Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Official Report 451KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)

Item 4 is consideration of 19 current petitions, some of which will be considered together. The first is PE1050, by Councillor Ann Watters, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation to provide better protection for common good sites, such as Ravenscraig park in Kirkcaldy, and to ensure that such assets are retained for their original purpose for future generations. Do members have any suggestions on how to proceed with the petition?

Yes. I think that a number of positive outcomes have flowed from this petition, because it has helped to secure information and has ensured that local authorities have considered the issue. We have before us information about Audit Scotland’s findings on the progress made by local authorities in compiling common good asset registers as part of their 2008-09 audits. Audit Scotland concluded:

“Councils have generally taken reasonable steps to comply with the guidance”.

We also know that, in light of that assessment, the Scottish Government is satisfied that common good sites are as protected as they can be and sees no need for new legislation in respect of common good assets. Audit Scotland will continue to monitor progress made by local authorities as part of the annual audit process.

Given all that, I think that the petition has probably gone as far as it can go and that there is not much more that we can really do on it. On that basis, I think that we should close it. However, I emphasise how beneficial the petition has been in securing the information to which I referred.

I agree that we have probably gone as far as we can with the petition and that it would be right to close it. However, I put on record my considerable concern that many local authorities still do not have a common good asset register, although we are told that they are making progress in getting registers in place.

There is a series of judgments here. Audit Scotland’s finding was that

“Councils have generally taken reasonable steps to comply with the guidance”.

That is not nearly as precise a judgment as I would have liked to have heard from Audit Scotland. There will be continuing concerns about the status of common good sites in Scotland for a considerable time and the committee should remain aware of that fact.

We could ask Audit Scotland to keep the committee updated on progress. I assume that it would be appropriate to do that even if the committee agrees to close the petition. Is the committee satisfied with that suggestion?

Absolutely.

I suggest that we ask Audit Scotland to keep not only the committee but the petitioner updated. As Robin Harper indicated, although the Government has used the Audit Scotland report to justify the response that we have received from it, the letter that we received from the public services reform directorate contains some worrying signs. It refers to two local authorities that do not have common good asset registers and says that one checks the land title deeds only when it is about to sell. The petitioner’s original concern was that common good assets were being sold off without any public consultation or reference to the fact that local authorities are transferring out of the common good assets that were given to communities by benefactors.

The letter goes on to say that

“6 Audits did not comment on Common Good Assets ... Most of these claim not to have common good assets with the exception of”

two local authorities. That means about a fifth of the local authorities in Scotland are without common good asset registers. I am reluctant to close the petition at present, but I will agree to close it with the proviso that the convener will ask Audit Scotland to keep us and the petitioner up to date on developments.

Thank you. The committee has agreed to close PE1050.

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

The next two petitions will be considered together. PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make provision for every school bus to be installed with three-point seat belts for every schoolchild passenger and to ensure that, as part of local authorities’ consideration of best value in relation to the provision of school buses, proper regard is given to the safety needs of the children.

PE1223, by Ron Beaty, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take all appropriate action, whether through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation, to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses, to be used only when necessary, when schoolchildren are on the bus, and to make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.

Do members have any suggestions as to how to proceed with the petitions?

Having expressed considerable frustration a fortnight ago about what we had not done, I wonder whether we should now be thoroughly positive, strike while the iron is hot, recognise that we have a new Government down at Westminster and also recognise that the tragic accidents to which we referred last time occurred and lessons are beginning to be learned from them.

Should we consider redoing what we did a while ago—I see from the notes that it was last December—and get together the right people from Westminster and here and possibly the police? I like the suggestion that we try to get the appropriate Westminster minister to appear before us—it has been suggested that it might be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, but I have no idea what title is appropriate. Might we get the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change back before us, and invite the two chief constables from Strathclyde and Cumbria, to address the issues of the recent accidents and the lessons that can be learned? I hope that we can do that to a sensitive timescale, although I do not know how soon it should be done. Could we get those folk around the table and say, “The problem is not going away. You know it’s not going away, and it’s not going to go away. Is anybody prepared to reconsider what we can actually do”? We must recognise that the legal landscape is complex.

15:00

I agree. The safety of the children and young people who travel on school buses, which both petitions are really about, is paramount. We recently had two fatal accidents, which were absolutely tragic.

We should invite the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport or the Minister of State for Transport—whoever is responsible at Westminster—and Stewart Stevenson, the minister here at Holyrood. I agree with Nigel Don that we should also invite the appropriate police authorities. It is way past the time that we should have been looking at the issue across legislatures to see what can actually be done, to change laws if necessary and to work together to reach a situation in which the possibility of future fatalities is drastically reduced. We cannot guarantee that, but we should move towards that.

It is suggested in the briefing paper that we take oral evidence at our meeting on 26 October. We could reflect on what we hear from witnesses and keep as a second option the idea of debating this important, serious and, as Nigel Don said, complicated subject in the chamber. I agree with Nigel Don on the first step, but we should also keep in mind the second option.

I agree. The stumbling block has always been getting anything done legislatively. If we get the relevant ministers together, particularly in light of the fact that we have a new Government at Westminster, we may hear something different—I do not know. I was the one who originally suggested having a debate in the Parliament, and I would like to keep that option on the table, so I go along with Bill Butler’s suggestion.

The last time that we discussed the petitions I suggested that we get all the people who are responsible and lock them in this room until they can tell us how they will make things happen. We might not need to lock the door, but we can have security staff there.

