PE/S3/11/6/A
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
AGENDA
6th Meeting, 2011 (Session 3)
Tuesday 8 March 2011
The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 2.
1. Consideration of current petitions: The Committee will consider the following current petitions—
PE1263 Human rights for dairy farmers. The Committee will take evidence from—
Richard Lochhead MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment; Martin Morgan, Food and Drink Industry Division, Scottish Government; Angela Lawson, Solicitor, Scottish Government
PE1098 Mandatory fitting of seat belts on school buses PE1223 School bus safety The Committee will take evidence from—
Keith Brown MSP, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure; Jill Mulholland and Ian Robertson, Road Safety Team, Scottish Government
PE1367 Ban Mosquito devices now. The Committee will take evidence from—
Fergus Ewing MSP, Minister for Community Safety; John Brownlie, Community Safety Unit, Scottish Government; Scott Wood, Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Team, Scottish Government
PE812 Stirling before pylons PE/S3/11/6/A
PE1065 Emerging technologies and engaging young people PE1105 St Margaret of Scotland Hospice PE1115 National and regional transport strategies PE1124 Ban on snares PE1135 Review of guidelines to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood PE1169 Display of sexually graphic magazines and newspapers. The Committee will take evidence from—
David Primrose, Director, George Street Research
PE1175 A92 upgrade PE1236 A90/A937 PE1253 Pre-NHS negligence compensation PE1261 Regulation of houses in multiple occupation PE1273 Overnight running of freight trains PE1302 Larbert rail noise and vibration. PE1277 Geodiversity duty PE1288 Improving NHS translation and interpretation services PE1322 Dance teaching and coaching in schools and colleges PE1331 Parkinson's medication - get it on time, every time PE1333 Disadvantaged Scottish Gypsy travellers and members of the settled community PE1354 Citizenship in secondary schools PE1355 Fair public transport costs for students PE1357 Inquiry into the consent of renewable energy generating sites PE1362 Post legislative scrutiny of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 PE1368 Political education for all PE1373 Raise a Saltire in honour of the memory of Bishop Robert Wishart PE1378 Silicone breast implants - rupture awareness PE1380 Prohibiting the re-sale of football tickets PE1388 Repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 PE1108 Availability of cancer treatment drugs
2. Annual Report: The Committee will consider a draft report for the parliamentary year from 9 May 2010 to 22 March 2011.
3. Legacy Paper: The Committee will consider a draft legacy paper.
Fergus D. Cochrane Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee Room T3.40, The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5186 [email protected] PE/S3/11/6/A
Papers for the above meeting are as follows:
Item 1 – Consideration of current petitions PE/S3/11/6/1
Item 2 – Annual Report PE/S3/11/6/2
Item 3 – Legacy Paper PE/S3/11/6/3
PE/S3/11/6/1
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
6th Meeting, 2011 (Session 3)
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Consideration of current petitions
The Committee is invited to consider the following current petitions and written submissions received—
PE1263 Petition by Evelyn Mundell on behalf of Ben Mundell calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to accept that individual dairy farmers have human rights and that these have been breached by the operating rules of the ring fencing mechanism attached to the management of milk quotas which should have been carried out in accordance with objective criteria and in such a way as to ensure equal treatment between farmers and avoid market and competition distortion Written submissions PE1263/P: Scottish Government letter of 22 February 2011 PE1263/Q: Petitioner email of 28 February 2011
PE1098 Petition by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat Community Council, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make provision for every school bus to be installed with three point seatbelts for every school child passenger and to ensure that, as part of a local authority’s consideration of ‘Best Value’ in relation to the provision of school buses, proper regard is given to the safety needs of the children. PE1223 Petition by Ron Beaty calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take all appropriate action, whether through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation, to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses, to be used only when school children are on the bus when necessary, and make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.
1
PE/S3/11/6/1
PE1367 Petition by Andrew Deans on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban use of the ‘Mosquito’ and other such devices which emit a loud, unpleasant, high-pitched noise designed to be heard only by those under 25. Written submissions PE1367/M: Scottish Government letter of 25 January 2011 PE1367/N: Petitioner letter of 10 February 2011
PE812 Petition by Caroline Paterson, on behalf of ‘Stirling Before Pylons’, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health. Written submissions PE812/DD: Scottish Government letter of 17 February 2011 PE812/FF: Petitioner letter of 25 February 2011
PE1065 Petition by Rajiv Joshi, on behalf of Young Scot, calling on the Scottish Parliament to use the Microsoft Government Leaders Forum Europe to promote the use of new and emerging technologies to enhance the engagement of young people in the democratic process and to encourage Parliaments throughout Europe to do the same.
PE1105 Petition by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to guarantee retention of continuing care provision for patients who require ongoing complex medical and nursing care, such as that provided at the 30 bed unit at St Margaret’s Hospice, and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care provision at hospices in the context of HDL (2003) 18 are fair and reasonable. Written submissions PE1105/PP: Petitioner email of 27 January 2011 PE1105/QQ: Scottish Government letter of 28 January 2011 PE1105/RR: NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde letter of 15 February 2011 PE1105/SS: Petitioner email of 17 February 2011 PE1105/TT: Petitioner letter of 25 February 2011
PE1115 Petition by Caroline Moore on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway-station Again, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that national and regional transport strategies consider and focus on public transport solutions such as the reopening of Blackford railway station which is identified as a priority action in the latest Tayside and Central Regional Transport Strategy, and in doing so, recognises and supports the positive environmental, economic and social impacts of such local solutions.
2
PE/S3/11/6/1
Written submissions PE1115/V: Transport Scotland letter of 17 February 2011 PE1115/W: Petitioner letter 25 February 2011
PE1124 Petition by Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to introduce provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares
PE1135 Petition by Rob McDowall calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review existing guidelines and risk assessment procedures to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood.
PE1169 Petition by Margaret Forbes, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce and enforce measures that ensure that magazines and newspapers containing sexually graphic covers are not displayed at children’s eye-level or below or adjacent to children’s titles and comics and should be screen sleeved before being placed on the shelf.
PE1175 Petition by Dr Robert Grant, on behalf of Glenrothes Area Futures Group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to immediately improve and upgrade the A92 trunk road, in particular between Prestonhall roundabout and Balfarg junction, to reduce the number of hazards and accidents and bring about improved benefits to the local and wider economy
PE1236 Petition by Jill Campbell calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk. Written submissions PE1236/T: Transport Scotland letter of 10 February 2011 PE1236/U: Petitioner letter of 23 February 2011
PE1253 Petition by James McNeill calling on the Scottish Parliament to compel the Scottish Government to establish a discretionary compensation scheme to provide redress to persons who suffered injury due to negligent medical treatment prior to the establishment of the NHS. Written submissions PE1253/N: Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing letter of 28 February 2011
3
PE/S3/11/6/1
PE1261 Petition by David Middleton calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote better regulation of houses in multiple occupation by (a) giving licensing authorities clear powers to refuse to grant HMO licences where this will affect the amenity of the local area or breach planning policy or the requirement for planning permission; (b) ensuring planning permission is a prior condition for all HMO licensing; and (c) introducing more rigorous enforcement of penalties for illegally operated HMOs including powers of closure and substantial financial penalties to contribute towards the cost of enforcement.
