Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
A83 (Rest and Be Thankful) (PE1540)
The next agenda item is consideration of continued petitions.
The next petition for consideration is PE1540, by Douglas Philand, on a permanent solution for the A83. The committee last considered the petition in December 2016. At that time, the then Minister for Transport and the Islands had outlined a programme of engagement and consultation, which would include work on the A83, as part of the national transport strategy. It was indicated at the time that work on the strategy was to culminate in 2018.
In bringing the petition back before the committee for consideration, it is noted that there have been further landslips on the A83, which have resulted in further disruption to road users. That is despite some mitigation work having taken place. The most recent disruption was in October. Following that landslide, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, said:
“I’ve asked Transport Scotland officials to review the current programme of mitigation measures, with a view to further improving the resilience of the road, and report back to me in early 2019.”
We understand that the cabinet secretary convened a meeting of the A83 task force in November 2018 to allow local and regional stakeholders the opportunity to discuss the recent incident and wider issues.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee in the previous session of Parliament, when we visited the Rest and Be Thankful to see the measures that had been put in place—the catch fences and the improvements to the old military road. In October, over 3,000 tonnes of debris was caught by the catch fences, but debris still managed to get to the old military road.
The A83 is a vital link in the area, especially for economic benefits. I suggest that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and see what updates he has received from Transport Scotland.
In doing so, we should get clarification on the cabinet secretary’s comments following the October landslip. He said:
“We are also working closely with Forestry Commission Scotland to reintroduce vegetation on the hillside to help reduce the risk of landslips.”
I would be keen to hear from the Scottish Government what the timeline is for the planting of any trees or vegetation. Like David Torrance, I was on the Public Petitions Committee when the first petition was lodged, and one of the solutions was to plant trees to secure the soil. The current petition was lodged in 2014 and the trees are still not planted, so I would be keen to get a timeline for that.
The national transport strategy, which is currently under way, is not due to be published until the end of this parliamentary session. I would be keen to explore whether the Government is considering the issue outside that strategy; otherwise, we would probably be three years down the line before any work was done—which, in this particular instance, is too long. As long as it does not take work away from the A77 and A75, I am completely up for it. [Laughter.]
We are not going to have a priority list for roads.
We are.
I think that the same argument pertains here: it is not just a transport issue or a safety issue; it is about the local economy. The A83 is very significant for that part of Argyllshire. If the road is blocked, the inconvenience for people when they have to take a detour is massive.
This is probably not much consolation to the people who rely on the road in Argyll, but it is worth noting that, from the cabinet secretary’s comments, it looks as though the preventative work that has been undertaken so far
“prevented the road from being closed for at least 40 days”.
There have been benefits from the work that has been done already, but clearly not enough.
There was some progress. It is frustrating that there was another landslide after that. The issue around forestation has become even more important. If mitigation was identified that is not now being pursued or has not yet been pursued, it would be interesting to know why.
At what point might the issue become a priority? We have had the consultation, the meeting of the task force and the recommendations that have been made. At what point do we say enough is enough? Transport Scotland absolutely has to put this to the top of the list and do something about it.
If it does not, the question is, what is blocking the decisions that it has already made?
Do members agree to write to the Scottish Government, asking for an update on the consultation on the review of the national transport strategy and where the A83 fits into that? We can also ask whether the issues around the A83 could be taken out of the strategy so that there is not such a long-term approach. That is Brian Whittle’s point—it must be recognised that this is an immediate issue. There is then the whole question of what has happened on mitigation and forestation. It would be useful to get an update on the meeting of the A83 task force in November 2018. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We recognise that it is a long-standing issue for the Public Petitions Committee. Clearly, a great deal has already been done, but there are some remaining challenges, and the emphasis in the petition on a permanent solution for the A83 is not lost on the committee.
Energy Drinks (PE1642)
The next continued petition for consideration is PE1642, by Norma Austin Hart, on the sale and marketing of energy drinks to under-16s.
The committee considered the petition in September and noted that the UK Government had launched a consultation in August, seeking views on whether the sale of energy drinks to children should be stopped. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, asking whether it had any plans to consult on the same terms on which the UK Government is consulting and requesting that it keep the petition open until a response had been received.