We must make absolutely certain that we get the right people at the meeting: those who can work together, make the decisions and make things happen. We have to ask them to come prepared. We should point out to them that the issue has been going on for quite a long time, that we have had evidence sessions and that we want them to come prepared to tell us how they will resolve it and when.

We all agree that the committee feels strongly about the issue and that there is a degree of frustration. In light of the two tragic fatal accidents, we want to take matters forward. Is it agreed that we continue with the petitions and follow the suggestions that have been made, with the option of making a bid for a debate in the chamber?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Transport Strategies (PE1115)

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. I seek members’ views on how to take the petition forward.

We need to continue the petition. We know from the information that we have received that Transport Scotland has considered the report that the petitioner provided to it. It has indicated that there may be concerns that the petitioner’s proposals do not fully integrate with the current and committed operation of the network, but Transport Scotland has nevertheless committed to work with Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership—tactran—to examine what improvements can be delivered through the ScotRail franchise. On that basis, I think that we should continue the petition.

There are a couple of questions that we could ask Transport Scotland. The petitioners raise the issue of transport planning for the 2014 Ryder cup at Gleneagles. We should ask Transport Scotland what plans it has for putting in place something like the petitioners’ proposals to meet demand around Gleneagles in 2014. We should also ask Transport Scotland if, together with tactran, it will provide a clear timetable for the next stage of the work, including an outline of the approach to be taken and the activities involved. I hope that it will be productive to ask Transport Scotland those two things.

I agree with Bill Butler. Among our papers is a letter from my colleague Elizabeth Smith, who would have been here to speak on behalf of the petitioners had she been able to attend. She feels strongly that there is a case for the actions that are being proposed, and I go along with that.

I welcome Richard Simpson to the committee. I understand that you are here in support of PE1115.

I apologise for arriving only now—I was following the committee’s deliberations on the television and I was waiting for the petition on tail docking to be considered, but I missed it.

I have just one thing to add to what Bill Butler said. In the most recent announcement on alterations to stations to take disability into account, the United Kingdom coalition Government has halved the budget for that, from £7 million to £3.5 million. The likely consequence is that Gleneagles station, which has almost the worst disabled access in Scotland, will no longer be dealt with.

With the Ryder cup approaching, there is an even stronger case for reopening Blackford station before 2014. That strengthens the case for tactran and Transport Scotland to think very hard whether spending £4 million upgrading Gleneagles station—presumably, most of it will now have to come from our own money—is wise expenditure when the expenditure on reopening Blackford station would be only slightly more in total and would provide a much better alternative.

The committee agrees to continue with the petition and to seek information from Transport Scotland.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)

PE1169, by Margaret Forbes, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce and enforce measures that ensure that magazines and newspapers containing sexually graphic covers are not displayed at children’s eye level or below, or adjacent to children’s titles and comics, and that require that they be screen sleeved before being placed on the shelf.

I invite suggestions on how to deal with the petition.

We had considered carrying out some research of our own into the matter. However, we were going to defer the decision until the Home Office had responded to the recommendations in the Papadopoulos report, the “Sexualisation of Young People Review”.

That department has responded that it is not yet in a position to comment—obviously, there is a new Government now. The worrying thing is that it has said that no decision has yet been made on whether or not there will be a formal response to the review. We are left having either to commission research ourselves or to wait for the UK Government’s response to the review, which would be my preference.

I seek clarity on the matter. We do not know whether the Home Office is going to respond to the review. Is that correct?

I think that that is the current position. Given that a new Government is in place, we should perhaps give it a certain amount of time. However, the petition has been going on for a considerable length of time—two years now.

I would be happy either for us to wait for a response—if we know that there is definitely going to be one—or for the Home Office to tell us by the end of July whether it is going to respond. It might not have decided whether it is going to respond by the next time that we consider the petition, and we could still be just hanging about, waiting. I understand that there are financial constraints and that we ought to spend any money on research wisely. Nevertheless, I am keen to establish when the Home Office is going to decide whether it will respond.

I agree. The committee should write directly to Theresa May, the new Home Secretary, asking the question directly: is the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government at Westminster going forward with this and are any results going to arise from the Papadopoulos report? If the Home Office tells us that it cannot give us an exact time or that it is still thinking about the matter, we will need to think again. However, we should ask that question directly of the new Home Secretary—that is only fair. I take into account the fact that it has been two years.

I wonder whether there is an appropriate trade association that we can write to—a small shopkeepers association—or whether we have already written to such an organisation. If we have written already, we could write to it again, asking for its view and whether it is prepared—at least pro tem—to do anything on a voluntary basis until we can get something from the Home Office.

The latest submission from the Scottish Government states that it is

“happy that the Committee takes forward research on adherence to the code”.

Perhaps Fergus Cochrane can remind us whether any research has been done on the extent to which the code is being adhered to.

None that we are aware of. The current code is voluntary. I cannot remember the exact number of newsagents that are members of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents—I am not sure that it necessarily represents the majority of newsagents—but the committee has previously written to organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the NFRN.

The coalition programme document states:

“We will crack down on irresponsible advertising and marketing, especially to children.”

When we write to Theresa May, it might be worth drawing her attention to that and asking whether that would include the inappropriate positioning of such magazines.

Do committee members have any other suggestions?

We understand that when people are in new positions, it takes a while for them to settle in. However, we could ask for a response by a certain time—although obviously not a deadline—and explain why, so that the matter does not drag on and on. We could say that we want to make progress but that we do not want to do anything until we have seen the response to the report, and that we would like the information that she can give us now, before we next consider the petition.

