses to its consultation document on grants, but as Mr Morrison pointed out, there is nothing about the livestock scheme in the summary of responses to the consultation, although it must have been mentioned a lot. Everybody is supportive and considers that the decision ought to be reconsidered. However, I have not discussed the issue with people in other European Union countries and nor has the North Country Cheviot Sheep Society.
I would appreciate clarification on one point, convener. The issue has been the subject of a members' business debate, but has the Environment and Rural Development Committee considered it?
We do not think so.
I have a suggestion, then. During that members' business debate, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development said that the Executive hopes to have firm proposals by the autumn. I think that the minister also said that the ram scheme would disappear by then. I suggest that we send the petition to the minister for consideration while the new proposals are being worked up, and also to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which could inform the minister of its views. I see that the clerk is looking a bit worried about that.
We do not tend to send petitions to committees until we know what the Executive's view is. In essence, we ask committees to consider the Executive's response to petitions.
The matter is up to the committee, but I remind members that, in reply to an oral question, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development has said that the Executive has absolutely no plans to reinstate the scheme. That was not a helpful answer at all. The committee knows what the Executive's stance is. I am not a member of the committee, but I urge colleagues to send the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee urgently, because we have to shift the Executive.
I do not mind, but we cannot do both.
We should simply send the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. If the minister has said definitively that the scheme will not be continued, that is worrying for all concerned and I would like that committee to consider the matter.
I had to remind the minister what a tup was.
Even I knew that.
I support Linda Fabiani's suggestion of sending the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. The minister said in the members' business debate that the Executive is working hard to develop an alternative scheme, but he has ruled out returning to the old one.
I have no difficulty with that.
Yes, I think so. The previous scheme had good aspects that should be retained, but there is a case for a serious revision.
If we decide to send the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, that answer will be helpful because that committee will know exactly what the petition seeks to achieve.
The only question in my mind is that we have in our papers a commitment from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, who stated in a debate on 19 May:
The clerk has just made that point to me. We are just about to go into recess. There will be two months during which the committee will not look at the petition, but we could get a response from the minister in that time. We could still get a response from the minister before referring the petition to the committee.
I would be happy with that, if we are saying that we are taking the decision that the petition will go to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. Meanwhile, let us get a response from the minister. I do not want the petition to come back and be discussed again and not go to the committee.
That is the point.
If it is agreed that the petition should go to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, will we suggest to that committee that, apart from scrutinising what has been proposed, it should take evidence from the department or the minister?
It is not for us to tell the Environment and Rural Development Committee what to do with the petition. We are asking it to consider it and use the evidence that we have gained this morning to enable it to make a decision. However, what you are asking for will be noted by the committee. Whether it agrees to do what you suggest is a matter for it. We will not instruct the Environment and Rural Development Committee to act in a particular way, but we will bring to its attention all the points that have been made.
We will let the petitioners know the outcome.
Pornography (PE752)
Petition PE752, in the name of Catherine Harper, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls on the Parliament to define pornographic material as incitement to sexual hatred and to make such incitement an offence similar to that of incitement to racial hatred. The law on incitement to racial hatred is contained in part III of the Public Order Act 1986, which defines racial hatred as hatred that is directed towards a group of persons by reference to colour or ethnic origin. The legislation sets out a list of acts that are intended to or are likely to stir up racial hatred, including the publication of racist material and the showing of recordings of racist material. Contravention of the sections in part III is a criminal offence.
I do not want to question the size of the Executive's research budget. The Justice 2 Committee agreed to take no further action on PE476 because the Executive was considering research. Now that we have a reply from the minister saying that it will not undertake research, the next step is to write to Margaret Curran asking what is intended.
I agree. The issue needs to be debated in society. It is one of those contentious issues that people would rather bury than face. Material is freely available in newsagents that promotes the idea that women are sexual objects to be humiliated and degraded. The question is: how come that is acceptable when it clearly would not be acceptable on other grounds, whether religious or ethnic?
I agree with Jackie Baillie's suggestion, but I am not clear about whether the Equal Opportunities Committee has agreed just to accept the minister's letter. I must have known Margaret Curran for more than 20 years and she is not someone who usually gives in to this sort of thing easily. She seems just to have accepted what appears to be civil service advice. I find that surprising. Has the Equal Opportunities Committee done anything as a result of the letter?