The Scottish Government has now responded, saying that it intends to hold its consultation in the spring of 2019. The Scottish Government states that
“the UK Government consultation does not explicitly seek the views of young people”
and that, therefore, it will commit to
“some bespoke engagement with young people in Scotland to seek their views”.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
11:00
I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition, which links to a great deal of the work that is being done on health in the Parliament. Generally speaking, I am uncomfortable about legislating to force people to adopt certain behaviour, but, in this case, the problem is becoming endemic. It is good that the Scottish Government is going to delve into an issue on which the committee has had input. Given that the Government is to conduct such an in-depth study, we have probably reached the point at which there is not much more that we can do. Therefore, it might be appropriate for us to close the petition.
I would like to thank Norma Hart for bringing the issue to the committee’s attention. Her petition was very timely. A headteacher in the Borders told me about the disruption that caffeinated energy drinks cause in the classroom and the difficulty that teachers have in controlling children who have consumed high-caffeine drinks. It is an important issue. The Scottish Government is to launch its consultation next spring. I hope that the current serious situation does not drag on and that the UK and Scottish Governments will work together to address it.
I am very pleased that the Scottish Government wants to consult young people on the issue. Given that it has taken on board the seriousness of the petition, it feels to me that it would be appropriate for us to close the petition in recognition of the progress that has been made. We can urge the petitioner and others with an interest in the issue to participate in the consultation and to encourage young people they know to do so, too. If, for any reason, progress stalled, the petitioner could come back to us.
Angus, do you have a view?
I agree with the comments that have been made.
We recognise the progress that has been made and we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government intends to consult on restricting the sale of energy drinks. We encourage the petitioner to participate in that consultation.
We thank Norma Austin Hart very much for lodging her petition on what is not just a local issue but one on which there are shared concerns. What the response looks like is a matter for another day, but we thank her for raising what is recognised to be an important issue.
Glue Traps (PE1671)
The next petition is PE1671, by Lisa Harvey and Andrea Goddard on behalf of Let’s Get MAD for Wildlife, on the sale and use of glue traps.
Since our previous consideration of the petition in April, when we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, we have received from the petitioners two submissions, which are included in our meeting papers.
The first submission, which is dated 27 August 2018, reflects principally on the cabinet secretary’s evidence. The petitioners appear broadly to welcome the cabinet secretary’s evidence, although they outline some remaining concerns—not the least of which is their position that glue traps cause “unacceptable unnecessary suffering”. The petitioners offer some suggestions as to how the Scottish Government might work with a range of agencies, including in New Zealand, with a view to developing future policy in the area, agreeing a revised code of conduct and restricting the sale of glue traps to certified pest controllers.
In their second submission, which is dated 20 September 2018, the petitioners offer detailed feedback and suggestions on the current “Pest Management Alliance—Code of Best Practice Humane Use of Rodent Glue Boards”. The alliance has acknowledged the petitioners’ comments and feedback, and has indicated that it will
“look at the potential of a redraft of the current Code of Practice”
in that context. It adds that it would be willing to present any revised code to the committee for future consideration.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Animal welfare is an important issue and a big part of a politician’s consideration these days. Given that the cabinet secretary has suggested that the Scottish Government might approve an existing industry code of practice, as produced by the pest management alliance, we should take evidence from it in order to better understand how the code of practice might work in Scotland.
I am interested in exploring why the traps cannot simply be banned. The cabinet secretary said that that would be difficult and that there are certain circumstances in which they can be used, so I am interested in what those circumstances are, and in what the protections are. We all found the concerns that were highlighted about the impact of glue traps on small birds and so on very distressing. I want to explore whether the suggestion is that it is too complicated to do something different, or whether, since the Government does not need to find another solution, it is not going to look for one. It is useful that the pest management alliance is willing to review its guidance and come to the committee. We should recognise that it wants to engage in the conversation.
Do we agree to invite the pest management alliance to give evidence at a meeting in early 2019? If there are further submissions from the petitioners, we will look at them as part of our evidence, too.
Members indicated agreement.
