Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)
There are 12 current petitions for consideration today. The first is PE1179, from Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, on acquired brain injury services. Members have the note by the clerk—paper 5—and the submissions. I invite contributions on the petition.
This is an important petition, and I do not want us to close it at the moment. We have still not heard from the Association of Directors of Social Work. We should perhaps get in touch with the ADSW again and ask it to comment. We could also get an update from the Government on whether any progress is being made on creating a care network.
Being a new member, I was not here when the petition was first considered. How many times has the ADSW been asked to provide evidence? Is it more than once?
I think that it is twice.
I wonder whether we should tell the ADSW that, if we do not get a response, we might call it in for an oral evidence session. Ignoring our request for evidence once may be down to timescale, but doing it twice is pushing it. If it does it a third time, we should bring it in and ask it questions directly.
I agree that we need a reply from the ADSW, and I agree with Mark McDonald and Nanette Milne that we should continue the petition.
I agree, too, although the petitioner has made a number of interesting points in response to the issues raised. I suggest that we forward the petitioner’s letter to the Scottish Government and ask it whether it has any comments on the issues raised by the petitioner. There is genuine concern that, although it is fine for the Government to say that social work departments and health boards should have all those services in place, the reality, and the petitioner’s experience, is that the support is not there.
Are members content to continue the petition and to write to the Scottish Government and the ADSW?
Freight Trains (Overnight Running) (PE1273)
Rail Noise and Vibration (Larbert) (PE1302)
The second and third current petitions are PE1273, in the name of Anne Massie, on overnight running of freight trains, and PE1302, in the name of Colin Sloper, on rail noise and vibration at Larbert. Members have the note by the clerk—paper 6—and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
I declare an interest in that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line runs through both my council ward and my parliamentary constituency, so I know quite a lot about the subject.
I bow to the knowledge of the local councillor and constituency MSP but, on the second petition, PE1302, I am concerned that the petitioner has not responded to requests for feedback on two occasions. I might be presumptuous in saying that the reason why a response has not been forthcoming is that he is happy with what has happened and that the petition has achieved what it set out to achieve. I do not know whether that is the case. I am concerned that, on two occasions, we have had no response from the petitioner, which suggests that he is happy with what is happening and that the petition can be closed.
I disagree with my two colleagues on closing the petitions. As I have indicated in the past, I am very knowledgeable about these freight trains, particularly coal freight trains, because they pass by my door; indeed, I might be seen to have a vested interest. I welcome the responses from Network Rail and DB Schenker on the operational requirements. I received notice this morning from Network Rail on the level of rail workings that will take place over the next three months, which will directly impact on my overnight sleep, so, if I get a bit crotchety over the next three months, I hope that committee members will take into consideration the amount of rail working that is taking place.
I am afraid to say that I disagree with my colleague John Wilson. I entirely understand the points that he has made, but I do not think that the petition should be used to shoehorn particularly that last point into the discussion.
I sympathise completely with the view that importing coal via the west coast and shipping it over to the east is crazy; indeed, I and other people on Fife Council have gone through the issue several times with various bodies. However, it all comes down to business economics, where the coal is available and the relative costs. We are trying to reopen various port facilities in Fife to import coal, but the main thinking is that, although coal can be imported there, it is simply not economic to do so. Obviously, I am in regular touch with Scottish Power in my constituency.
Although we have run these petitions together, we should take a separate decision on them. Although I very much sympathise with John Wilson’s position on PE1273, I do not think that we can take it any further than the overnight running issue that it has raised. The other complexity is the incentivisation of the use of trains to carry cargo and the fact that, through the freight facilities grant, successive Governments have funded the ability to take freight off roads and on to rail—and, indeed, boats.
I second that suggestion.
Do you agree, Nanette?
My views are on the record, convener.
The committee has agreed to close PE1273 in light of the points that are set out in the clerk’s note and which will be identified in the minutes for the meeting.
I suggest that the petition be closed. Given that the petitioner has not responded to two previous requests, the committee takes the view that he is satisfied with progress.
Are members agreed?
Gypsy Travellers (Council Tax) (PE1333)
PE1333, in the name of Shamus McPhee, is on behalf of the Scottish Gypsy Traveller law reform coalition, on disadvantages to Scottish Gypsy Travellers and members of the settled community residing in mobile homes. Members have a note from the clerk—paper 7—on the petition and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
The committee has considered the petition previously, and I think that we can close it. It has been confirmed that water and sewerage charges are billed and collected by local authorities on behalf of Scottish Water but that if no services are provided, no charge can be levied. That is one of the issues that was raised. The Scottish Government has clarified that its forthcoming review will not consider council tax banding, water and sewerage charges as they are matters for local authorities and that it will progress a review of the site management guidance for Gypsy Traveller sites. I hope that we will keep an eye on that guidance but, as I believe that most of the questions have been answered, I think that we should close the petition.
Do members agree with Sandra White’s recommendation?
Given the comments in the clerk’s paper and Sandra White’s comments, we are closing the petition under rule 15.7.