PE1273 Petition by Anne Massie calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take the necessary action and make representations to the appropriate bodies to stop the overnight running of freight trains on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line. PE1302 Petition by Colin Sloper calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that greater consideration is given to the problems of noise and vibration generated by increasing levels of heavy freight on the rail network, and to consider what action can be taken to encourage freight operators to use more track friendly rolling stock. Written submissions PE1273/M and PE1302/R/: Clackmannanshire Council letter of 10 February 2011 PE1273/N and PE1302/S: Network Rail letter of 10 February 2011 PE1273/O and PE1302/T: Minister for Transport and Infrastructure letter of 10 February 2011 PE1273/P and PE1302/U: Scottish Power letter of 10 February 2011 PE1273/Q: Petitioner letter of 17 February 2011 PE1302/V: Petitioner letter of 24 February 2011
PE1277 Petition by Mike Brown on behalf of UKRIGS in Scotland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government through Scottish Planning Policies and Planning Advice Notes to establish a geodiversity duty which integrates all necessary local and national structures for the efficient collection, analysis and sharing of geodiversity data to inform better decision making processes. Written submissions PE1277/H: Scotland’s Geodiversity: Development of the Basis for a National Framework - Scottish Natural Heritage Report, 31 January 2011 PE1277/I: Scottish Government letter of 16 February 2011 PE1277/J: Petitioner letter of 28 February 2011
PE1288 Petition by Dr Godfrey Joseph calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that every NHS board has the structure, funding and capability to provide speedy, accurate and appropriate translation and interpretation services for patients and their families and that such services are consistent across every NHS board.
4
PE/S3/11/6/1
Written submissions PE1288/O: Scottish Government letter of 3 February 2011 PE1288/P: Petitioner letter of 18 February 2011
PE1322 Petition by Jacqueline Campbell on behalf of Residential Provision Parents Group calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate how it will ensure the viability and future of dance teaching and coaching in schools and colleges across Scotland and through a national centre of excellence. Written submissions PE1322/I: Glasgow City Council email of 10 February 2011 PE1322/J: Petitioner letter of 21 February 2011
PE1331 Petition by Tanith Muller, on behalf of Parkinsons UK, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that NHS boards support people with Parkinson’s to get their medication on time, every time, in hospital and at home. Written submissions PE1331/N: Scottish Government letter of 25 February 2011
PE1333 Petition by Shamus McPhee, on behalf of the Scottish Gypsy Traveller Law Reform Coalition, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the inequalities and discrimination faced by Scottish Gypsy Travellers and other members of the settled community residing in mobile homes in terms of assessing council tax liability and water and water and sewerage charges Written submissions PE1333/L: Scottish Government letter of 21 February 2011
PE1354 Petition by Stewart Mackenzie calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce ‘citizenship’ as a compulsory element of the secondary school curriculum and which covers knowledge and an understanding of consumers' rights, the roles, duties and responsibilities of the legal profession and the different courts systems in relation to civil justice and also human rights legislation. Written submissions PE1354/H: Scottish Government letter of 9 February 2011 PE1354/I: Petitioner letter of 23 February 2011
PE1355 Petition by Katy Simmons and Scott Currie on behalf of Arran High School pupils and the Arran Youth Forum, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need to lower the prices for travelling on public transport for all school and further education students age 18 and below. Written submissions PE1355/F: ScotRail letter of 15 December 2010
5
PE/S3/11/6/1
PE1355/G: Strathclyde Passenger Transport letter of 3 February 2011 PE1355/H: Petitioner’s e-mail of 9 February 2011
PE1357 Petition by Tessa Packard on behalf of Black Mountain Farms, Faccombe Estates, Horseupcleugh Estate, Burncastle Estate, Cranshaws and Longformacus Community Councils calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to convene an inquiry to consider the process for consenting onshore and offshore renewable energy generating stations and whether the process achieves an adequate cost/benefit and planning developments/environment balance, particularly for those in rural communities and whether its energy and planning policies compete against local communities’ priorities for land and landscape conservation, tourism and public recreation. Written submissions PE1357/D: Scottish Government letter of 11 February 2011
PE1362 Petition by Brian McKerrow Jnr calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clearly demonstrate how the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the key tenets of Scots Law and to publish the documents and evidence of such compliance. Written submissions PE1362/E: Professor Kenneth Norrie, University of Strathclyde and Professor Elaine E. Sutherland, University of Stirling letter of 13 January 2011 PE1362/F: Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People letter of 10 February 2011 PE1362/G: Scottish Government letter of 10 February 2011 PE1362/H: Scottish Human Rights Commission letter of 11 February 2011
PE1368 Petition by Rowena Carlton MSYP on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that political education is provided to all school pupils and is given prominence within the framework of the new Curriculum for Excellence. Written submissions PE1368/G: Scottish Government letter of 28 February 2011 PE1368/H: Petitioner’s letter of 1 March 2011 PE1368/I: Scottish Government e-mail of 3 March 2011
PE1373 Petition by Lydia Reid and Sammy Lowrie calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Historic Scotland to ensure that great patriot of Scotland, Bishop Robert Wishart, has the Scottish saltire hanging above or beside his effigy in Glasgow Cathedral and that he is recognised by an official plaque and a designated area within the Cathedral to show his contribution to Scottish history.
6
PE/S3/11/6/1
PE1373/A: Historic Scotland letter of 24 February 2011 Written submissions PE1373/A: Historic Scotland letter of 24 February 2011
PE1378 Petition by Mairi Johnston calling on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Government to raise awareness of the dangers of silicone breast implants and to urge the UK Government to ban the use of such implants and review the 3-year time bar rule for medical injury. Written submissions PE1378/D: Scottish Government letter of 22 February 2011 PE1378/E: Petitioner letter of 28 February 2011
PE1380 Petition by Andrew Page calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation prohibiting the resale of football tickets for Scottish domestic and international fixtures, in line with similar legislation currently in force in England and Wales as well as the Netherlands.