Okay. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have agreed to keep the petition open.

---

Tail Docking (PE1196 and PE1230)

The next two petitions are considered together as they both relate to tail docking. 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 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. Do members have suggestions on how to deal with the petitions?

15:15

We should continue the petitions. Colleagues will recall the research study by the University of Bristol and the Royal Veterinary College on the risk factors for tail injuries in dogs. We have been waiting for some time for the study to report. [Interruption.] I am informed that the tail injury paper was published a couple of days ago. I do not know what it says, but we should also write to the Scottish Government to ask for its response, including what actions, if any, it will take in light of the study recommendations. We should also write to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Advocates for Animals. We should continue the petitions.

Bill Butler has provided an accurate and precise résumé of my thoughts on the subject.

Thank you for not feeling the need to share them with us nonetheless.

We should most definitely continue the petitions. I agree that we should ask the Government what action it is taking in response to the study, a copy of which is included in the extra papers that we have been given. It says:

“Dogs with docked tails were significantly less likely to sustain a tail injury; however, approximately 500 dogs would need to be docked in order to prevent one tail injury.”

One tail injury is one injury too many. My views on tail docking are well known: I am in favour of working dogs having their tails docked. We should ask the Government for its response to this piece of work.

In its letter to the committee, the Scottish Government has left a hostage to fortune. In the very last sentence, it says:

“Only when the Royal Veterinary College/University of Bristol report is published will we have all of the necessary information available.”

I hope that the Government will not now come back and say that it does not know enough on the subject.

Okay. So, we will seek responses from the Government and the organisations that members mentioned. Pending receipt of that information, we will continue the petitions. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)

PE1220, by Alan Kennedy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all relevant legislation to ensure the continuance of general practitioner dispensing practices in instances where commercial pharmaceutical practices apply to operate in the same local area. I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition.

When Christine Grahame attended the last meeting at which PE1220 was considered, she agreed to contact those who are affected by the issue and ask them to make a submission to this committee. They have now done that and their submission describes the impact of the loss of dispensing income on small rural practices. I have two additional questions for the Scottish Government: how will it ensure that public opinion is incorporated into the decision-making processes of NHS boards in addition to the requirement to consult publicly; and what assessment has it made of the impact that the changes will have on rural areas?

Dr Simpson, are you appearing on behalf of your constituents in relation to this petition as well?

Perhaps I can help, as some of my constituents are involved in the problem of dispensing. In fact, the appeal on the matter has recently been denied, so they have come off the agenda as being concerned. However, the consultation on the review that the Government is undertaking is just closing and a report should be available some time in August. I presume that it will be made available to the committee because of its interest through the petition.

Do we agree that the petition be continued, with the possibility of contacting NHS boards to ask for their views?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Biological Data (PE1229)

PE1229, by Craig Macadam, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish integrated local and national structures for collecting, analysing and sharing biological data to inform decision-making processes to benefit biodiversity. I welcome the committee’s views on how to deal with the petition.

Things have moved on significantly in relation to the petition. The petitioners have met the Government’s biodiversity science group and recommended a number of improvements to the collection, analysis and sharing of biological data. The reason for the petition has, to some extent, been dealt with and we could safely close it now because the Government has already taken a number of steps to tackle the matters that are involved. Thanks to the committee, a line of communication has opened up between the petitioners and the Government.

I am content to close the petition, but with a final reservation that it is extraordinarily important that we know what is in our environment and record it accurately. There is no point in having a biodiversity action plan if we do not know the biodiversity that it covers.

Does the committee agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

HM Prison Kilmarnock Contract (Independent Review) (PE1241)

PE1241, by William Buntain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an impartial and independent review of its 25-year contract with Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd on the design, construction, financing and managing of HM Prison Kilmarnock. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

We have examined the petition five times and given it thoroughgoing consideration. We have also listened carefully to what the petitioner’s local and regional MSPs had to say. My information is that the petition is now centred on a dispute between the petitioner and the Scottish Prison Service about a number of issues in which the committee has no real locus, so there is not much more that we can do to advance it any further. Therefore, we should close it.

Is the committee happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Freight Trains (Overnight Running) (PE1273) and Rail Noise and Vibration (Larbert) (PE1302)

We will take the next two petitions together. PE1273, by Anne Massie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take the necessary action and make representations to the appropriate bodies to stop the overnight running of freight trains on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line. PE1302, by Colin Sloper, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that greater consideration is given to the problems of noise and vibration generated by increasing levels of heavy freight on the rail network and to consider what action can be taken to encourage freight operators to use more track-friendly rolling stock.

Dr Simpson is with us again. Does he want to say something?

I want to bring the committee up to date. I hope that I will not repeat what members already know.

The situation with regard to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line remains that no one will accept responsibility for the original problem. We now know that Scottish Power could never have turned round the number of trains that was proposed in the original environmental impact report within the 7 am to 11 pm time period that the report indicated would be used. Scottish Power can turn trains round in two hours—that is the only guarantee that it can give. Therefore, it takes most of 24 hours to turn round 23 rail paths or 12 trains.

In light of that, and given that Network Rail could never have stopped night running other than on the ground of safety, the question remains: why did Transport Scotland, in its original submission to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, which was chaired by a member of this committee, not take into account that night running would occur from the outset? My constituents still feel aggrieved and let down about the fact that they were totally misled.

