I welcome to the meeting Gil Paterson MSP, who has a particular interest in PE1105. I want to go through the petitions as quickly but as meaningfully as we can and decide which petitions we keep open and those which we feel might be closed.
School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
We start with PE1098 and PE1223 on school bus safety. Do members have any comments on the issue or, indeed, on the notes provided by the clerk and the letter from the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown?
Given the timescale for publishing the report on the costs of fitting seatbelts—it is not due until 30 June this year—I do not see any merit in inviting the Minister for Transport and Veterans to a committee meeting at the moment. However, it is clearly an option that we can retain for when we get sight of the published report. Perhaps we can invite the minister to a future committee meeting after the summer recess.
I accept the minister’s letter, but in his earlier response to us he indicated that he expected the report by April 2013. We see in the letter that he is now talking about 30 June 2013 for the report being made available. I suggest that we write to the minister to seek further clarification of the reasons for the time delay. I know that part of the reason was the awarding of the contract in December 2012. However, it seems strange that the timetable was set for the end of April, but then we are told that it will be three months later than anticipated.
I am happy with that. I did not expect to have to ask this, as I thought that the issues would have been resolved, but I want to understand what has been the obstacle since 8 March 2011 to the Scottish Government accepting the UK Government’s offer to devolve these matters to the Scottish Government. I do not wish to be unhelpful to colleagues, but—my goodness—if we cannot manage in more than two years to devolve the powers for seatbelts to the Scottish Parliament, it makes me wonder how—in certain circumstances that I do not foresee arising, of course—we would devolve much wider powers to the Scottish Parliament. The obstacle is loosely defined as “legal complications”, but I have never been able to understand what is preventing the power from being devolved.
I have not phrased it as finely as Jackson Carlaw did, but I wrote down that the issue appears to be bureaucratic bunkum. I cannot believe that the situation has gone on for so long. I do not accept that there has been a couple of weeks’ slippage in appointing the contractor or that initial work could not be undertaken prior to the 2012 Christmas holiday break. We should follow the suggestions of John Wilson—on writing to the Government—and Angus MacDonald, with a view to having the matter resolved as soon as possible after the recess. Hopefully, the message will go out from the committee that everybody associated with the Government should be operating as effectively as they can. I do not consider 11 years to be effective.
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
PE1105 was submitted by St Margaret of Scotland hospice, and I refer members to the previous submissions. The issue concerns cost allocations. I invite comments from committee members.
With respect to Gil Paterson, who has joined us for this petition, I note that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing is awaiting an updated response, and I would like to see that.
I can inform the committee that, to my knowledge, on the many occasions when the committee has considered the petition, there has been someone from the hospice in the public gallery. Today again, someone is in the gallery to hear the committee’s deliberations. I know that the people who attended the last meeting when the matter was considered, and those at the hospice, were very grateful for the comments that the committee made, and they thank you very much.
The comment that you made about the chairman perhaps explains why the letter from the cabinet secretary indicates that an offer was made to St Margaret of Scotland hospice on 22 March, yet we received a letter from the petitioner on 4 April. I am not sure whether that is the problem.
The length of time is as nothing compared with the distress and concern of people in the greater Glasgow area who are served by the St Margaret of Scotland hospice. I hear what you say, convener, but literally lives are at stake in relation to the outcome of the petition. The committee has been the one constant focus, keeping an eye and a light on the issue in Parliament. I would be reluctant to see that go until we finally get the resolution that I think is achievable but has been elusive.
My point was not directed at the hospice.
Many thanks to the committee.
Mosquito Devices (PE1367)
PE1367, by Andrew Deans on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, calls for the banning of Mosquito devices. Do members have comments?
We know from the special session that we had with the Scottish Youth Parliament that it has been taking the matter very seriously. We asked it to go away and get some more evidence on how the matter has been dealt with elsewhere—in other parts of Europe, for example. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a lot of information coming back from the Scottish Youth Parliament’s attempts to find such evidence, although there have been examples from Belgium and France.
I am interested in the approach that Angus MacDonald has brought to consideration of the petition. I am slightly disappointed. Mr Deans is certainly articulate, as we know from when he was with us. However, I feel that the extended additional submission is more anecdotal than properly evidence based. At one point, we get confirmation that 100 devices have been sold, but it also says that 100 devices are still operational. I am sorry, but I do not find that credible or agree that it constitutes evidence. It also seems to me that individuals have volunteered that they think that these devices are in use because somebody has had a conversation with them about what the devices might be like and they have realised that they might have heard them.
As a newcomer to the committee, my view is that the devices are insidious. Has there been any conversation with local authorities or the police about where the devices are used? Surely it is a police matter if people feel that the devices have to be used. The police could disperse the people at whom the device is directed. I have just joined the committee today, so I am wondering whether the committee has already considered that point.
I am advised that that did happen some time ago.
We are considering banning the use of something that we do not know enough about, but I feel that the issue is more a matter for local police and councils.