Multiple Births (Support for Families) (PE1683)
The final petition for consideration this morning is PE1683, by Jennifer Edmonstone, on support for families with multiple births. During our previous consideration of the petition in June, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People and to the Minister for Children and Young People. The clerk’s note summarises the submissions that we received from the cabinet secretary and the minister, and notes that the submissions are broadly welcomed by the petitioner and the Twins and Multiple Births Association. TAMBA welcomes the Scottish Government’s consultation and proposals on the best start grant, and the minister’s example of how it is expected that payments will be made under the best start grant and the sure start maternity grant.
The cabinet secretary and the minister outlined measures that the Scottish Government is considering and taking forward within its legislative competence and remit. The cabinet secretary referred to “complex and detailed discussions” that would be required to be held with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs to develop regulations for topping up benefits.
The Minister for Children and Young People referred to the trial of the deposit guarantee scheme, which will run until 21 December 2019. She added that the information that is gathered from the trial will be analysed to further inform how the scheme will be rolled out in the future. At the moment, I note that there is no firm indication of when the full analysis will be available, but we have to assume that it will be at some point in 2020. TAMBA indicates that it looks forward to the review of the scheme, although the petitioner sounds a note of caution about what she refers to as
“a large gap between the ages of 0-3”.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Obviously, the benefits have been recently devolved through the Scotland Act 2016. The cabinet secretary has said that there could be issues with HMRC in topping up benefits, and that any reforms in that area would require further legislation. I am interested in finding out the specifics on that and what HMRC would need to be able to do to get to that point. I am not sure whether we would get that information from the Scottish Government or HMRC, but it would be valid to write to both.
The petition has exercised my mind quite a lot. As we know, the issue is a bit of a political hot potato—if I can put it that way. That aside, we definitely need to look at financial and family planning following the surprise of a multiple birth, and at the various aspects of that. I am interested to know what provision would be made under those circumstances by the UK and Scottish Governments.
How can we inform the Scottish Government as it comes up with its system? How can we bring the issue to the Scottish Government’s attention as it deliberates on its welfare plan? I also suggest asking the UK Government what provision it has made under current legislation. Multiple births are not particularly planned for, and they have a huge impact on a family’s finances.
Shortly after we considered the petition previously, I was out knocking on doors locally, when I met a young mum who had just had twins. She made the point that people do not really understand the impact. None of us understands what the impact of a new baby in the house will be, but having more than one baby has a disproportionate cost impact, which is difficult to plan and prepare for.
Should we look just at the social security system? What are the on-going broader implications of multiple births? We could ask the Scottish Government to look at practical questions. I do not know whether we agreed before to write to ask whether children’s organisations such as Home-Start, which supports young families, are aware of the issue.
Once it is accepted that there is an issue, proofing of policies must be done. For example, do twins get two baby boxes or a twin baby box, which would make more sense? Some things should not be duplicated, but extras of other things might be needed.
I am interested in gaining a broader understanding of how we support such families, which goes beyond what the UK and Scottish Governments are doing. The argument that the situation is all very complex and that HMRC might be involved has been a defence through the ages on a range of policies. My concern is more about how we seek proactively to understand the impact, and what support we can give families that everybody would sign up to.
The numbers are not big. In practice, we could work out quite simply the costs and requirements for people. If we can tease that out, we can ask the Scottish and UK Governments how they would deal with it. We could probably sit here for 10 minutes and come up with a decent plan. The issue is how to introduce legislation or adjustments to legislation to take into account the practicalities.
We agree that the petition is important. When the petition was presented, we were struck by the evidence. We will write to the UK and Scottish Governments about the implications of benefit changes for HMRC, and about other ways in which the Governments can better support families who have multiple births. We will then review the responses.
Members may also want to raise the issue with third sector organisations and other bodies in order to get a better understanding. If organisations have views on how to address the issue, it would be useful to hear them. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Convener, I support your comments about considering not just financial implications, but practical implications. You are right that it is difficult to go back to work after having one child, let alone a multiple birth. Perhaps aspects of employment law need to be reviewed in respect of women who have multiple births.
Maybe a policy change is needed, based on the understanding that a staggered return to work might help. I note that Home-Start has already provided a submission, so we can look at that further.
We agree that the issue is important and that it is not necessarily big-ticket things that would sort it or help families: practical things could also be done.
We have reached the end of our agenda, so I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:14.Previous
New Petitions