PE1388 Petition by William Burns on behalf of Crusade For The Protection Of True Democracy calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to repeal the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, end self-regulation, and remove the independence of the legal profession, bringing it onside with true democracy. Written submissions PE1388/G: Scottish Government letter of 23 February 2011 PE1388/H: Petitioner’s letter of 28 February 2011
PE1108 Petition by Tina McGeever, on behalf of Mike Gray, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the provision, on the NHS, of cancer treatment drugs, in particular cetuximab, to ensure equity across NHS boards on the appropriateness, effectiveness and availability of such treatments. Written submissions PE1108/AA: Scottish Government letter of 13 February 2011 PE1108/BB: Scottish Medicines Consortium e-mail of 17 February 2011 PE1108/CC: NHS Lothian letter of 22 February 2011 PE1108/DD: NHS Grampian letter of 24 February 2011 PE1108/EE: Petitioner’s letter of 28 February 2011
Clerk to the Committee 3 March 2011
7
PE/S3/11/6/2
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
6th meeting, 2010 (Session 3)
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Annual Report 9 May 2010 to 22 March 2011
Purpose 1. The purpose of this paper is to invite the Committee to consider its draft annual report for the parliamentary year 9 May 2010 to 22 March 2011 and to agree to its publication.
2. The Committee will note that similar to last year the annual report includes a section on the Committee’s equalities monitoring work.
Background 3. Under Standing Order Rule 12.9, each mandatory and subject committee is required to submit a report to the Parliament containing details of its activities during that parliamentary year, including details of meetings, the number of meetings in private, and how it took account of equal opportunities in its work.
4. The report is broken down to present an overview of the work of the Committee of the last parliamentary year. It focuses on the key aspects of the work undertaken by it as well as providing an analysis of the equalities monitoring returns.
5. It is suggested that all committees publish their annual reports in the week beginning 14 March 2011. The Committee is invited to consider whether it wishes to publish its report on 14 March 2011.
Conclusion 6. The Committee is invited to consider and agree—
PE/S3/11/6/2
• its draft annual report • the date for publication.
Clerk to the Committee 3 March 2011 PE/S3/11/6/2
Public Petitions Committee
Draft Annual Report
The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—
Introduction
1. This report covers the work of the Public Petitions Committee during the parliamentary year 9 May 2010 to 22 March 2011.
2. The public petitions system provides members of the public with direct access to the policy development and scrutiny arena. The existence of the Public Petitions Committee (PPC), dedicated to the consideration of each admissible petition, means that petitioners can raise issues of concern directly with their Parliament. The process is an example of the Parliament’s founding principles of accessibility, participation and, in particular, the sharing of power.
Committee meetings
3. During the period of the report, the Committee held 19 meetings at which 63 new petitions were discussed, with the Committee hearing oral presentations in relation to 18 of these. At our meeting on 29 June 2010 we took oral evidence from the petitioner PE1335 via video conference.
4. In addition, we considered 298 current (ongoing) petitions (some of which were considered on more than one occasion) and heard oral evidence on 10 of these current petitions in 11 oral evidence sessions. We took oral evidence from a number of Scottish Government Ministers and from a UK Government Minister as follows—
• Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport (PE1098 and PE1223); • Minister for Public Health and Sport (PE1319 and PE1351) • Minister for Children and Early Years; Fergus Ewing MSP (PE1351; • Minister for Community Safety (PE1351 and PE1367); • Minister for Transport and Infrastructure (PE1236, PE1273, PE1302, PE1098 and PE1223). PE/S3/11/6/2
• Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment (PE1263)
5. All meetings were held in public except two items considered at our meetings on 7 December 2010, when we met in private to discuss our future work programme, and 21 December 2010, when we met in private to discuss the progress of research that we had commissioned in relation to a petition. The outcomes of both meetings were recorded in the published meeting Minutes
Scottish Youth Parliament event
6. Our meeting on 29 October 2010 was held as part of the Scottish Youth Parliament conference and was dedicated to considering petitions from young people from across Scotland. This was the first time a committee of the Scottish Parliament had held a meeting in the current Debating Chamber.
7. We were keen to take the opportunity, through this conference, to take forward another of the commitments made in the 2009 report of our year long inquiry into the public petitions process. That report committed us to hold a ‘young petitioners’ meeting. Three petitions were considered by us—
PE1367 by Andrew Deans MSYP calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban use of the ‘Mosquito’ and other such devices which emit a loud, unpleasant, high-pitched noise designed to be heard only by those under 25. We took evidence from the Minister for Community Safety at its meeting on 8 March 2011 [INSERT OUTCOME FROM MEETING?]
PE1368 by Rowena Carlton MSYP on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that political education is provided to all school pupils and is given prominence within the framework of the new Curriculum for Excellence. Through the petition a meeting was facilitated by us between the Scottish Government and the petitioner along with representatives from the Scottish Youth Parliament, Modern Studies Association, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children & Young People and Learning and Teaching Scotland. [INSERT OUTCOME FROM MEETING?]
PE1369 by Jodie McCoy of the South Ayrshire Youth Forum calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require local authorities, under the ‘Power to advance well-being’ provisions (Part three) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003, to undertake impact assessments and specify how, when, with whom (and certainly community planning partners) and on what they will consult when considering the provision of local leisure and cultural facilities and confirm that it will develop guidance to local authorities on this issue which would assist in achieving its National Outcome on young people. This petition will be further considered by the Session 4 Committee under the legacy arrangements. This petition was generated through the Scottish Parliament’s Community PE/S3/11/6/2
Partnerships Project which is a groundbreaking initiative to give a voice to people typically under-represented in political life. It has been developed by the Parliament’s Education and Community Partnerships Team and works with disability rights organisations, difficult-to-reach young people, and people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds to help them get involved with and influence the activities of the Parliament.
8. In relation to the two petitions from the SYP, a lot of discussion and voting had taken place amongst MSYPs and young people across Scotland to bring these petitions forward. This indicated that the topics had emerged as real grassroots issues of importance to the MSYPs. As part of our discussion on these three petitions at the meeting, we opened up the floor to all the delegates to give them the opportunity to express their views on the issues and indicate issues which we could then follow up as part of our consideration of each petition.
[INSERT PHOTOGRAPH OF SYP EVENT?]
Petitions considered
9. The Committee continues to deal with a wide range of issues with health, justice, education and planning again being the most common themes to emerge. The public petitions process provides the opportunity for people to bring forward issues that are of concern to them. They continue to set our agenda.
10. Below is a small selection of the new petitions we considered—
• Prohibit the use of equine underground. (PE1330)
• Extend and simplify the system of Tree Preservation Orders to give all trees a protection similar to that enjoyed by trees in conservation areas. (PE1340)
• Establish a forum and compensation scheme for victims of institutional abuse (PE1351)
• Ensuring that people with Parkinson’s get their medication on time, every time in hospital and at home (PE1331)
• A review of the compulsory purchase powers of local authorities in relation to derelict land (PE1326)
• Education provision for young people and children absent from school due to illness (PE1381
11. As with the previous year we continued our consideration of a substantial number of current petitions with, on average, around 100 current petitions under consideration at any one time. We sought to ensure that each of these came before us about three times over the course of the year so that we made efficient progress in investigating PE/S3/11/6/2
and taking forward each petition. This offered convenience to us and the petitioner as they don’t experience long gaps between meetings.