I agree. I hesitate to say this, but the question now is where the clinical evidence is. The Scottish Youth Parliament submission lists a series of places where the devices are located but states that it is unclear whether the devices are being used. I just do not know what else we can do with the petition other than continue to operate as a mailbox for it. Do members agree to close the petition but do as Jackson Carlaw suggested, which is to send the information on the petition to the relevant minister and allow her to pursue it further if she wishes to do so?
Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)
PE1400, by Libby Anderson on behalf of OneKind, is on banning the use of wild animals in circuses. Do members have any comments on it?
I suggest that we write to the relevant Scottish minister to seek clarification on whether he is prepared to take up the offer extended by the UK Government to allow the bill currently going through Westminster to be extended to cover Scotland. The petitioner’s letter has highlighted Westminster legislation that currently does not apply to Scotland. For example, the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012 came into force in January this year. As I said, the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill that is going through Westminster could potentially be extended to cover Scotland. The petitioner’s fear is that, if Westminster introduces the legislation and regulations for England, some of the travelling circuses might move to Scotland and locate here to avoid the legislation down south. It would be useful to write to the minister to seek clarification on whether the Scottish Government intends to take action in the light of the developments down south and whether he would consider extending the scope of the Westminster legislation to Scotland.
Do members agree to do as suggested?
National Donor Breast Milk Bank (PE1426)
PE1426 is on a national donor milk bank service. I draw to members’ attention the paper that we received this morning from the petitioner in response to the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde submission. I am minded to suggest that we close the petition. Is that agreed?
The basis for closing the petition is that action has now been taken by the Government.
The objects have been achieved.
Yes.
There has, however, been a late submission from the petitioner highlighting an issue with Forth Valley NHS Board. I just want to flag it up that, as a local member, I will contact the board for clarification of why it is not taking part. I will be happy to share with the committee any reply that I get from the board.
That would be appreciated. Forgive me, but I overlooked that. If you could do that, that would be good.
Betting and Loan Shops (Deprived Areas) (PE1439)
PE1439, on betting and loan shops in deprived communities, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review correlation between the prevalence of betting shops and cheque-cashing and payday loan shops on our high streets and in our communities, and poverty and deprivation. Again, I open up to comments from members.
Although I am reluctant to keep the petition open, the Scottish Government’s response leads me to want to keep it open for one more bite at getting a response. The Government states:
The Scottish Government has said that it has no plans for an urgent review. If we simply pass the petition back and ask, “When are you going to have one?” and it then comes back and says, “We’re not going to have one,” we will not really be exercising any decision making or promoting any movement by the Government. I suggest that we close the petition.
I understand John Wilson’s points, but the fact is that the Scottish Government has no plans for an urgent review. The area is partly reserved to the UK Government and the planning system is not normally used to address such matters. The Government has committed to incorporating the concerns into a future review along with other concerns—I imagine that the Government needs a sufficient menu of matters to review—which is in some respects a reasonable outcome at this stage, given the realities that confront the committee in seeking to pursue the petition.
That does not prevent the petition from coming back at some stage if more information becomes available.
Can we write to the minister to say that we are closing the petition but also to ask the question that we were going to ask if we kept it open and to highlight the information that we have gathered and the petitioner’s concerns?
I can understand the motivation behind the petition and I have some sympathy with it, but what will we achieve by taking the action that you suggest?
I proposed that we keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on the review timetable mainly to try to understand the Government’s perspective in relation to the review. The order was passed in 1997. The standard excuse that we get from local authorities when it comes to planning decisions is that they cannot take a decision because it is outwith their prerogative to make a decision in relation to the location or the use of shop units in town centres and other areas.
As one member feels strongly about the petition, I do not see any advantage in forcing a closure. If Mr Wilson is suggesting that we seek some clarity on the timetable and that we allow the petition to come back to us based on that letter, I am happy to go along with that suggestion rather than create a division over it.
Yes, I agree. Thinking about it, I would be minded to accept John Wilson’s argument. Given that these vultures are appearing nearer to housing estates and within our town centres, the issue has to be brought to the attention of the Scottish Government once more.
The rationale behind my position was that I am not sure whether what is suggested will achieve what we want. I abhor what is going on but, given the planning regulations and legislation, can we effect anything other than writing to the Scottish Government again? However, if that is the view of the committee, we can agree that we should write to the Government.
Anything that highlights the issue to the Scottish Government is good news in my book.
I agree with Angus MacDonald. I am not a planning guru by any manner of means, but it will give the petitioner some comfort if we write back to the minister to see whether there is anything that they can do with regard to the planning legislation. I fully appreciate that the other decisions are made elsewhere, but there is a huge blight on every one of our communities. We need to keep the petition open and get back to the minister.
Okay. We will write to the Scottish Government.
Mutual Repairs Incentive Scheme (PE1444)
PE1444, from Florance Kennedy, is on the mutual repairs incentive scheme. Members will remember that Ms Kennedy asked the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide incentives for mutual repairs on tenement properties and, in the course of that, to make representations to the UK Government regarding the issue of VAT.
