Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions.

Petitions PE1098 by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat Community Council, and PE1223 by Ron Beaty both relate to school bus safety. We have been joined by Stewart Stevenson, who has an interest in the issue. Members should have before them a note from the clerk and the submissions.

Does Stewart Stevenson want to make a brief submission to the committee?

I will just make the rather obvious point that the issue remains as important and urgent as when it was first raised in the Parliament. I observe that progress is being made elsewhere. In the third week of August, south of the border, the City of York Council decided to change its contracts to require all school buses to have seat belts. That is a contribution to the discussion, although the subject of school bus safety relates not simply to seat belts but to issues such as the external branding of the bus.

I am here simply to encourage the committee to keep up the pressure on the issue, which remains important not only for the petitioners and my constituents but for people throughout Scotland. I hope that my presence today ensures that we continue to keep the issue on the agenda and progress it in a vigorous way.

I know that Mr Stevenson had some involvement with transport in a past life, so it is good to have him with us today.

We were previously promised that we would be sent a Scottish Government report that was to be completed by the end of June, but I am conscious that we have not yet received it. Before throwing open the discussion to members, let me say that, as these are both important petitions, I think that it would be sensible to invite Keith Brown to appear before us at a future meeting. However, I want to ask the views of committee members on that before proceeding.

I agree with that suggestion. As I have said elsewhere, for the life of me I do not understand why the issue has not been progressed much more quickly. I know that there are some ramifications for Westminster decision making, but for the life of me I do not understand why the issue has taken so long.

Are colleagues satisfied that we continue the petitions and invite Keith Brown to appear before us at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sure that Stewart Stevenson will note our interest in these important petitions. When Keith Brown appears before us, Stewart Stevenson is welcome to attend that meeting and to speak to the petitions.

Thank you. I will certainly try to schedule that.

I hope that the committee also recognises the continuing commitment of Ron Beaty, who once again is in the public gallery. He has had to travel from the north of Scotland on a regular basis at his own expense. He is by no means the only person to whom the petition matters, but his commitment to the issue is very substantial indeed.

I am sure that, as a committee, we will want to extend our thanks to Mr Beaty for giving up his time to be present in the public gallery today.

---

Betting and Loan Shops (Deprived Areas) (PE1439)

The next petition is PE1439, by Jonathan McColl, on betting and loan shops in deprived communities. Again, members have a note from the clerk and submissions relating to the petition.

In my view, this is a novel and interesting petition that has prompted quite an interesting discussion. However, some of the issues are reserved and the Scottish Government has made it clear that there is no role for planning. Unfortunately, I cannot see any further work that the committee could carry out, but I am always open to thoughts and ideas from other committee members to see how we could proceed. My initial thoughts are that, unfortunately, we should close the petition because I cannot see any further action that we can take. What are committee members’ views?

Does silence mean assent? Do members agree that we close the petition on the basis that we have come to the end of the road in the fruitful work that we can do?

Members indicated agreement.

I place on record my thanks to the petitioner for what was a very interesting petition indeed. Personally, I would have liked to see what more we could have done, but I cannot see any further scope for work by the committee.

---

Flood Insurance (PE1441)

The next petition is PE1441, by David Crichton, on flood insurance problems. Members should have a note from the clerk and the submissions. Members will recall that Mr Crichton gave evidence to the committee and we had a debate in the chamber that many members contributed to.

As members will recall, the issue is that the United Kingdom Government basically needs to underwrite the insurance firms that protect individuals who build in flood areas. My understanding is that the UK Government has now agreed a scheme called “Flood Re”, but it may take a couple of years before that is fully implemented due to the need to clarify European state aid rules in discussions with the European Union.

Again, this is a very interesting petition, but things seem to have moved on. It seems to me to make sense to refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee under rule 15.6.2.

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has scheduled the issue of flooding into its work programme for the next few months. This would be a good opportunity to refer the petition to that committee.

Having led the chamber debate in the convener’s absence, I subsequently wrote to the minister as an aide-mémoire so I know that the minister is pursuing the issue with Westminster. I sincerely hope that we can bring forward the flood re scheme that the Westminster Government and the Association of British Insurers are discussing.

Clearly, the much wider issue around climate change, which is beyond the scope of our discussions today, is an issue that we are all worried about for the future.

We discussed that issue during the debate. I sincerely hope that we will not continue to subsidise to the same extent those areas elsewhere that are more severely affected.

Do members agree to the course of action that I outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Miscarriage (Causes) (PE1443)

The next petition is PE1443, by Maureen Sharkey on behalf of Scottish Care and Information on Miscarriage, on investigating the cause of miscarriage. Members have a note from the clerk and the submissions.

Again, this was an excellent petition, on which I think we have tried to touch every base. The Scottish Government has stated its clear support for the current Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines. On the whole, the organisations that we contacted did not support investigating whether there should be more testing for women. That is unfortunate, as the petitioner makes some good points, but we have to go with the evidence before us.

I see no action other than to close the petition, but I am open to persuasion.

12:00

I suggest that we write to the Royal College of General Practitioners again and ask it about its patient-centred care objectives. It has outlined them in its response, but we should inquire further. It makes reference to the e-learning module on early pregnancy loss, which is on its website and is free to members to access. We should ask how many GPs access that module and whether any issues have been raised about the number of GPs who take up the opportunity. It is like having a leaflet in a doctor’s surgery—the information gets out only if people actually read the leaflet.