12. As we approached the end of the parliamentary session, whenever possible, we brought petitions back more quickly to ensure we considered as many as possible before dissolution. To assist we agreed that our meeting on 25 January 2011 would be the last meeting at which we would consider new petitions. This meant we did not begin consideration of these new petitions at a time when we would be unable to take them forward in the most constructive way. We felt that our successor Committee would be better placed to give them the required level of consideration. In addition we were able to then concentrate on dealing only with the 100+ current petitions before us up to dissolution. This approach, we believe, worked successfully.
13. Several petitions considered by us over the course of the year had extremely positive outcomes. This is important, that we are able to point to what are often referred to as ‘successful’ petitions. That can be a difficult point to quantify as our interpretation of successful may be different to the petitioner’s. However, there are some examples where we have facilitated real changes and improvement in the delivery of policies.
14. One example is PE1247 which sought the introduction of a McKenzie Friend facility in the Scottish courts. This would enable people who, for whatever reason, are unable to be represented in court by a solicitor to be accompanied by someone who can assist them throughout the process. The outcome of the petition was action by both the Court of Session and the Sheriff Courts to formally introduce rules to enable the McKenzie Friend facility to be used in Scotland.
15. Another is PE1307 which sought to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children.
16. As a result of this petition a debate was held in the Chamber on 10 June 2010 and funding of the Men’s Advice Line by the Scottish Government will continue to 2012. The Scottish Government has also set out various actions being taken to increase awareness of male domestic abuse including the provision of information on its domestic abuse website, reviewing the guidance to multi-agency partnerships, and a commitment that all information on domestic abuse from it will address the needs of male victims. There was also an assurance from the Scottish Government that any further educational material it produces on domestic abuse will include the experiences of women, men and children.
17. Petition PE1317 by Paul Dryburgh and Ellen Cummings, pupils at Waid Academy in Anstruther sought to urge the Scottish Government to take the necessary action to ensure that the rights of school aged workers in part time employment are protected so that employers cannot impose excessive working hours to the detriment of the PE/S3/11/6/2
workers academic studies and bring about greater transparency in the distribution of tips to young workers in the hospitality trade.
18. The petitioners had prepared a presentation and information handout for pupils in their school outlining the rights and regulations of the employment of school age workers to raise awareness of the potential for abuse in employment. As a result of the petition the Scottish Government agreed to meet with the petitioners with a view to using the work they had produced to see if it could be used as an example of good practice in providing relevant information within a local authority area.
E-petitions and social media
19. The e-petitions system continued to provide members of the public with the opportunity to sign and comment on petitions before they are formally lodged. In total, 64 new e-petitions were posted on to our e-petition site before being formally lodged and then considered by us. The system continues to provide 24/7 availability and allows people from across the world to support and discuss petitions. E-petitions have been signed by people across the world, for example, Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Sweden, Germany, France, Canada and Mexico.
20. We began a project to redevelop our e-petition system which has been in operation for over 10 years. We continue to make use of our existing technologies such as our petitions blog and a facility to add support to e-petitions by text message.
Information sharing
21. There continues to be interest from other legislatures and organisations in the ‘Scottish petitioning model’. Over the period of this report we (and our Clerk) met with delegations from—
• Officials from the Japanese House of Councillors
• Office of the National Assembly, Vietnam
• Delegation of parliamentarians from the Crimean Parliament
• Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag
• Committee for Supplications and Appeals, Bavarian State Parliament
• John Smith Fellows
22. We also held an external meeting at Arran High School in Arran on 13 September 2010, where we continued with our ongoing work in engaging with young people by PE/S3/11/6/2
taking oral evidence from the petitioners of PE1355 on the issue of fair public transport costs for students.
23. We would like to say thank you to everyone at the school who helped make the meeting a success. The Committee enjoyed a traditional welcome from pupil Ian Clark who played the bagpipes on arrival, followed by fellow pupil Struan Robertson who recited some Robert Burns. Perhaps the first time any committee of the Parliament has begun a meeting in this way!
[INSERT PHOTO OF ARRAN MTG?]
Inquiries and reports
24. The Committee did not hold any inquiries or publish any reports during the period of the report.
Bills and subordinate legislation
25. The Committee did not deal with any Bills or subordinate legislation during the period of the report.
Equalities
26. The Committee collected statistics from our equalities monitoring forms (Annex) which are completed and returned by petitioners. Over the period of this report 15 forms were returned.
27. Any discrepancy in total percentages is due to the fact that not all respondents answered every question. The figures provided are also based on the number of total responses received and not the total of petitioners.
Age YEARS % YEARS % 5-15 0 16-29 27 30-44 0 45-59 33 60-74 40 75+ 0
28. The total number of petitioners aged 16-44 years is 27% compared to 32% in 2009- 10. Further, 73% of petitioners indicated that they were 45 years or older. The 2001 census records show that 40.5% of Scotland’s population is over 44.
Gender identity Female 40% Male 60% No answer 0%
29. The percentage of female petitioners has increased from 28% in 2009-10 to 40%. The 2001 census data shows that 52% of Scotland’s population is female.
PE/S3/11/6/2
Sexual orientation Bisexual 0 % Heterosexual 93 % Gay man 0% Preferred not to answer 7%
Disability Yes No 20 % 80%
30. 20% of respondents indicated that they have a disability compared to 12% in the previous year. This compares to the 2001 census report which states that 20% of the population indicated that they had a long term illness, health problem or disability that limited their daily activities or the work they could do. Language English 100%
31. The response rate to this question was 100%, the same as the last two previous years.
Employment status Employed Full Time 13% Employed Part Time 13% Self Employed 13% Unemployed 7% Retired 33% Voluntary Worker 7% Other (School/Student) 7% Preferred not to answer 7%
32. The highest number of petitions continues to be submitted by people who are retired. The number of petitions submitted by those who are employed full time has dropped from 28% in 2009-2010 to 13%.
Geographical location Highlands and Islands 7% North East Scotland 13% Mid Scotland and Fife 7% Central Scotland 13% South of Scotland 7% West of Scotland 20% Lothians 26% Glasgow 0% Preferred not to answer 7%
33. Comparing the data collected with that of 2009-10 it appears that there has been a significant decrease in petitions from the South of Scotland, decreasing from 24% to 7%.
