Youth Football (PE1319)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions, of which there are nine on today’s agenda. The first is PE1319, by William Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football in Scotland.
Members will agree that the petition is very thorough; it is first class. We agreed to ask Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People to do some work on the subject. Members have a scoping paper. I met the commissioner and am very impressed with the plan for work that will be carried out. If the committee agrees, the commissioner will do that work and report back at a future meeting. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Chronic Pain Services (PE1460)
PE1460 is by Susan Archibald, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on chronic pain, and is on improvement of services and resources to tackle chronic pain. Members have a note by the clerk.
This, too, is a good petition, on which we have done a lot of work. My view is that we should close the petition under rule 15.7, as the location and details of the new national service for chronic pain have been confirmed. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Single Room Hospitals (Isolation) (PE1482)
The next petition is PE1482, by John Womersley, on isolation in single room hospitals. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
Alex Fergusson has a strong constituency interest in the petition, but is unable to attend today. I invite contributions from members. I recommend one option: that we consider the petition again once the Scottish Government’s review of research into single-bed accommodation in hospitals is complete. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Supermarkets (High Streets) (PE1497)
The next petition is PE1497, by Ellie Harrison, on behalf of Say No to Tesco, on supermarket expansion on local high streets. Members have a note by the clerk.
Patrick Harvie has a strong constituency interest but was unsure about whether he would be able to come today. Sandra White also has an interest in the issue, but she is currently at the Justice Committee and sends her apologies for her inability to attend.
We have two choices on the petition: we can close it on the basis that we have explored the issue as far as we can within the policy areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, or we can ask the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to consider the petition in the context of its scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. My preference is for the latter option.
I am certainly loth to close the petition; it has some merit, in particularly in respect of the claims that major retailers are riding roughshod over independent retailers in some areas. I would certainly prefer to refer the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to allow it to incorporate it in the work that it is doing on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.
As a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee—
If you feel the need to declare an interest, Mr Wilson, there must be extra work involved.
Thank you for that. Patrick Harvie has just arrived, and I know that he has a strong constituency interest in the petition. Do you want to address the committee on your support for the petition?
Thank you very much, convener. I apologise for just making it here by the skin of my teeth, and slightly out of breath.
I am aware that this is not a full evidence session on the petition, so I thank you, convener, for giving me the opportunity to speak briefly to it. I simply want to put on the record again the strong interest in the issue—of which I am sure members are aware—throughout the country, including in my region, which is Glasgow. In the few months since the committee last considered the petition, I have become aware of even more small independent businesses that have roots in the communities that they serve having gone out of business in areas where supermarket expansion is continuing. That flies in the face of the stated intentions to encourage retail diversity, and vibrant and diverse high streets and shopping areas.
I encourage the committee to take seriously the conflict that exists between the stated objective of treating all applicants equally and the objective of encouraging retail diversity. An equality policy that treats everybody equally does not achieve genuine equality because people have different needs, so the policy of treating all applicants equally, regardless of their identity, of the nature of the retail offer that will change the situation, and of what we know very clearly about the economic impact of supermarket expansion will not achieve the stated planning objective of encouraging retail diversity. Again, I encourage the committee to look as creatively and as open-mindedly as possible at the petitioner’s case.
It is not extra work, convener. I remain to be convinced that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is sufficient to deal with the issue that the petitioner has raised. We have been told in submission after submission that planning alone cannot deal with the issue. The question is whether or not the text of the section of the bill that is specified in our papers for today’s meeting is sufficient to allay the fears of the petitioner and of other communities around Scotland.
Another issue is the Government’s view on additional powers, and whether any aspects of the bill as it is currently drafted could be amended to take account of the concerns that the petition raises.
I am not sure whether the original petitioner, Ellie Harrison, has responded to any of the points that have been raised in the responses that the committee has received. It would have been useful to have received a written submission from the petitioners to indicate their views on the responses to date, and how they think we should progress the issue.
The original request was to look at the planning legislation and to find out how local authorities could, through their planning powers, tackle the issue of the footprint that is being left by some major retailers in our town centres. The question was whether the bill as drafted can allow local authorities and others to raise reasonable objections or concerns about a major multinational company siting itself on the corner or centre of the high street.