Saltire (Edinburgh Castle) (PE1352)
PE1352, in the name of Mark Hirst, is on flying a saltire on Edinburgh castle. Members have a note by the clerk—paper 8—on the petition and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
As I remarked on the overnight freight petition, there comes a point at which you draw a line in the sand. In this case, the Scottish Government has indicated that it will erect a flagpole and is looking for a suitable site. I do not want to get into the position of discussing whether the site that is picked is the best site and so on. We should be satisfied that a site will be chosen and leave it at that. We should close the petition because it has achieved its aim.
Do members agree with Mark McDonald’s recommendation?
The committee has agreed unanimously to close the petition under rule 15.7, for the reasons identified by Mark McDonald and the clerk’s report.
Gypsy Traveller Encampments (Guidance) (PE1364)
PE1364, in the name of Phyllis McBain, is on clarifying guidelines relating to Gypsy Traveller encampments. Members have a note by the clerk—paper 9—on the petition and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
As a North East Scotland member, I have a knowledge of the issue in the petition. A point that Mrs McBain has highlighted to me in e-mails is that there appears to be lack of consultation of private landowners and individuals who have been affected by the encampments and more consultation of local authorities. Local authorities have a significant role to play, but private areas of land are often affected. We should write to the minister in the terms that the clerk has suggested seeking clarity on the review that is being taken forward, with specific reference to private individuals such as Mrs McBain, who had a harrowing experience as a result of an unauthorised encampment and its aftermath. It would be good if we could get some clarification that individuals such as Mrs McBain will be able to have some input to the review and that it will not simply come from local authorities and other organisations.
I agree completely with what Mark McDonald has just said. It is important that it is a third-party type of review.
If no other members want to contribute, do we agree that we will continue the petition by writing to the Scottish Government in the terms set out by Mark McDonald?
Mosquito Devices (PE1367)
PE1367, in the name of Andrew Deans, is on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on banning Mosquito devices. Members have a note by the clerk—paper 10—on the petition and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
It is refreshing to hear that someone who has not been asked to give evidence wants to come along and give their side of the story, as Compound Security Systems does—good for it. It is good that the committee can facilitate that. We should keep the petition open and invite the company to give evidence.
Is that agreeable to members?
No, I do not agree that we should invite the company along to give evidence. The Parliament should not be used to advertise companies that use such devices. We should pass the letter from the National Autistic Society to the Justice Committee, along with the evidence that we have gathered. If we invite the company to give evidence, we will be giving it a platform from which to justify the continued use of the device in communities. We should refer the petition to the Justice Committee, so that it can consider the legal implications of the continued use of the device.
Not for the first time today, I disagree with John Wilson. We would not be affording a commercial opportunity to the company. If it unwisely chooses to use its time before the committee to put forward a sales pitch, it will find itself coming back down to earth with a bump. I am pretty sure that members would have strong questions for the company about the use of the devices—there are a number of questions that I want to put to the company.
I was just talking to the clerk, and I think that the issue is not so much a legal as a societal one. Is there an argument for bringing the company and the petitioners together before the committee, to have a dialogue?
Yes. I disagree with John Wilson. The company and its product have been mentioned by name and it is only right to give it a chance to respond. As Mark McDonald said, we know a sales pitch when we see it. The company has been criticised and we will listen to what it has to say.
I had not thought about inviting the petitioner along too, which is a good idea. The petition was presented in the Parliament at the end of the previous session, and we do not receive many petitions from young petitioners. It would be good to have the petitioner back to take part in a discussion—it might set a precedent.
I was initially sceptical about inviting the company, in that its evidence will be, “No, we are doing this,” so I was not sure what would be achieved. However, the discussion has moved on and I support inviting the petitioner as well as the company to give evidence.
The committee seems to be minded to invite representatives of the company to give evidence alongside the petitioner. I suggest that we also invite a representative from the National Autistic Society to give evidence on that day. If we are going to open up the evidence session, we should hear from the society, which has written to us about the impact on people with autism. An issue that has come up is that only young people are affected by Mosquito devices, but NAS has opened up an issue about an effect on a much wider community.
Do members agree to invite three groups to give evidence at a future meeting—the petitioner, Compound Security Systems and the National Autistic Society?
Hospital Education (PE1381)
PE1381, which was lodged by Gwen Garner on behalf of Action for Sick Children (Scotland), is on education provision for children and young persons who are absent from school due to illness. Members have a note by the clerks—paper PPC/S4/11/8/11—and submissions. I invite comments.
I would feel comfortable if the petition were closed. The Government has undertaken to conduct a review of the guidance, as sought by the petitioner, and has said that the petitioner will be invited to participate in the review as a key stakeholder. I think that the petition’s purpose has perhaps been achieved.
Do members agree to close the petition, in light of Nanette Milne’s comments?
Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)
PE1384, by Kim Hartley on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, is entitled “Giving Voice—speech and language therapy transforms lives”. I invite contributions from members.
I find the petition quite difficult. Like most committee members, I am sure, I have dealt with this subject for a number of years. There seems to be a shortage of speech and language therapists. The amount goes up and down according to demand.
As Sandra White said, many of us have had some involvement in the issue. I have personal involvement in it and I also have a number of cases in my area.