34. In summary the data collected for this report shows that—
(a) 73% of petitioners were over 45 years of age. PE/S3/11/6/3
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
6th Meeting, 2011 (Session 3)
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Legacy Paper
Purpose 1. The purpose of this paper is to invite the Committee to consider the attached draft legacy paper.
2. At the conclusion of each parliamentary session parliamentary committees produce a legacy paper for their successor committee. The attached paper reviews and summarises the work of the Public Petitions Committee in the third parliamentary session and highlights a number of suggestions to the Session 4 committee. It identifies issues which that committee may wish to consider when developing its work programme and methods of working. Clearly these are matters for the Session 4 committee but the paper sets out a number of suggestions which may be of assistance to it.
Overview of the legacy paper 3. The paper is broken down into four areas of activity—
• General activity during Session 3 • Current petitions for consideration by the Session 4 Committee (as set out in the Annex to the paper) • Engagement work, external liaison and meetings • Procedural
4. The paper may require updating in the light of decisions made by this Committee in respect of the current petitions to be considered at the 8 March meeting. Any petitions which this Committee agrees to leave for the Session 4 committee would be added to a further draft of the paper. As this Committee has no further meetings scheduled, it is suggested that agreement on any future draft is done through correspondence.
PE/S3/11/6/3
5. Similarly, any amendments to be made to the legacy paper would be considered in a further draft which the Clerk would distribute to Committee members for consideration and agreement by correspondence.
Conclusion 4. The Committee is invited to consider and agree—
• the attached draft legacy paper • that any changes to the paper are done through correspondence.
Clerk to the Committee 3 March 2011 PE/S3/11/6/3
Public Petitions Committee: Legacy paper for Session 4 Committee
Introduction This paper reviews and summarises the work of the Public Petitions Committee in the third parliamentary session and highlights a number of issues for consideration by the Session 4 Committee. This Committee recognises that the successor committee will develop its own work programme and methods of working, but these suggestions are made in the hope that they will be of assistance to that committee.
The paper is broken down into four areas of activity—
1. General activity during Session 3 2. Petitions for consideration by the Session 4 Committee 3. Engagement work, external liaison and meetings 4. Procedural
1. General activity during Session 3 Workload Session 3 was a very busy one for the Committee. Below is a breakdown of the number of petitions considered during each parliamentary year—
• 2007-08: 103 new and 231 current petitions considered across 17 meetings • 2008-09: 112 new and over 200 current petitions considered across 20 meetings • 2009-10: 79 new and 265 current petitions considered across 17 meetings • 2010-11: 63 new and 298 current petitions considered across 19 meetings
There has been a noticeable increase in the number of current petitions considered at our fortnightly meetings. This was primarily down to our desire to bring petitions back before the Committee with minimum delay. This meant we sometimes considered a petition 3-4 times over the course of a year. This brought certain benefits to us in that it kept the subject matter ‘fresh’ in our minds and, importantly, for petitioners it ensured their petition moved through the scrutiny/consideration process speedily and with shorter gaps between discussions.
2. Petitions for consideration by the Session 4 Committee At the commencement of Session 3, this Committee ‘inherited’ 122 petitions, broken down as follows—
New petitions not yet considered: 37 Current petitions (not including those referred to other committees): 85
This meant that the Committee, from its first meeting, had a considerable volume of work to take forward.
There are ??? current petitions which will require further consideration by the Session 4 Committee. These are listed in the Annex to this report. In terms of new petitions, the number (at the time of publication of this report) is ??. That number may increase between now and the first meeting of the Session 4 Committee as new PE/S3/11/6/3 petitions continue to be lodged. These will be ‘held’ in readiness by clerks and timetabled to come before the Session 4 Committee.
3. Engagement work, external liaison and meetings Meetings outside Edinburgh and related outreach work This is an area where we have been particularly active. The Committee was keen, as a public facing committee, to ensure it developed a strategy and timetable for a series of external meetings across Scotland. The following meetings were held externally—
• 24 June 2008: Burgh Hall, Dumbarton • 2 December 2008: Berwickshire High School, Duns • 27 January 2009: John Wheatley College, Glasgow • 30 March 2009: Fraserburgh Academy, Fraserburgh • 21 September 2009: Alness Academy, Alness • 15 March 2010: Waid Academy, Anstruther • 13 September 2010: Arran High School, Isle of Arran
Apart from the Glasgow meeting, we were the first committee of the Scottish Parliament to meet in these locations. Indeed, our meeting in Duns was the first time any committee of the Parliament had been to Berwickshire. We adopted this approach of meeting in new locations on purpose. To simply have a meeting in an external location was insufficient. We wanted to take our work to areas furth of Edinburgh. We had to think of ways of encouraging local people to attend the meeting in their local town and then involve them in the meeting itself. We wanted to offer people a positive experience of their Parliament and demonstrate what we do and what the Parliament is there for.
We chose as our venue for several of these meetings the local school. This meant that we had a ‘ready made’ audience, made up of one of the groups we were particularly keen to engage with this Session – young people. We sought to ensure that the agenda for the external meetings reflected petitions which had perhaps come from that area or where the subject matter had some local relevance. However, we also encouraged, through the schools, one or two petitions to come forward from the pupils. This we achieved with our meetings in Duns, Fraserburgh, Alness, Anstruther and Arran. At each of these meetings the pupils made oral presentations before us on their petitions. This was a way of not only generating a local interest but also involving people in the meeting.
We adopted a number of ways to make local people aware of the meeting and to encourage them to come along. This work was taken forward by our clerks in liaison with the Media Relations Office. Approaches would be made to local newspapers, community newspapers and local radio to seek publicity for the meeting. We would also identify local community groups, schools, charities and business groups and issue direct invitations to them. We also liaised with local council community outreach offices to identify other ways of making people aware of the meeting.
This has been a challenge for us. However, we are pleased to note that most of our meetings attracted audiences ranging from 50 to over 100 people.
PE/S3/11/6/3
Other outreach work The approach taken to our external meetings, our desire to involve local people in them, broaden people’s understanding of their Parliament and the public petitions process and to look at ways of engaging and encouraging participation from young people, was underpinned by the report of the Session 2 Committee, Assessment of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions System 1999 – 2006. One of the indications of that research report was a lack of balance in the sorts of people accessing the petition system.
We believe, through small steps, we have been successful at encouraging not just attendance but participation at these external meetings. One key element to this was the internal liaison between the Committee and the Parliament’s Community Partnership Team (CPT). So, for example, when we met in Alness, school outreach staff from CPT visited local schools the week before to hold workshops on the Parliament and the PPC. Some of the schools then attended the Committee meeting on the day.