That said, Transport Scotland has now carried out noise surveys along the SAK line and is offering noise abatement measures in some 69 housing areas—that indicates the extent of the problem. However, Transport Scotland has not taken account of vibration, which is a problem for a substantial number of households. In addition, we have not yet got the results of the survey that Transport Scotland undertook in response to my request for it to repeat an offer of a survey in relation to 169 households that were surveyed before the railway reopened.

One piece of good news is that we have had a response from the Government, which says that all new railway schemes in Scotland will follow the England and Wales guidelines on noise, despite those guidelines not legally applying to Scotland. There is an undertaking from the Scottish Government in that regard, which was mentioned in a written answer to a parliamentary question that I asked.

My question for the committee is whether you will ask the Government whether anyone is prepared to take responsibility for misleading my constituents and for the inappropriate impact report. At the very least, my affected constituents are owed an apology for the derogation of responsibility by Transport Scotland. Clackmannanshire Council was the agent in relation to the operation of the bill, but the council was acting as agent on behalf of the Scottish Government at the time. Given that the council’s experience of railways had been extinct for some 25 years, the council could not reasonably be held to be responsible, although technically it is jointly responsible for the situation.

Only the very limited number of four households are being offered compensation, because the railway was technically still available for operation along part of its length and any household along the line that was still legally open is not entitled to be offered compensation. Frankly, that adds insult to injury for those people.

15:30

As Dr Simpson said, a member of this committee was convener of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee.

I agree that no one is willing to take responsibility and that everyone is passing the buck. I note the small steps that have been taken and the little progress that has been made in relation to noise abatement. However, the problem of vibration remains, which must be horrendous for the people who have to endure it.

It remains the fact that Dr Simpson’s constituents and my committee were misled—there is no doubt about that. The impact report was misleading. The fact that because of a technicality only four households are being offered compensation adds insult to injury, as Dr Simpson said.

We need to continue PE1273. We need to write to the minister directly to request answers to questions. I do not know what colleagues think about that suggestion. For instance, we could ask whether, at the request of the committee, the minister will organise a meeting of all the relevant parties—Network Rail, the Office of the Rail Regulator, freight operating companies, relevant councils in areas along the railway route, the petitioners and elected members—to find a way to minimise the disruption to residents adjacent to the railway, update the committee on the outcomes of that meeting, and clarify who is ultimately responsible for what and how that fact will be publicised. That is an important point.

Members of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee heard evidence in Alloa town hall that was given under oath. I feel deeply that my colleagues on that committee and I were absolutely misled about the night running of trains. I hesitate—but only just—to use the word “lied”; we were certainly misled. If we want to move things forward from the small steps that have been taken thus far and address the concerns of Dr Simpson’s constituents and others who have had to endure the night-time running of trains, we must write to the minister. A meeting of all the interested parties is needed, and we need to ascribe responsibility or blame. Responsibility and then action must be taken. Obviously, an apology is always welcome, as Dr Simpson said, but an apology is not enough. Real compensation must be offered to those who must endure something that they were specifically told by my committee that they would not have to endure.

That is all that I have to say at the moment, convener.

It seems to me that we will not get people not to run the trains; the trains will continue to run. Despite the PE1302 petitioner’s cursory response—it is the response of somebody at their wits’ end; they have used heavy irony—one must be sympathetic. We heard clear evidence that more track-friendly rolling stock is available and could be, but is not being used. We should revisit that aspect and perhaps invite Network Rail in to give us its view. There will be less maintenance and less overall cost for the operation if track-friendly rolling stock is used, otherwise it is clear that the track will have to be maintained at much greater expense, particularly given the number of trains that run on it. The maintenance problems would be reduced and the overall cost of running the trains on the track would be less if proper, track-friendly rolling stock was used. We need to dig down into that. I would like to have some people from Network Rail in front of us, if that is possible. I would certainly like to secure a response from it. Part of the answer must be that compensation will not be enough for many people. Compensation will not make the disturbance go away. People’s lives will still be disturbed by the operation; indeed, many people’s lives will be seriously disturbed by it.

We have proposals to continue both petitions.

I agree with Robin Harper that we should continue PE1273, but we are in a fix with PE1302 because we have rules with regard to standing order 15.7 that the petitioner must provide within a certain timescale comments of substance on the detail of the written responses. I note that the petitioner was given an extension until Friday 18 June, but the clerks have still not received any communication.

I have great sympathy for the petitioner. It is obvious that they are at their wits’ end. Whether we should be flexible with standing orders is entirely a matter for you, convener, but I suggest that we give the petitioner one more chance to respond. It would be their last chance, because other petitioners do follow the procedures that are set out and flexibility has already been extended to the petitioner, so I do not think that we can do too much more than give them one last chance.

That clarifies my understanding that, although the petitioner has not responded, it is up to the committee to decide whether or not to continue the petition.

We should give the petitioner another chance. They are clearly under a lot of stress. I only have to miss half an hour of my sleep and I am like a bear with a sore head the next day, so I feel really sorry for this guy. If he sees that the committee was considering closing the petition—as we are entitled to do because he has not given a substantive response—but that we pushed for him to be given one more opportunity, maybe that will give him hope. I note that he stated:

“I have all but given up hope”.

If we give him another opportunity, perhaps he will have a bit more hope and understand that we do want to proceed with the petition for him. We should make it clear that we are keen to proceed with it and make progress for him.

Convener, I indicated twice that I wanted to join the debate. I am not sure whether you are looking down this end of the room.

I will endeavour to look more carefully down that end.