Thank you for that. With regard to your first point, the petitioner has not responded. I agree that it would have been useful to have had that information.
The complexity with the petition is that some elements of it are reserved to competition policy, which makes things quite difficult. I accept the point about planning. I am quite encouraged by the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill as it contains some sensible ideas, but you are probably right to say that it will not be a magic wand in relation to the petition.
I just feel that, as the Local Government and Regeneration Committee is examining the bill, there might be an opportunity for that committee to do a bit more work on the petition. I take Jackson Carlaw’s point: the petitioner has done a lot of work in submitting evidence, and I want to ensure that the evidence goes before another committee that can look at it with fresh eyes.
You missed my comments about our options on the petition. We boiled it down to two, which are to close the petition on the basis that we have explored the issues as far as we can, and to refer the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee because it is scrutinising the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. The latter option might be more appealing to you. What are your views on the options?
If those are the only two options, then you will perhaps not be surprised to learn that I encourage the committee to refer the petition on. The on-going mismatch between the stated objectives and what is happening on the ground, not just in Glasgow but around the country, requires further consideration.
I merely note that if the committee wishes to pass the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for further consideration, the timetable for examination of the bill is very heavy and it may be difficult to add to that reasonable consideration of the petition if we want the issues that it raises to be given full justice.
If committee members are so minded, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee will take the petition on board, but there is a question about whether or not it has the time. We on that committee have already diarised the dates for our evidence sessions and our work ahead. This committee can by all means pass on the petition, but we should not expect a full and detailed examination of the issues that it raises.
Thank you for your comments.
Do members who have not yet spoken have suggestions for the next steps? Can you confirm your views on the matter?
To prove that I am not a complete curmudgeon, I am happy to support the latter option. I do so for two reasons. First, I am aware that the petitioners feel very strongly that we have not done justice to the considerable volume of work that they produced, although as you will know from my previous contributions on the petition I am not entirely sympathetic to supporting the conclusion that the petitioners wish for. In addition, to give balance to Mr Harvie’s intervention, I have become aware, in the time since the committee last considered the petition, of areas and towns in Scotland where the opening of a local convenience store on an otherwise derelict high street has led to the prospering of additional new businesses adjacent to it. We must be very careful that we do not mount an unsubstantiated crusade against local convenience stores simply because they are being operated by national retail multiples.
I am happy to go along with the recommendations.
Thank you for that. I would never accuse you of being a curmudgeon. I invite other members to give their views on the petition. Are we happy to refer it to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee?
I have spoken, convener; I said that I am loth to close the petition because it has some merits, especially in taking into account the view that major retailers are riding roughshod over independent retailers in certain areas of the country.
For the reasons that have been mentioned by Patrick Harvie and other members, I am content with the recommendations.
Thank you. We are agreed by majority that we will refer the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee so that it can look at the issues as part of its scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill. I thank Patrick Harvie for coming along and making his submission, and I thank the petitioners for all the work that they have done on the issue.
National Bird (PE1500)
We should continue the petition and we should, as John Wilson suggested, ask the petitioners for their views on how to move forward.
I am happy to go with the recommendations.
I am open to clarification, but I recall that a precedent was set with regard to the Scots pine, when the Forestry Commission conducted a consultation. I would be happy to go along with John Wilson’s suggestion that we contact the RSPB to see whether it is willing to undertake a consultation, and then we can bring it back.
The next petition is PE1500, by Stuart Housden OBE, on behalf of RSPB Scotland, on the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
I have no strong views on the subject.
We have received what I regard as a most commendable further letter from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, who has reiterated—very sensibly, I think—the point that I tried to make at a previous meeting. That point is that the case has not been proven regarding the general adoption of national symbols for this, that and the next thing, and regarding the question whether, if there were to be a bird as a national symbol, a decision should be made in favour of any particular species. Given that we have now had two letters from the minister in which he has emphatically made that point, I suggest that we close the petition.
I note that there is some consideration of whether a broader consultation might validate a subsequent opinion on the matter. However, I am not persuaded that the reach of RSPB Scotland or its resource thereby is adequate. We have just had a public consultation that engaged 3.6 million people; I am not altogether sure that a consultation that manages to engage a few thousand people is representative of anything.