My advice is that it has not taken any action on the response yet.
But that was nearly two months ago—has the committee not considered the matter since?
I am guessing that it is because the committee has not yet considered its forward work programme and has not had an opportunity to fit the issue in. The advice that we have at the moment is that the committee has received the response but has not decided on the appropriate action to take in view of the response.
We should not leave it there. I agree with Carolyn Leckie. It is not just another round of research; it is very specialist, and we should at the very least ask the Equal Opportunities Committee what it will do and encourage it to consider the matter further. It might be more appropriate for that committee to consider it than for us.
There is no difficulty in asking the Equal Opportunities Committee what its intentions are, but it would be helpful to do as Jackie Baillie suggested and get the minister to tell us what she is doing.
With respect, the letter of 7 May says what the minister is doing, which is nothing. I suggest that we should not accept that. I am not sure whether there is any point in going back to the minister at this stage, just two months after that letter. I do not think that anything will have changed as far as the Executive is concerned. Additional pressure from the Equal Opportunities Committee might help to bring some change about.
Do we want to refer the petition straight to the Equal Opportunities Committee, given that it knows what the minister's response is and that we are discussing the petition in the context of that response?
I had a phone call yesterday from Elaine Smith, who had seen that the item was on the agenda. She is the gender reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee and specifically asked me if I could encourage colleagues to refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee. That would be helpful. I agree with everyone who has spoken this morning that we need to take the issue seriously and try to get progress on it.
That is along the lines of what I was going to say. It seems like many years ago, but it is not that long since I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee and something similar to this came up, which I think is what started the discussion about whether the Executive would carry out the research. The petition should go back to the Equal Opportunities Committee straight away, because that is the natural forum in which the discussion of the broader issues should take place. Perhaps then it could be forwarded to the Parliament as a whole.
Shall we formally refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee?
We should convey the sense among committee members that the Equal Opportunities Committee should consider prioritising the issue.
That would be included in our letter to the committee. Are members happy that we do that?
Planning (Guidance on Consultation) (PE755)
Petition PE755 is from Roger Knox, on behalf of the Ravensheugh Tenants and Residents Association. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its guidance to local authorities to ensure that adequate public consultation is carried out on planning proposals such as the development of Musselburgh ash lagoons, which is a 400-acre site created as a repository for the ash from Cockenzie power station. In early 2003, East Lothian Council published a detailed plan based on recommendations by a consultancy firm for the development of Musselburgh ash lagoons, which involved a two-month public consultation period. The petitioners are concerned that the council subsequently approved a less detailed revised plan that they claim involved little consultation, gathered more than 100 objections and failed to include an investigation into the environmental impact.
We have had a lot of petitions on the planning process. Because consultations on the planning process are under way and a review of the planning system is being undertaken, I do not think that it would be worth while to do any more at the moment than to refer the petition to the Executive to inform that review.
Do members agree with that recommendation?
Maternity Services <br />(Island and Rural Communities) (PE756)
Petition PE756, by Dr Federica Warnock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to review the provision of maternity services for Scotland's island and rural communities to ensure that the quality of services and current staffing levels are retained. The petitioners are concerned about the possible effects of proposals to reduce staffing levels at Lorn and Islands district general hospital maternity unit from a 24-hour on-duty service to a 12-hour on-duty and 12-hour on-call service.
We should refer it to the Health Committee. I serve on the Health Committee, which visited the Western Isles a month or so ago and has considered the issues that impact on the matter that is raised in the petition. I am sure that my colleagues in the Health Committee will take seriously the issue that is raised in PE756 as we make progress with our inquiry. Members of the Health Committee are seriously concerned about how the health service can cope with the various demands that are placed on it across Scotland.
I was particularly concerned about Argyll and Clyde's review of maternity services, one consequence of which is the problem that this petition highlights. It is appropriate to send the petition to the Health Committee as it is dealing with the issue, which is part of a wider pattern of changes to health services that local people and many of us in the Parliament find it difficult to come to terms with. A closer examination of the issue would be helpful.