We also adopted a format to involve those attending the meeting. This began as part of our evidence gathering for our year long inquiry into the public petitions process when we adopted a ‘roving mic’ format. We wanted to know whether people had heard of the petitions process, how we could improve awareness of it and improve the process. What better way than directly ask the public gallery at external meetings. This worked better than expected. Nearly all the suggestions made were taken up, added to our inquiry report and have since been implemented. We also created a good rapport and atmosphere at the meetings by entering into a dialogue with the people attending.
At the conclusion of the inquiry we decided to adapt this format by providing an opportunity at the conclusion of our agenda business for the public to ask members questions. Again, this ’Question Time’ format worked well and created a sense of involvement in the meeting and, we believe, enhanced people’s understanding of what the Parliament and the Committee do.
We were able to learn from each of our external meetings and, through time, would have sought to introduce other engagement ideas. We believe this ‘evolutionary’ approach to be crucial if we are to enhance the reputation of the Public Petitions Committee in the promotion of founding principles.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider adopting a timetable and strategy for external meetings. For example, how many might it wish to hold, when, locations, format for these and whether there are opportunities to link in with other events. One suggestion may be to look at the Moving Stories travelling exhibition which features the stories of 10 people (4 of whom were petitioners) who engaged with their Parliament during the first 10 years and consider whether Committee meetings could be held in the same locations as the exhibition.
The Session 4 Committee may also wish to develop a strategy for further external meetings in discussion with relevant Parliament offices such as Media PE/S3/11/6/3
Relations (regarding publicity) and Community Partnership (regarding local school and community group involvement).
Chamber time The Committee secured time for a number of debates in the Chamber during Session 3. These were—
• Report of inquiry into PE1108 on access to cancer treatment drugs • Report of inquiry into the public petitions process • Petition PE1150 on community prisons • Work of the Public Petitions Committee
The debates proved particularly useful. In respect of petitions PE1108 and PE1150, they provided an opportunity for the subject matter to be discussed directly with Ministers, with more time available to do so, and with more members i.e. non- Committee members able to take part.
With regards the debate on the petitions inquiry report and the work of the Committee, these were extremely useful occasions to highlight our work and the positive outcomes secured by individual petitions. This was certainly the case with the debate on 23 February 2011 when the Parliament discussed the work of this Session 3 Committee. Holding such a debate was something which arose from the report of our inquiry into the petitions process.
Clearly the Committee has to compete with other parliamentary committees in seeking Chamber slots. Therefore, seeking such a slot should only be done where there is a compelling case to do so. The Committee was pleased that it made four bids and was successful with each.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider, where there is merit in doing so, seeking time in the Chamber to discuss individual petitions. In addition, it may wish to consider seeking a slot towards the end of Session 4 for a debate on the work of the committee over that session.
Taking evidence remotely The Committee was keen to utilise information and communication technologies. We recognised that most of our witnesses were petitioners, the vast majority of whom were members of the public, and that using videoconference to take oral evidence could offer certain advantages to them (particularly those in rural locations). However, it was noted that many prefer the personal contact with MSPs and of sitting in a committee room at Holyrood, despite the possible inconvenience of travelling to Edinburgh.
We did take evidence via videoconference on a number of occasions, most notably with the French blood transfusion service. This provided a useful opportunity to gather information and discuss the subject matter with another European country.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider utilising further the use of videoconference as an option to petitioners, who may see the PE/S3/11/6/3
convenience in giving oral evidence in this way, and others when taking oral evidence.
E-petitioning and innovation In the report of our inquiry into the public petitions process we referred to the creativity and innovation which existed in the early years of the Parliament. With respect to e-petitions, we felt we had been overtaken by others operating more user friendly and appealing systems. We were particularly struck by the comments (21 April 2009) of Professor Ann Macintosh, the designer of the e-petitions project who worked closely with the Session 1 Committee in the adoption and implementation of the e-petition system. We agreed with her comments that we have slipped back from being a recognised leader in this field and that the current e-petition system was not fully fit for purpose. We were pleased therefore to commence a project to redevelop our e-petition system.
We were also pleased to introduce a facility, we believe the first in the world to do so, which allows individuals to text support to an e-petition which will provide further convenience to e-petition users.
We also introduced a blog, the only parliamentary committee to do so, which provided a number of advantages in supplying public information about the work of the Committee in a different environment and through a less formal and corporate structure. The blog offered a number of technological advantages to petitioners as it allowed us, on occasions, to host video content and photographs from petitioners relevant to their individual petitions. We have operated our blog and the text service successfully and there has been no adverse impact in doing so.
The principle behind their introduction was set out in our petitions inquiry report. We believe that we needed to do more, using IT solutions and, in particular, social media, to increase awareness of the public petitions process. A web presence is insufficient. There were other opportunities to provide better navigation towards information about the process and more convenient methods of engaging in it through the simple provision of IT services e.g. the SMS/e-petition facility.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider what opportunities there are to utilise simply and with little or no resource impact, available forms of information and communication technologies, particularly social media, which will enhance the profile of the petitions process, the reputation of the Committee and provide benefits to those participating in the petitions process.
It will also wish to monitor the development of its e-petition system.
Panels and round tables The Committee held a number of round table discussions as a way of initiating a free flowing exchange of ideas and views. For example, we held two as part of our evidence gathering on the petitions inquiry and one on petition PE1095 when we were able to facilitate a discussion involving the petitioner, Scottish Government officials, the constituency MSP and Committee members to amplify issues around the status of regional parks. We adopted a similar approach with PE1098 and PE1223 on school bus safety when we facilitated a round table discussion with the PE/S3/11/6/3
petitioners, Convener of the Scottish Youth Parliament transport committee, Yellow School Bus Commission, local MP, Aberdeenshire Council officials and Committee members to again openly and frankly discuss how we might make progress in improving school bus safety.
Clearly such an approach would not be appropriate for every petition and there is, as with Q&A oral evidence sessions, a time impact at Committee meetings. However, this method of gathering information can be productive, particularly given the consensual approach which this Committee maintained in considering petitions and issues behind them.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider continuing to use panel and round table discussion format when taking oral evidence in respect of individual petitions.
Themed meetings A further idea which emerged from our petitions inquiry report was that of themed meetings. This was put forward by pupils at Fraserburgh Academy (one of the external meeting venues) who suggested holding a meeting at which the Committee considers only petitions from young people. We were pleased to take that idea forward and on 29 October 2010, as part of the Scottish Youth Parliament conference in the Parliament Debating Chamber, we held such a meeting. The meeting was very well received and a lot of work was undertaken with the delegates in developing their petition ideas.
However, we also identified in the inquiry report that we would consider holding similar themed meetings which might focus on petitions from disability groups, equalities organisations etc. We didn’t have time to put in place arrangements for a similar meeting but it is an idea which we remain committed to.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider taking forward arrangements for further themed meetings along the lines of the ‘young petitioners’ meeting.