It is just that I have spoken on the issue in the past. Although I welcome Bill Butler’s comments on holding discussions with the local authorities and people who are affected by the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, the issue is not just one for people in that area. It affects everybody who lives along the route that the freight trains take. They do not operate just from Stirling to Kincardine. They operate from Hunterston right through to Kincardine and they have an impact all along that route.

I can feel the petitioner’s frustration when I read his comments about how the committee or the Scottish Parliament is dealing with the petition. Comments such as

“I am most looking forward to another summer of windows open, trains passing at crazy o’clock and when I am just nodding back off to sleep I will be dreaming of the effectiveness of the Scottish Parliament in resolving the matter”

clearly show his frustration. On 16 June, he wrote:

“Many thanks, I have all but given up hope!”

We should make it clear to the petitioner that committee members have some sympathy on the issue that is raised in the petition but that we need his co-operation to allow us to take it forward. We should take on board Robin Harper’s comments about the rolling stock that is being used, and we should recognise that the committee will benefit if the petitioner is prepared to continue with his fight and pursue the petition. As others have said, I welcome our giving the petitioner another opportunity to respond, which will allow us at least to take forward the argument with the companies, Transport Scotland, Network Rail and DB Schenker, on the freight wagons that are being used to ship the coal from one end of the country to the other.

Okay. Do we agree to continue both petitions PE1302 and PE1273?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (Parental Choice) (PE1284)

PE1284, by Graham Simpson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to note the successful outcome of a number of legal cases brought by parents against local authorities involving placing requests for children; it also calls on the Government and councils to desist from applying any policy on class sizes that conflicts with the numbers stipulated by law and the statutory rights of parents under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to choose the school that they wish their children to attend. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

Our information is that the Government is going to lay regulations that will limit primary 1 classes to a maximum of 25 pupils and which will be in place in December 2010 for the 2011 placing round. The Scottish Government is also committed to keeping the issue of the need for further regulations on class sizes under review. Given both those promises, I think that there is little else that this committee can do, especially given that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has considered the Government’s class size policy on a number of occasions and has agreed to monitor the issue further. I think that the Public Petitions Committee has done all that it can do. I therefore suggest that we close the petition.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Stillbirths and Neonatal Deaths (PE1291)

PE1291, by Tara MacDowel, on behalf of Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal deaths charity, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to note and act on “Saving Babies’ Lives Report 2009” by Sands in support of its why 17? campaign; to develop a strategy for reducing levels of stillbirths and neonatal deaths; to fund further research to improve understanding of why stillbirths and neonatal deaths happen; to develop gold standard antenatal care provision in all national health service boards; and to work with Sands to improve public awareness of these issues. I seek suggestions on how to deal with the petition.

This is another petition that has moved on. I think that the Scottish Government has taken on board most of the issues raised by Sands. It has set up and has agreed to chair a short-life working group made up of Sands representatives and health professionals, which will work out how best to address the issues raised in the petition. The committee has facilitated an appropriate meeting and an on-going relationship between Sands and the Government, so I think that we can close the petition.

We should welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has ring fenced funding to Sands until 2011 for work with NHS boards. I agree with Nanette Milne that the time has now come to close the petition.

I echo what Bill Butler said about the ring-fenced money, which is used to ensure that staff get the training and education that they require. I seem to remember, from hearing from the petitioners and from attending a reception that Sands held in Parliament, that one of the most significant issues was educating staff so that they are aware of potential risks and of how to work with parents who have suffered in this way.

15:45

I note from the briefing that advice will be given to NHS boards towards the end of 2010, that ring-fenced funding has been provided and that a neonatal services expert advisory group, which includes Sands representatives, has been formed.

In the light of the action that has been taken, is the committee happy 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 be considered as suitable locations for the building of crematoria and other developments; whether allowing applications under the planning system to build crematoria and other developments runs contrary to the reasons for designating sites as such; and whether the promotion and protection of our natural heritage should merit the conducting of a full and robust environmental impact assessment for planning applications that are made. Do members have suggestions on how to deal with the petition? [Interruption.] Oh, I am sorry—I did not realise that Christine Grahame was here to speak to the petition.

That is perfectly all right—I know that you are looking at this end of the table.

I am trying to look at committee members’ side of the table.

I welcome you to your convenership—now you will know what it is like for the rest of us conveners.

I welcome you to the meeting.

I hope that committee members are gentle with you, at least on your first outing.

The Government’s response says that

“SNH will be publishing the work”

to review national scenic areas

“in June 2010.”

I do not know whether that work has been published—I have been remiss and I have not checked. The response also says:

“SNH plans to issue guidance on the ... qualities”

of national scenic areas

“in the latter half of 2010.”

The qualities have been considered with the aim of making the system more standardised, so I look forward to the committee’s continuing the petition until it sees what is produced.

I understand perfectly that a national scenic area is completely different from a national park, but ambiguity arises when it is not treated with the same regard—a national scenic area is in limbo on its own and is not protected in the same way as national parks are. When the public have on their doorstep or visit a national scenic area, they need to know what that means and what protection the area has.

What do committee members feel?

Christine Grahame is right—if work has been done and a review has taken place, we should wait for the result of that and for the forthcoming guidance. I suggest that we keep the petition open until then.

Okay—that is agreed. Do we also agree to seek an update from the Scottish Government and clarification of some matters?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Further Education (Students with Complex Needs) (PE1180)

PE1180, by Tom and Josie Wallace, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in achieving further education placements and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up.

Alex Fergusson intended to say a few words about the petition but—unfortunately—he cannot attend the meeting because of other business, so he gives his apologies.