I am concerned about the point that the minister makes twice regarding the debate about the general adoption of national symbols. There must be some agreed conclusion on that before we start to consult on what specific individual symbols might be.
Jackson, do you wish to come back on that point?
I take your point, Mr Carlaw. I am not sure whether you are suggesting that we should have had two questions in the referendum a few weeks ago.
I do, because that is what the minister said and maybe we have to write it into the record. He said:
“There is also a wider discussion to be had about national symbols generally—what do we want of them, and what other types of national symbols might we want to consider. I recognise that we now have a national tree, the Scots Pine, however I feel that choosing these symbols is more than just an environmental or ecological question.
It was for this reason that I expressed the hope that we might get a more rounded picture by asking other Parliamentary committees for their views. I appreciate that you have done this and received some responses, but I would still prefer that we find a way of getting a considered view from the Parliament about the value and purpose of national symbols and hopefully avoid the potential for ending up with national symbols proposed and designated on what is essentially an ad hoc basis.”
That is a clear recommendation that goes beyond the scope of the immediate petition, which is why I believe that the petition should be closed, although it is an interesting argument for Parliament to consider.
That was clearly a missed opportunity.
I understand that, but I am trying to get some consensus, because the majority of the committee wants to defer and ask the RSPB for its view. If we wrote to the RSPB and it said that it could do a consultation, not just of its members but of the Scottish public, and within a timescale that the Government was happy with, is that not something that we could facilitate? If we get a positive note back, we could discuss it again at a future meeting.
RSPB Scotland is a very large—if not the largest—membership organisation, and I feel strongly that if it was to carry out a consultation, as it has asked to do, it would be done very well. John Wilson wants to add some comments.
I am obviously in the minority. I do not see how that suggestion addresses the question whether we want national symbols, which seems to be the minister’s caveat prior to consideration of adopting any particular symbol for any particular thing. That goes beyond the scope of the petition. Even if the RSPB were to say that it would carry out a consultation, I do not see how that would get us beyond the minister’s consideration of whether we want national symbols.
I declare my membership of RSPB Scotland. Jackson Carlaw paraphrased the minister’s letter, which actually states:
“However I am not convinced that a persuasive case has yet been assembled in favour of Scotland having a national bird or for the golden eagle to be that national bird.”
The minister goes on to say:
“you will be aware of the procedure that was devised for the Scots Pine designation. That process did involve some public consultation, and I believe that involving the public would be a vital part of any future procedure”.
As the convener has indicated, RSPB Scotland is currently one of the largest membership organisations in Scotland, if not the United Kingdom. It might be useful to keep the petition open and to contact the petitioner to seek his views on the minister’s letter, with a view to asking whether the RSPB would be prepared to carry out a full consultation of its members, along with other organisations, to determine whether the golden eagle could be designated as a national bird.
I am reminded of the debate on the Scots pine, in which the minister, although he originally indicated that he was not in favour of the Scots pine as a national tree, did, after considering a member’s motion that was before Parliament, agree to the designation. So, a similar issue has been raised in the past, and the minister has taken a view and then relented on his original position.
It may be useful for us to write to the petitioner and seek his views, and to ask whether or not the RSPB would be prepared to carry out the necessary consultation, as outlined by the minister.
I ask other members for their views—I will invite Mr Carlaw back in later if he wishes to respond.
Sure. I make one final plea for consensus. If the RSPB does come back on a positive note about running a consultation, and the Government is happy with the type of referendum that it is running, would that resolve the issue that you are raising? That is what happened with the Scots pine.
It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Yes. I am conscious of time; we could probably keep the discussion going for a while. I note Jackson Carlaw’s opposition and I understand it, but a majority wants us to defer the petition and to ask the RSPB whether it is able to run a consultation. Once we get its response, we should check with the Scottish Government on its views and take it from there.
Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
The committee has decided to refer the petition to the Justice Committee. We should also highlight the evidence that we have received.
The next petition is PE1501, by Stuart Graham, on public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following suspicious death investigations. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
I am minded, as recommended, to refer the petition to the Justice Committee and to allow that committee to consider it as part of their on-going work on other issues.