Publishing reports on petitions We undertook a number of more detailed, in depth inquiries into individual petitions. The inquiry into the petitions process has been highlighted in this paper already. We also undertook inquiries into petitions PE1108 (access to cancer treatment drugs) and PE1171 (knife crime). We considered both petitions merited a wider and more in depth scrutiny of the issues highlighted.
This was a demonstration of our desire to evolve the petitions process further. As with the methods of gathering evidence through round table discussions, careful consideration must be given on whether to proceed with a fuller inquiry into a petition as this would require timetabling alongside the Committee’s traditional heavy workload considering other petitions. Such decisions therefore are made on the basis of the petition concerned, the issues raised and whether this approach would be advantageous and a productive use of time. In the above examples it certainly was. In particular, the inquiry report on PE1108 set out a number of key conclusions which the Scottish Government was able to react to. We were pleased that it did so PE/S3/11/6/3
in a positive manner. The collaborative approach by the Committee throughout its investigations into both of these petitions, as with all petitions, resulted in a constructive dialogue with Scottish Government Ministers on taking forward the issues which emerged.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider continuing the approach of this Committee in selecting individual petitions which may merit fuller investigation through the more ‘traditional’ parliamentary committee inquiry method. However, in doing so, it may wish to consider how it would run such an inquiry within its work programme of considering other petitions at its fortnightly meetings. The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider whether any of the procedural actions suggested below would assist in this regard.
Best practice in other Parliaments The Committee was extremely pleased to host and meet with a large number of delegations from across the world, keen to discuss our public petitions model (Wales Catalonia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Australia (federal parliament), Tasmania, Western Australia, Victoria, Queensland, the Crimea, Czech Republic, Gauteng in South Africa, Ethiopia, Japan, Vietnam, Germany (federal parliament), Bavaria, Saxony, Malawi, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and John Smith Fellows).
This provided an excellent opportunity for us to meet, discuss and exchange ideas on the development and enhancement of public petitioning.
The link with the German Bundestag in particular was maintained with its Petitions Committee visiting us in March 2011. While we were unable to visit them in Berlin, there remain areas for further discussion and consideration. What can we learn from them and what can they learn from us. That friendly and now long standing relationship is useful and should continue. Similarly, we developed good links with the Petitions Committee from the Australian House of Representatives which we believe should also be supported and developed.
Through the Parliament’s International Relations Office (IRO), which has been developing a more focussed strategy for inward and outward engagement, we have been able to meet with many of the delegations from these countries who have been visiting the Scottish Parliament, keen to learn about how we undertake business. Such is the reputation of the public petitions process that IRO has offered meetings on the public petitions to visiting delegations.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider, through IRO, setting out a strategy for its engagement with other legislatures and to maintain, and enhance, already established links.
4. Procedural Scheduling of petitions Our approach was for new petitions to be placed on the agenda on a first-come-first- served basis. However, when necessary, some new petitions could be ‘prioritised’ and placed on our agenda earlier when, in our view, it was beneficial to do so. We were content to leave such forward work planning issues to the Clerk. Likewise PE/S3/11/6/3
current petitions would return to the agenda as soon as they were ready (e.g. once responses sought by us had been received and the petitioner had commented) and an available slot was found. Again, the forward planning and strategy for such timetabling was left to clerks and this worked well.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider its approach to the scheduling of petitions.
New petition-only and current petition-only meetings We undertook a number of meetings, usually around two each year, at which we would consider only new petitions or only current petitions. The benefits were that it allowed us to clear backlogs that can build up during recess periods when the Committee is not meeting. In addition, new petition only meetings allowed us to perhaps invite more petitioners to give oral evidence while current petition only meeting would allow us to consider 40-60 petitions at one meeting.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider whether to hold such meetings and, if so, its approach to them.
Referral of petitions to subject committees The approach of this Committee was not to refer petitions straight to subject committees unless there was a very good reason for doing so (i.e. if the petition related to a particular piece of legislation already before that committee or to an ongoing or imminent inquiry). We consider it was important, given the role and responsibility of the Public Petitions Committee, that we should be the ‘guardians’ of the petitions process and should retain every petition except where it would be beneficial to the petitioner to refer it.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider its approach to referring petitions.
Taking no action on petitions While, in nearly every case, at our first consideration of a new petition we agreed to write to appropriate organisations seeking views, procedurally it was open to us to close the petition at that first meeting. This may be in situations where, for example, the position of the Scottish Government is quite clear therefore there is no value in writing to it or proceeding with the petition. While such decisions may not prove popular with the petitioner, that should be weighed against seeking written evidence which, when it is received, simply re-states a known position.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to reflect on its approach to closing new petitions at the first meeting and to consider the implications for its general workload..
Petitions on ‘local’ issues Again, this was an issue which we considered as part of our inquiry into the public petitions process
It was agreed that individual decisions taken by bodies with authority to make those decisions (e.g. local authorities) should not normally, in themselves, be matters this PE/S3/11/6/3
committee should consider. To this end, our clerks tended to encourage petitioners to try to identify a wider subject or an issue of process when submitting petitions relating to such specific decisions.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to reflect, perhaps as early as the first meeting at which it considers the petition, on the circumstances which gave rise to the petition and how far (indeed, whether) it can usefully investigate the petition bearing in mind it has no locus to become involved in the specifics of what gave rise to the petition.
Petitions on reserved topics We agreed in principle to give greater priority to those petitions relating to matters over which the Parliament has power over those relating to matters over which it has no power. These would however be considered on a case by case basis. On this point, admissibility was in practice a fairly low hurdle as most petitions relating to reserved matters could usually be turned into admissible petitions with some minor textual revisions, based on the premise that the Parliament can debate almost anything if it wishes to. Genuinely inadmissible petitions tended to arise on the rare occasions when our clerks’ advice was not taken and the petition continued to ask the Parliament to do something it could not do. However, we only formally considered the admissibility of individual petitions on a handful of occasions.
The consideration of petitions on reserved matters was one which we considered during our inquiry into the public petitions process (paragraphs 167-177). On conclusion we agreed to continue to allow petitions on reserved matters (but which do not call on the Parliament to legislate) to be lodged but that this position would be monitored.
Action: The Session 4 Committee may wish to reflect on its approach to considering petitions on reserved matters. PE/S3/11/6/3
ANNEX
LIST OF CURRENT PETITIONS TO GO FORWARD TO SESSION 4 COMMITTEE
PE1056 Petition by Gordon, Jane and Steven McPherson calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce mandatory assessment tools for all health boards for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT); to ensure commonality of patient guidance information regarding DVT; and to introduce a newborn screening programme for the Factor V gene, which has been shown to increase susceptibility to DVT. Action: The Committee agreed (25 January 2011) to invite the Session 4 committee to consider whether it wishes to seek an update from the Scottish Government on what impact the new leaflets, information and SIGN Guideline is having. It may also wish, in the light of this update, to consider referring the petition to the next health committee.