Do members have suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

Our briefing note says that the petitioners have not commented on anything that relates to the petition since December 2008. Given our earlier discussion about looking for a response from a petitioner, do these petitioners even want us to do more with the petition? The briefing says that it is a year and a half since they have been in touch—is that correct?

The last written response from the petitioners is from 31 March 2009.

The briefing says:

“the petitioner has not responded to any correspondence or provided comment on any of the responses sent to them since December 2008”,

but later it refers to a response in 2009. However, it is at least a year since the petitioners responded.

That is a long time. Do you suggest that we should close the petition?

There is a clear indication that the petitioners have moved on with whatever they are doing—perhaps they have achieved what they wanted. I suggest that we close the petition.

We could note the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman’s report of 24 March, about which I have one quotation:

“This outcome recognises that local provision may well provide the best infrastructure and support for young people with profound and complex needs. Although residential colleges offer specialist provision and services facilities, they should not necessarily be seen as the first or only choice, especially when you consider the transition that has to be made two or three years later, when the young person moves back to their own community.”

However, the Scottish Government should also note that a number of colleges in England and Wales are specialist providers for young people who have complex needs. In fact, some are exclusively for young people who have complex needs. Perhaps the Scottish Government might like to give some attention to that because I do not think that we have one college that is only for young people with specialist needs, and there are advantages to such colleges.

Are you suggesting that the petition remains open?

No, I am happy to close it, but it is worth noting that Scotland and England and Wales have completely separate approaches to the issue.

Okay. Are there any other views?

I do not disagree with the recommendation, but I have a point about the lack of communication from the petitioners. Am I right in thinking that they have attended some of the committee meetings at which the petition was discussed? I have a feeling that they have been in the audience, although clearly they have not communicated with us.

My recollection is that the communication from March 2009 was to update us on their personal situation with regard to their son, rather than to provide the committee with a response to the policy issues. You are correct—they attended previous committee meetings when Alex Fergusson spoke to the petition.

I will try and shed some light on what might be happening here. It might be that, because their MSP attends the committee every time we discuss the petition and speaks in favour of it, they might think that they do not have to respond because he is doing it for them. I remember them coming to a meeting as well. However, we do not have a submission from their MSP this time.

When we forward the written responses that come to the committee and give petitioners the opportunity to comment, we highlight to them the importance of responding. If the committee does not hear from them on two successive occasions, the convention is that the committee assumes that they are content.

Thank you. As there are no other suggestions, is the committee content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Haemochromatosis (Screening) (PE1298)

PE1298, by George S Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote and support the introduction of national screening and a science-based diagnosis of haemochromatosis iron overload within NHS primary care. Alex Fergusson would have been here to say a few words on the petition but he has intimated his apologies. Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?

I am inclined to keep the petition open. A number of suggestions have been made. For instance, the petitioner has suggested doing a leaflet to give to GPs about the importance of picking up haemochromatosis. We should get in touch with the Scottish Government and make that suggestion, and also ask whether the Government would have another meeting with the petitioner to take further the work on raising awareness. There does not appear to be enough awareness of the condition. Whereas lack of iron is looked at thoroughly and often, the converse is not and the profession is not so aware of it. It would be worth keeping the petition open for a while longer.

I think that members would support that.

We should also ask the Scottish Government for an update on the liaison between Dr Fitzsimmons and Dr Keel, the deputy chief medical officer, on the development of a research proposal and the liaison with the Scottish molecular genetics consortium.

Thanks for those suggestions. We will continue the petition.

---

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 CTO reports that can lead to misdiagnoses, faulty speculation and the administration of unwarranted forms of treatment. Do members have suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

First, I draw attention to the Scottish Association for Mental Health’s very helpful response, particularly with regard to a detail that I cannot believe I missed. On the petition’s call for the abolition of the overuse of compulsory treatment orders for non-violent mentally ill patients, SAMH points out that the vast majority of people with mental health problems are not violent—indeed, they are more likely to be victims of violence—and if they are harmful in any way the harm is generally done more to themselves. I do not know whether it is possible to amend a petition but, if it is, could we ask the petitioner to take out the term “non-violent”? I am sure that they are trying to make the point themselves, but I do not think that that term is helpful.

If that is not possible, I simply want to put the point on the record. I am sure that no one around the table would disagree with me on that—or, indeed, on anything else.

Members: Oh!

Well, they might disagree with me on a few other things.

SAMH and the Mental Welfare Commission have suggested that people who come before tribunals should be able to make their statements earlier in the process to ensure that they feel that their views are given proper weight. SAMH also feels that some people who appear at these appeals do not fully understand their rights and has asked for the guidance in that respect to be reviewed. It would be helpful to ask the Government whether it would be prepared to ensure that that happened.

I ask Fergus Cochrane to clarify the position on amending the wording of a petition.

The committee has already discussed the issue in relation to the petition from John Muir. Standing orders do not set out how we might deal with such a situation, but my initial impression is that amending a petition in that way would make it a different petition. The committee has already started its consideration of this petition and we have already received a number of written responses. If the committee changed the wording at this point, it might well have to seek a further response from the various organisations that have responded. After all, the emphasis of the petition could be changed. I suspect that the petitioner might have to withdraw the petition and possibly submit a new, amended one. Nevertheless, Anne McLaughlin has put the point on the record.

The only way the emphasis would change is if the petition actually said that we did not want to abolish the overuse of CTOs for violent mentally ill patients. Surely we want to abolish the overuse of anything for anyone. As I said, though, the important thing was to put the point on record.

Perhaps it would be quicker just to write to the petitioner to clarify the point and ask whether our understanding of the petition was accurate.