Do other members have views? Do you agree with John Wilson?
Members indicated agreement.
If members agree on that, it is worth noting that Mr Graham has put a lot of work into his petition and has responded with some strong comments, saying:
“I can only say that I am dismayed by the lack of support for change in our system. It appears that the concept of Social Justice does not apply to the families of bereaved.”
He feels strongly about the situation and I would welcome the Justice Committee’s views on the petition.
I am not in disagreement. I have had constituents—other members may have had too—who have found themselves at odds with the system regarding this matter. I pass the petition on to the Justice Committee with a considerable amount of sympathy for the issues underlying the petition.
Aberdeen to Inverness Rail Improvement (PE1509)
PE1509, by Lee Wright, is on Aberdeen to Inverness rail travel improvement. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
When we previously discussed the petition, I raised a couple of points to put to the Scottish Government. One was about dualling the rail line to Aberdeen and to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The lack of dualling causes problems in the Highlands and Islands rail infrastructure. The Scottish Government has responded to that. Mr Wright also made a point about the lack of electrification north of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
I suggest that we do nothing further bar noting the points that Mr Wright made and his good petition. As we have had a final response from the Scottish Government, do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Amendment) (PE1512)
PE1512, by Bill Chisholm, is on amendments to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite members to comment.
The petitioner raises several issues with the responses that we received. He mentions again that the Scottish Information Commissioner responded to the petition before it went public on the Parliament’s website.
Some issues with how freedom of information requests are dealt with are outstanding. The petitioner initially highlighted questions about the accuracy of information that bodies provide in response to requests, and those questions have not been fully answered in the submissions. Ensuring that accurate, up-to-date and relevant information is provided in response to a freedom of information request is still an issue.
I am not sure how we could take forward the petition, as the Scottish Government, the commissioner and others are content with the system. I am not sure whether there is scope to make progress.
I hear what John Wilson says. The Scottish Government does not propose to take forward the petition and agrees with the Scottish Information Commissioner. We have raised and explored the issues but, if the Scottish Government is not prepared to take them forward, we can make no further progress. In those circumstances, my view—whether or not I think that it is a desirable response to the petition—is that we can pursue no further course, so we require to close the petition.
I read the Scottish Information Commissioner’s annual report, in which the commissioner made strong comments about some public bodies’ failure to respond to freedom of information requests. The commissioner is clear about the problem.
I take Jackson Carlaw’s point. The petition is good, but I am not sure how much further we can take it when we have had a strong steer from the Government. Do members agree to close the petition on the basis that we have taken it as far as we reasonably can and agree to thank the petitioner for his excellent work?
Members indicated agreement.
Thyroid and Adrenal Testing and Treatment (PE1463)
I thank the committee for its continued interest in the petition. I note that the response that the committee received from the Scottish Government says that the listening exercise will focus on
“the needs and experiences of those with thyroid disorder”,
which is welcome. However, in her letter, the petitioner Lorraine Cleaver reiterated the point that a committee inquiry would have value and could even run alongside the Government’s exercise. I add my continued support for that suggestion.
It is up to the committee to decide whether a one-off session with the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network would be useful. I understand from the petitioner that a Healthcare Improvement Scotland scoping report that was published recently points to thyroid function guidelines being based on poor-quality evidence.
A session with SIGN might help to progress that issue. The petitioner noted in her letter that more and more new evidence is being produced, which is extremely interesting.
I thank the committee for its continued interest.
I thank Elaine Smith for attending and the petitioners for their thorough petition.
Members will see that our note suggests a one-off evidence session with SIGN—I am sure that all members are aware of its full name. Do members agree to have that session?
Members indicated agreement.
We will let the petitioners know when that session is to happen. If Elaine Smith wishes to attend it, she will be welcome.
That ends our public business. We will go into private for a brief item.
12:01 Meeting continued in private until 12:02.
The final current petition is PE1463, by Lorraine Cleaver, on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment. If my glasses are working, I think that I see that the petitioner is in the public gallery. Members have a note by the clerk. I ask Elaine Smith, who has had a long-standing interest in the petition, to comment briefly.
12:00Previous
New Petitions