I agree with Mark McDonald.
Do members agree to continue the petition, in the light of comments that have been made by members and the points in the clerks’ action plan?
Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)
The next petition is PE1395, in the name of Jan Culík, on targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at universities. I invite contributions from members.
I have been involved in the issue through my work with the University of Glasgow and, like others, I have been visited by Jan Culík and Hugh McMahon, a former member of the European Parliament. As is evident from the papers before us, the minister has had letters and visits as well.
And perhaps the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. That is a useful point. The petition has been very strong. I think that everyone was here when we got the presentation from Jan Culík and his colleagues.
I support what Sandra White said. I am very sympathetic to the issue. That does not mean that we should necessarily continue the petition, but we should do so for further investigation, as other avenues for how the activities can be funded are being explored with the Government. Much of that comes down to money, unfortunately. We have such a valuable asset, and I would hate to see the whole thing fall by default.
I agree that we should continue the petition. Like other members, I have had meetings with the petitioners since the committee first considered the petition. Like all petitioners, they were keen to impress the fact that they wanted the petition to continue, but there are issues that need to be looked at.
Yes. Obviously, the clerk will research the sub judice issue, but it certainly makes a lot of sense to continue the petition to find out whether the Government will consider giving lesser-taught languages and cultures controlled funding subject status, which Sandra White recommended.
I declare that I have met and know the petitioners.
I put it on the record that I have not met the petitioners, although there have been several requests for a meeting.
That is certainly a useful and reasonable point. It is legitimate to consider the Scottish funding council or associations of principals of Scottish universities, but we need to look closely at the terms of the petition.
Part of the background is the fact that we wrote a letter to Glasgow university and got a reply, albeit perhaps not from the principal. It is quite within the committee’s competence to call in evidence from Glasgow university about whether courses are taking place and from the Scottish funding council, which distributes the money. It is fair to say that the committee moves on and that that sometimes involves other people coming in, as with the previous petition on Mosquito devices.
On the point about the Scottish funding council, I have met the people concerned and studied the matter. In a previous life, I was very aware of languages and culture through travelling on business. I want to ask you, convener, and my colleagues whether it would be worth while when writing to the Scottish Government to contact the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Fergus Ewing. One of the reasons that the petitioners give for the value of their school is the tremendous contribution that language and cultural awareness make to enterprise, tourism and international relations. We are talking money here, of course. If I could wave a magic wand, I would suggest getting money from that kind of source, rather than simply going down the academic route to the Scottish funding council. Does that make sense?
Do any members want to make any additional points?
That is probably a decision for another day. We are taking the decision to write to the Scottish Government at this stage. Once we have ironed out the sub judice issue, we can decide whom it will be appropriate to call to give evidence, if that is what we decide to do. Once we have received a response from the Scottish Government, we might decide not to call for evidence. That is a decision for the future, however, and we should not get too hung up on it today.
That is a fair point, as matters might well have moved on by the time we look at the petition again. Do members agree to continue the petition and to write to the Scottish Government, in line with the comments from the clerk and from Sandra White—and Bill Walker’s comments as well?
Thank you.
I apologise, Mr Walker, for missing out your point.
In Care Survivors Service Scotland (PE1397)
PE1397, in the name of Mary Roy, is on the future support of and funding for the In Care Survivors Service Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk—PPC/S4/11/8/14—and submissions. I invite contributions from members. I will allow a few seconds for them to find the right paperwork.
This is one that we need to keep open. I said earlier that we did not always have to keep something open until the very end but, given that negotiations are under way, it would be worth while to find out the relevant timescale from the Government and to examine the decision that is made. We should also ascertain the petitioner’s views throughout the process. We should keep the petition open and ask the Government to give us an indication of the timescale and to keep us updated on progress.
I agree that we should keep the petition open. I suggest that, when we write to the Scottish Government, we ask how the discussions regarding continued funding for the body link to the earlier evidence that we heard today about setting up the forum and whether this could be part of the future work done with in-care survivors funding. We should find out whether the Government has joined up the pieces of the jigsaw to ensure that we have a comprehensive support structure for survivors of institutional abuse.
I agree with what John Wilson has just said. I would hope that this could tie in with the major bit of work that we discussed earlier involving the Scottish Human Rights Commission and all its work. It would seem to me to fit in with that and to offer mutual benefit, but perhaps I have got it wrong.
So it is agreed that we continue the petition in the terms set out by John Wilson and in the clerk’s report.
Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)
Our final current petition is PE1400, in the name of Libby Anderson, on behalf of OneKind, on banning wild animals in circuses. Members have a note by the clerk—PPC/S4/11/8/15—and submissions. I invite contributions from members.
We should keep the petition open because we know that the Scottish Government intends to consult on the use of wild animals in circuses and hopes by January to have a better understanding that will feed into drafting the consultation. It is only fair to keep the petition open until we have a bit more knowledge.
Thank you. If no other member wishes to contribute, is it agreed unanimously that we continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government in the terms set out in the clerk’s report?
We will now move into private session for the next agenda item.
Previous
New Petitions