16:00

We should write to the petitioner to make that suggestion. It is clear from the responses that we have received that the petitioner is keen to get a message across, and that she has a particular view. The petitioner might have used particular language in the petition deliberately because of what she perceives to be happening with the treatment of those deemed to have a mental illness. It would be useful to write to her. I support the continuation of the petition, but I suggest that when we write to the Government we ask it to respond to the petitioner’s most recent submission, and particularly the considerations set out in paragraphs (a) to (j) of that submission.

As Anne McLaughlin suggested, we should also write to the petitioner to ask whether she would view a change in the wording of the petition to be detrimental to the underlying issue that she is trying to raise with the Parliament.

Do we agree to continue the petition and write to the petitioner and the Scottish Government in the terms suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Youth Football (PE1319)

Our last current petition is PE1319, by Scott Robertson and William Smith, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the legal status and appropriateness of professional Scottish Football Association clubs entering into contracts with children aged under 16; the audit process and accountability of all public funds distributed by the SFA to its member clubs; the social, educational and psychological effects and legality of SFA member clubs prohibiting such children from participating in extracurricular activity; and the appropriateness of compensation payments between SFA member clubs for the transfer of young players under the age of 16. It also calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the educational target from two hours to four hours of curricular physical activity per week; and to develop a long-term plan to provide quality artificial surfaces for training and playing football at all ages across all regions. We have two MSPs with us to talk to the petition. I invite Trish Godman to say a few words in support of the petition.

I ask the committee to continue the petition for some sound reasons. There is still a lack of clarity about what happens when a registration form is signed by young people—there seem to be few opportunities for them to be released.

I have spoken to the chief executive of the Scottish Premier League and he informs me that it is not a registration form but a commitment form, but from looking at the form I do not know what the difference is. He also informs me that there is a 28-day opt out. From speaking to boys and their parents, I know that they were not aware of that. I believe that registering or committing a very young boy—or young person, as a few girls are involved—in that way is wrong. It is certainly questionable, as there seems to be a lack of clarity about what they are committing themselves to.

The petition mentions compensation. If the boy who signs up is not the best player and another club is unwilling to pay a fee to move him, he will have to continue with a club where he is not happy. That is not good for a child of the age that we are talking about. It is not good for a child if he is not playing with his peers, is not allowed to play school football and has to continue to play with a club where he is not happy. If someone is with the club for a season and it transfers them to another club, the fee is about £3,000. If they are there for two years, the fee is £6,000 and if they are there for three years, it is £9,000. We are talking about quite a bit of money for moving young boys around. I would be interested to know how many of these boys are transferred.

Clubs get funding for their youth football from the Scottish Government and the cashback for communities fund. I have yet to get clarification of where the £3,000 that I mentioned comes from. Neil Doncaster’s argument was that some money had to be paid for the amount of training and commitment that the clubs had given the young boys.

One of my main concerns is education. These young boys usually play and practise football three or four times a week and all day on Sunday. I do not know who checks their academic progress, whether that is done now and again or whether there is a system. I am sure that there are good systems in some clubs, but not in others.

I know that the committee has not considered the report by Henry McLeish in great detail. A good chunk of that report is about youth football. It would be good if the committee considered the report and what I have said. There is a lack of clarity about what happens. We need to ensure that we protect children, particularly young boys who sign up to clubs thinking that they will be the next David Beckham. Only around 4 per cent of them move into any kind of professional football. We could do with a really good Scottish team in the long term, but I do not think that we will get it through the approach that has been taken. We need to look carefully at what is happening out there.

I, too, have come to the meeting to speak in support of the petition. The petition and the issues that it addresses were brought to my attention by Scott Robertson, who is one of the petitioners and a constituent of mine. He coaches Musselburgh Windsor, which is a youth football team that is based just outside my constituency, but which draws many of its young people from within the area that I represent. Musselburgh Windsor has been an important institution in East Lothian for a long time, and it has had a great deal of success in boys’, girls’ and mixed football.

In considering the petition, it is important to understand that it was lodged as a result of the frustrations that are felt by the many volunteers who put unbelievable efforts into running our youth football. The time and energy that they give are unbelievable. I think that they would say that the frustration that they feel at what happens when their players show promise and are picked up by senior teams is not the most important thing; rather, they are most concerned about what happens to many of those young people.

As Trish Godman said, all young footballers who attract the attention of senior teams believe—their parents often believe this, too—that they are on an inevitable course to stardom, but the hard fact is, of course, that very few of them will see that path out all the way. William Smith, Scott Robertson and others have argued that the system can often treat hopes, aspirations and dreams cruelly in order to suit the concerns and interests of the senior teams.

High numbers of young people are signed up. Sometimes groups of players are signed up in order to get a commitment from one of their number. The hope is that a person will come along if their friends come along. Of course, that necessarily means the inevitable rejection of a good number of young people after a period. That is inevitable, but the system can often drive those who have been rejected by a team out of football altogether. Trish Godman talked about that. If a person has signed a commitment form and leaves or falls out with a club, they may find themselves unable to play football for anyone else for two years, by which time they will probably have lost any drive that they had to play.

It may be true that young people or their parents have 28 days to change their mind, but it seems to me that, if the truth is that the young person will not make it or will not benefit from an arrangement with a club, that may not become obvious within as short a period as 28 days. That protection still seems to me to be quite limited. Often, perhaps because of their excitement about an opportunity opening up before them, people might not be aware of that protection. An even more fundamental question is whether we are asking children who are as young as 10 to sign what is, in essence, a legal contract. If so, the contract would be not legal but illegal, because such children are much too young to be legally bound by such a contract.