My opening comment on the petition concerned patient-centred care. I would like to know how the Royal College of General Practitioners measures the patient-centred care in relation to the patient’s request to a GP or a consultant for early testing in relation to miscarriage. In my view, that request might conflict with the patient-centred care philosophy that, in its response, the Royal College of General Practitioners claims to have.

Do members agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Organ Transplantation (Cancer Risk) (PE1448)

PE1448, from Grant Thomson, is on improving awareness of the cancer risks in organ transplantation. Members have a note from the clerk and the submissions.

I think that we should close the petition on the basis that the three Scottish transplant units and the Newcastle unit have implemented the Scottish transplant group’s recommendations.

Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Hyperemesis Specialist Nurses (PE1454)

PE1454, by Natalie Robb, is on hyperemesis specialist nurses. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

I note that the Scottish Government is setting up a Scottish hyperemesis network, and that new guidelines are to be commissioned. This is a thoughtful petition and I think that we have pushed the issue as far as we possibly can and have, I hope, ended up with some sort of positive result. Are members content to close the petition, on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Vacant Land in Private Ownership (PE1465)

PE1465, by Tony Ivanov, is on maintenance of vacant land in private ownership. Members have a note from the clerk and the submissions.

I think that we have little choice but to close the petition, because there are already relevant powers in place and the Scottish Government is stating that it will not amend them. However, again, I am open to persuasion.

I am tempted to support your proposal, convener, but I feel that the response from the Government represents a complete abdication of responsibility. We have gone around in a huge circle and have ended up where we started. We knew that the relevant powers existed; the issue was that they were not being used or enforced. That was because the people who had the opportunity to do so believed that there was a degree of confusion about whether they could do so, and we tried to establish when the powers had been used.

In many ways, I feel that we have failed the petitioner. I am not any clearer, at the end of our investigation, about why the situation exists, what is going on or what future remedy exists. I do not know what more to do, but I feel that the Government’s response fails to meet the fact that, whatever it might say, the issue is not being remedied on the ground.

I have a lot of sympathy with Jackson Carlaw’s point. If there is further action that the committee can take in order to cast some light on the issue, I would be up for doing that.

Towards the end of his letter to us, Mr Ivanov spells out the response of his local authority. When his local authority threatened to go on a landowner’s land to clean it up, it was threatened with legal action by the landowner for trespass. If such confusion exists at local authority level, it is clear that there needs to be a change in the guidance that is issued to local authorities and the action that is taken.

In one of the bullet points in his response to the committee, the policy manager in the Government’s directorate for local government and communities says:

“We are not aware of any evidence that Amenity Notices are routinely ignored or not complied with.”

At the same time, the petitioner is being told by his local authority that it is not willing to take any action in case legal action is taken against it.

As Jackson Carlaw has pointed out, there seems to be confusion out there. I argue that, if the situation is confusing for local authority officials and they feel that it is inappropriate to take legal or enforcement action against landowners, there is something wrong with the guidelines. I suggest that we write back to the Government, make it aware of the petitioner’s response and seek clarification of whether the directorate for local government and communities gathers information from local authorities or has surveyed them to find out whether there are problems with enforcement notices being issued.

The directorate says that

“less than 1% of enforcement notices result in prosecution.”

Is that because of the failure of local authorities to take enforcement action? Is it realistic to say that, with 99 per cent of enforcement notices, the issue is resolved without a prosecution? We should seek clarification of those issues before we close the petition.

That is a good point.

It is not only unfortunate but extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government has no plans to amend section 179 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. I agree with Mr Ivanov that

“the act is incomplete without the powers to see it being fully implemented.”

I would not feel comfortable with closing the petition, as I think that we still need further clarification from the Government. The local authorities need clarification so that they can implement the act.

I support that. I have raised a parallel issue with the Government regarding listed buildings that the owners have just walked away from and left. I think that the resistance of local authorities is partly to do with the cost of legal action in the event that they have to take it. That leads to their saying, “We’ll do nothing,” which is unacceptable. I intend to discuss the matter in detail with the Government, because there are many buildings—certainly in my part of the world—that are just not tended or looked after. Finding the landowner is almost impossible and the council will not get involved because of the cost. I suspect that the same is true with vacant land, so I support the view that we should keep the petition going.

Jackson Carlaw made a good point when he said that it is important that we go the extra mile for every petitioner. I think that we all feel uncomfortable about the idea of closing the petition at this stage, so let us take up John Wilson’s suggestion and pursue matters with the Scottish Government. Although the petition deals with vacant land rather than buildings—

I understand. I am just saying that it is a parallel issue.

While we are on the subject, I refer Mr Brodie to my proposed member’s bill on dangerous buildings, which should resolve the problem if it gets through Parliament, but that is by the by.

---

A90 Dualling Project (PE1478)

The final current petition is PE1478, by Murray Cooper, on the A90 Balmedie to Tipperty dualling project. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

Unfortunately, we have been told that what is proposed is not possible under the current timescale—that is the feedback that we have got from the local authority and Transport Scotland. I invite innovative views from members on how we can progress the petition.

I suggest that we close the petition but that we also send a letter to Transport Scotland to ask it to take on board the petitioner’s views. If an early start could be made on the Balmedie to Tipperty project, that would assist in progressing the petition, but it is clear from the responses that we have received that the financial implications of decoupling the project from the Aberdeen western peripheral route and re-advertising the projects separately would result in unnecessary delays and additional costs. Therefore, I recommend that we close the petition and that we ask Transport Scotland to consider the timetabling with a view to making an early start on the Balmedie to Tipperty project.

Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.