In light of the response from the Scottish Government, the action that it has taken and the information released earlier this year, I think that we can go ahead and close this petition. The Scottish Government has given a commitment on the second part of the petition to continue to campaign to have VAT removed from improvement repairs on tenements and other developments. The petitioner has achieved what they set out to achieve and the Scottish Government has responded. I propose that we close the petition and advise the petitioner accordingly.
Is that agreed?
People’s Charter (PE1452)
PE1452, from Vince Mills, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to bring forward measures in all areas in which it has competency to fulfil the aspirations of the people’s charter. I will not rehearse what was in that charter.
I support that position. The Scottish Government has set out its policies in relation to what is set out in the people’s charter. Given the very broad scope of the charter, I am not sure that the committee could achieve much by any further action.
Do we agree to close the petition on the basis that the Government has set out its programme?
Planning (Protection for Third Parties) (PE1461)
PE1461, from William Campbell, is on protection for third parties in the planning process. Members have the note by clerk and the submissions. I invite members to contribute or comment as appropriate.
I have some sympathy with the petitioner. Having served on a planning committee in the past, I have been aware of issues that required police intervention. However, in my view the circumstances described in the petition are a matter for the police and should be considered in that context and not as part of the planning process. Therefore—despite my sympathy with the petitioner—I suggest that we close the petition.
At our meeting on 19 February, we agreed to write to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Did we receive a response to that letter? Given that, as Angus MacDonald has clearly indicated, some of the matters raised in the petition are policing issues relating to planning—harassment, for example—I suggest that we keep the petition open and write to ACPOS again.
I do not think that the association exists as such, given the new structure of Police Scotland.
Whatever the appropriate organisation is within Police Scotland, I suggest that we write to it to ask for a response on the matter. There are clearly policing matters at issue, and it would be unfair to close the petition without receiving a response from the police about how the matter is dealt with at a local or national level.
I support that suggestion. It might seem to make a nonsense of our earlier decision to seek advice from ACPOS to say that, because it is no longer there, we will not bother to wait to see whether we can get advice from its successor organisation. In principle, since we thought that advice should be sought, we should seek it from the successor organisation. I do not know what we will be able to do thereafter, but we took a view and we should fulfil it.
I recognise Angus MacDonald’s point, but I agree with Jackson Carlaw and John Wilson. In view of the change in structure, if we write to Police Scotland at least it could be a warning shot or a highlighting shot to the new organisation. Once we get a response from Police Scotland, perhaps we could close the petition.
Vacant Land in Private Ownership (PE1465)
The penultimate current petition is PE1465, by Tony Ivanov, calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to put in place legislation to enable local authorities to force owners of vacant plots of land within towns, including former green belt land and previously developed areas, to maintain and keep those plots of land in a manner befitting the local community.
I note the comments from Falkirk Council’s head of planning and transportation, John Angell, whom I know from my time at Falkirk Council to be an excellent officer. He comments on the use of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 section 179 notices, and in particular he highlights the difficulty faced by councils when they cannot identify the owners of random areas of open space, even when carrying out land registry searches. As a councillor, I came face to face with that problem on more than one occasion. The petitioner’s assertion in his reply that that is not a problem is simply wrong.
I note the response that we have received. I thought that we had also sought to establish how many such notices had been issued, not just how many appeals had been made. I thought that we wanted to quantify the extent to which the existing recourse is exercised, in relation to what we were told could be a route forward without the need for anything new. Knowing how many notices have been appealed—a trivial number in some respects—does not tell me how many there were to start with.
We did write to COSLA, but we did not receive a response from it. Perhaps we will write to it again to remind it of the duty of this Parliament and to make the point that we do not send out letters just for the sake of it.
It may be that COSLA is experiencing a similar problem to us. If it did not have the information at hand and it wrote to all local authorities, it may be that they have not all replied to COSLA.
It would be helpful if COSLA wrote even to tell us that.
Absolutely.
Mr Angell’s letter is one of the better and more explanatory letters that I have seen on the issue. Angus MacDonald and John Wilson will remember the somersaults that we went through on registration of land, who owns what and how we register it.
I think that I read somewhere in the paperwork that a relatively small number of pieces of land are involved. However, I cannot think of an elected representative who has not had correspondence on this issue come into their mailbox. It is an issue that we would like to resolve, but cannot, so anything that can be done to keep the petition going and highlight what an issue it is in many communities, the better. We should write to the various bodies.
We will write accordingly to COSLA to try to discern the scope of the problem and to the Government to highlight the section 179 issue—
And the need for an enforcement power.
And the need for an enforcement power. Is that agreed?
Non-residential Services (Local Authority Charges) (PE1466)
The final current petition is PE1466, by William Tait, calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the implementation and regulation of local authority charges for non-residential services. Do members wish to contribute or suggest the course of action that they wish the committee to take?
I am happy to suggest that we refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee and invite it to follow the progress of COSLA’s review into charging guidance for non-residential social care services, in the light of the information that we have obtained.
Thank you. Do members agree to that?
We now move into private session.