I agree with all of that. I refer to our earlier discussion about whether to send PE748 to a committee or the Executive. I am concerned about the fact that the changes are proceeding rapidly and we are about to go into recess. I wonder whether it might be a good idea to draw the attention of the Executive to the issue that the petition deals with and to ask for its comments. The move from a 24-hour on-duty service to a 12-hour on-duty and 12-hour on-call service could quite well take place before the Health Committee is able to investigate the issue.
My only concern is that we cannot consider the specifics of the closure or the changes that have been made at one particular hospital. We have to view the matter in the context of the overall—
The context is the wider issues that affect work-force planning, particularly in maternity services. Those issues are becoming acute. The problems need to be addressed through long-term investigation, and we should be considering the provision of services across the whole of Scotland.
I take the point. Previous petitions have raised general concerns. We have referred them to the Executive, we have received responses from it and we have referred the petitions to the Health Committee. The best thing to do with the petition might be to refer it to the Health Committee for it to add to what it is already considering. The petition will highlight the specifics of the individual hospital concerned, which the Health Committee can take on board.
Can we copy our correspondence to the Executive?
I do not think that there would be any harm in doing so, for the Executive's information.
That would ensure that the situation is brought to the Executive's attention sooner rather than later.
Yes. That is fine.
Although I agree with what Carolyn Leckie has been saying, I can see the potential difficulties and the precedent that what she has suggested would set. I suspect that individual MSPs covering the area concerned will already have written about the issue, so the Executive should be aware of it. Perhaps we could check that informally.
There is no harm in our sending the petition to the Executive to make it aware of the matter, but it would be for the Health Committee to add it to the inquiry that it has initiated and to look into the issues that the petition raises. Are members happy that we do that?
Scottish Football <br />(Management and Structure) (PE757)
Our final new petition this morning is on Scottish football. PE757 is from Graeme Pirie, on behalf of Fans for Football. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive, as a matter of urgency, to launch an inquiry into the management and structure of Scottish football, with the aim of restoring Scotland's standing as a leading football nation. The petition is prompted by the decision of the Scottish Premier League on 1 June to deny Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club promotion, based on a stadium ruling. The petitioners believe that the Scottish Football Association should take control of the administration of all leagues in Scotland.
I declare an interest as a director of Dundee United Football Club. I notice that the petition has 16,000 signatures. For my time on the committee, that is a record.
No.
So that is a separate issue entirely. It would be helpful to ask the petitioners to await the response that they get from the various organisations that they have listed before coming back to us. We could then see whether any further action is appropriate.
On your first point, the petition is indeed asking for another inquiry into Scottish football, following the original one. That has been made quite clear to us. The petitioners are concerned that the structure of Scottish football is not working to the best advantage of Scottish football, and they want that to be addressed. I take on board your other comments, too.
Yes. I suppose that I should declare an informal interest as a Partick Thistle supporter. I agree absolutely with the terms of the petition, in that I think that people believe that there is a lot of institutional clutter in football—whether in relation to the SFA, the SPL or the Highland Football League—and that that lack of clarity has spilled over into some of the recent decision making. Having said that, I think that Mike Watson is right: I do not think that the Executive will necessarily invest in another review. However, I am aware that the Enterprise and Culture Committee has appointed two reporters—Brian Adam and Richard Baker, I believe—who are investigating the structure of Scottish football and will report back to the committee on a number of things. I suggest that we send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for information; write to the Executive as a matter of course, to get its position; and write to the SFA, because its view might be interesting.
I do not see any difficulty with that.
I agree with Jackie Baillie, but if we are referring the petition to the reporters on the Enterprise and Culture Committee, I would like us to encourage the petitioners to contribute to the investigation and to be more specific about what their alternatives are. The petition calls for an investigation, but I would encourage the petitioners to think about what the problems are and what needs fixing. I have ideas about that.
I am happy for the petition to be passed to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I would also like to ask the petitioners to clarify their aim of
That is a much bigger question. If we had the answer to that, we would not have had to listen to the English commentators on Euro 2004; we could have had our own.
Does that mean that the convener supported Portugal?
The convener supported Bulgaria; that was the kiss of death.
I am anticipating my next expulsion from the tartan army.
The suggestion is that we send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, because it is investigating the subject; that we send it to the SFA and ask it for a response; and that we ask the Executive for its view on the current situation. Are members happy with that?
If we all want to make individual contributions to the debate we can do so.
Next
Current Petitions