The committee sought evidence from the SFA, the SPL, the Scottish Government and others. The SFA and the SPL have replied that they do not recognise any of the problems and that the system is working well. The temptation is to say, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?” The Scottish Government does not opine on whether the arrangement is proper and says rather that it is up to those who enter into contracts with young people to decide whether they are legal, which is rather dodging the question.

The most powerful evidence to the committee is the letter from Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. He does not give an opinion, but it is clear that he believes that questions need to be answered about the legality of some arrangements and about the extent to which they uphold or breach our children’s rights. For that reason alone, I argue that the proper course for the committee is to continue the petition and perhaps to ask the appropriate parliamentary committee to take evidence and look further into the concerns that Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, has summarised well.

This is the second time that we have considered the petition. What has been described is far too close—frighteningly close—to the exploitation of minors and has little to do with encouraging young people to become involved in football.

The SPL, the Scottish Football League and the SFA replied so late that the petitioners have not had time to respond to us, so we cannot discuss the petitioners’ feelings and consider their analysis of those responses. Some organisations have yet to respond to us, which is appalling. The aforementioned SPL, SFL and SFA deserve a rap on the knuckles for taking so long to respond, but the others must be asked to respond urgently on the situation, because the issues are important. We must continue the petition. The organisations should realise that responding so late creates difficulty for the committee, because we have a heavy workload. Time at today’s meeting was set aside to give the petition due attention, but we cannot do that at this meeting, which is regrettable.

16:15

Scott Robertson has replied to the committee, but Robin Harper’s point has legitimacy, because the petitioners had only six days in which to think about and turn round their response. That is disappointing.

We considered the petition on 20 April. As always, the committee’s clerking team sent letters within 24 hours to all the organisations to which the committee had asked the clerks to send our initial correspondence. The organisations were given a deadline of 17 May to respond. However, it was 11 June before we received a reply from the SPL; 14 June before we received anything from the SFA; and 15 June before we got the SFL’s reply. As far as I know, responses are still outstanding from the Scottish Amateur Football Association; unhappily, I have to say, from the Scottish Trades Union Congress; the Scottish Child Law Centre; the local authorities in Edinburgh and North Ayrshire; and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That has been very unhelpful because, as Trish Godman and Iain Gray have pointed out, the petition raises very serious issues about our young people, how youth football is progressed in this country and the deficiencies in the current system that are there for all to see.

I note, first, Trish Godman’s comment that someone told her that the form was not really a registration form but a commitment form. If I may say so, that is just an exercise in semantics. Indeed, it is a nonsense; it does not mean anything. I could go on but I will not, because I might be impolite.

Secondly, the very powerful evidence that Iain Gray referred to is indeed that—very powerful. In fact, I want to read into the Official Report a paragraph from the response from Tam Baillie who, as members know, is Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. In reply to the question

“What concerns do you have about the demands and impact (the legal, moral and general as the petition states) this is having on under 16 year olds signing on with professional football clubs?”

he said:

“I am not in a position to offer legal advice and my comments should not be relied upon as such. I do believe, however, that the issues raised in the petition highlight a range of potential breaches of children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

That is a pretty powerful statement. He then goes on to detail possible breaches in

“The nature of Youth Initiative (Performance Tier) registration documents”,

“The issue of compensation” and “Fairness and equality”. Those are very grave issues. Obviously we should continue the petition but the committee should also write both to the organisations that have replied to us very tardily and to those that have yet to reply, making it clear that we are a committee of the Parliament of Scotland and that they need to reply to us in good time.

At the moment, however, we are left with no other alternative but to reallocate a time slot to take another look at all the evidence and to invite Mr McLeish along to talk to us. I know that it will not be easy to do that—the clerk has said that although the petition could be timetabled for a meeting in September, that would not be particularly convenient—but I really think that we need to fit it in.

Moreover, despite the fact that these issues are very serious, some of the responses that we have received are simply not real and detailed enough. We should ask the respondents to address the detail of the petition, not to give us an offhand response that they probably think is a way of being polite. Actually, not responding to a petition that is under discussion by this Parliament and this committee is really the model of impoliteness. I really am very annoyed—as we should all be, colleagues—that not only the committee but, above all, the petitioners have been treated in this fashion. Our message should be that that is completely unacceptable. We need real, detailed answers and we need them back in double-quick time with no excuses. When we get those responses, we can take a serious look at the evidence. This should be their last warning: September—and no later.

I hope that I have made myself clear, convener.

Eminently so.

I agree with Bill Butler. I have to say, though, that if he had been my teacher in a previous life, I would never have been late with my homework more than once.

I draw attention to what Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, said about potential breaches of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. He wrote:

“Article 36—child’s right to protection from other forms of exploitation

I am concerned that children are potentially being exploited by a system which is meant to provide them with opportunities and develop their talents. Whilst this may be an unintended consequence of the registration process, it does need to be urgently reviewed to ensure that children and young people’s rights are adequately protected.”

That is quite a powerful statement, which we should take seriously.

I think that the committee agrees to continue the petition. I understand that the committee wants to write in no uncertain terms to make plain our views about the lack of responses from some organisations and the tardy and inadequate responses from others. We can also invite Henry McLeish to appear before the committee. He was not aware of his previous invitation until too late, which is unfortunate. Do we agree to give him the opportunity to come to the committee, to continue the petition and to consider it at a meeting in September?

Members indicated agreement.