PE1073 Petition by Tom Minogue calling for the Scottish Parliament to investigate and establish the reasons for the apparently disproportionate number of Catholics in Scottish prisons. Action: The Committee agreed to invite (3 November 2009), through the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, academics to take forward a detailed scoping study on a research project into the issues raised in the petition and to report back to us. We received the draft final report of the research and agreed (21 December 2010) to publish this.
The Session 4 committee may wish to give further consideration to the petition and the issues raised in the research and consider whether to invite other relevant committees of the Parliament to consider, as part of their work programme, undertaking some form of inquiry into the issues raised.
PE1179 Petition by Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of ‘acquired brain injury’ to ensure that people with acquired brain injury and their carers get the services and support they need and agencies can plan and deliver services more effectively. Action: The Committee agreed to suspend (13 September 2010) consideration on this petition for 12 months at the request of the petitioner to allow the Scottish Government and the Association of Directors of Social Work time to report back on the progress made in improving ABI services.
PE1189 Petition by Anne Lear on behalf of the Govanhill Housing Association calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the responsibilities of private landlords, the levels of social housing below tolerable PE/S3/11/6/3
standard, and the impact ‘slum’ living conditions has on the health and wellbeing of both residents and the wider community, and whether such conditions should merit housing renewal area status and additional Scottish Government funding. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition. The Session 4 Committee may wish to reflect on the outcome of the Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill (which is still proceeding through its parliamentary stages) and ???
PE1192 Petition by Donald Ewen Darroch calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to state how it is supporting and promoting independent vehicular ferry routes between the islands and the mainland and how the planning system is playing a constructive role in supporting the economic and social future of such routes. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition. The Session 4 Committee may wish to invite the Scottish Government to set out the outcomes of its consultations on the draft ferries plan/strategy to 2011 and what the impact of that will be on the issues highlighted in the petition.
PE1225 Petition by Michelle Stewart, on behalf of C.diff Justice Group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct, with immediate effect, an independent public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the outbreak of clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven Hospital so that wider lessons for the whole NHS can be learned and that the inquiry involves, and publicly funds, all relevant individuals, groups and organisations affected by the outbreak to determine the inquiry’s terms of reference and identify the issues to be examined. Action: The Committee agreed to suspend (17 November 2009) consideration of the petition until the inquiry being conducted by Lord MacLean has concluded and reported (possibly May 2011).
PE1254 Petition by Mark Laidlaw Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 51 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow flexibility in order that an employee of a fire and rescue authority can also be employed as a special constable. Action: The Committee agreed (8 February 2011) to write to the Scottish Government seeking a response to specific points. It also agreed to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1280 PE/S3/11/6/3
Petition by Julie Love calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the same level of protection to the families of people from Scotland who die abroad as is currently in place for people from England by amending the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to require the holding of a fatal accident inquiry when a person from Scotland dies abroad. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to leave the petition for the Session 4 Committee under the legacy arrangements. That Committee could then consider what action to take once the Scottish Government has responded to the Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation by Lord Cullen. The committee may wish to consider whether to refer the petition to the relevant subject committee for further investigation, perhaps as part of any inquiry/scrutiny it would take forward following this Review or on a ‘stand alone’ basis.
PE1285 Petition by Caroline Mockford calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make arrangements for all calls from mobile phones to NHS 24 to be free of charge to users. Action: Ofcom informed the Committee that it will allocate a new 3 digit phone number (111) for NHS non-emergency healthcare services in England which will be free to the caller. This will be piloted from spring 2010 in a few strategic health authorities and will run for 12 months. The Committee wrote to the Scottish Government (9 February 2010) asking it to consider the outcome of this trial and the impact of introducing such a service in Scotland and to report back.
PE1319 Petition by William Smith and Scott Robertson calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the (1) legal status and appropriateness of professional SFA clubs entering into contracts with children under 16 years; (2) audit process and accountability of all public funds distributed by the Scottish Football Association to its member clubs; (3) social, educational and psychological affects and legality of SFA member clubs prohibiting such children from participating in extra curricular activity; and (4) appropriateness of ‘compensation’ payments between SFA member clubs for the transfer of young players under the age of 16 years; and to (5) increase the educational target from 2 hours curricular physical activity to four hours per week; and (6) develop a long-term plan to provide quality artificial surfaces for training and playing football at all ages across all regions. Action: The Committee agreed (11 January 2011) to await the outcome of the Scottish Football Associations' Review Group findings. It also agreed to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1320 Petition by Douglas McKenzie, on behalf of Communities Against Airfield open Cast calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend PE/S3/11/6/3
Planning Circular 3/2009, Notification of Planning Applications to (a) provide the same status to a planning objection to a major development from a neighbouring local authority as to one from a government agency in order to trigger a notification to Scottish Ministers and (b) state that such objections by a neighbouring local authority to major developments which represent a departure from the development plan should be a significant factor in the decision to call-in. Action: The Committee agreed (8 February 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition. One option may be to refer the petition to the relevant subject committee for further investigation, perhaps as part of any inquiry being taken forward into the planning system or as part of that committee’s consideration of National Planning Framework 3 or on a stand alone basis.
PE1336 Petition by Lawson Devery on behalf of the Salmon and Trout Association calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take immediate action to protect wild salmon and sea trout stocks from inappropriate commercial fish farm activities by taking action to ensure that (a) all sea-based fish farms are moved away from the estuaries of major wild salmon rivers to reduce the impact of sea lice and (b) ban salmon smolt farms from operating within any wild salmon river system. Action: The Committee agreed (8 February 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1350 Petition by Nick Brand calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make a formal loan request to the National Archive at Kew to return the Wallace Safe Conduct to Scotland under a permanent loan agreement. Action: The Committee agreed (7 September 2010) to suspend the petition until the group of experts assembled to establish where and why the letter was produced has made its recommendations (expected spring 2011) and to write to the Scottish Government, asking whether, in light of these recommendations, it will make a loan request to the National Archives to return the Wallace Safe Conduct to Scotland under a permanent loan agreement.
PE1351 Petition by Chris Daly and Helen Holland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish for all victims of institutional child abuse, a Time for All to be Heard forum incorporating a compensation scheme. Action: The Committee agreed (1 March 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Committee to give further consideration to this petition. It may wish to consider inviting Scottish Ministers to attend a future meeting to discuss the actions the Scottish Government will be tasking in the light of the Time to be Heard report.
PE/S3/11/6/3
PE1352 Petition by Mark Hirst calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government who own Edinburgh Castle to instruct Historic Scotland, who manage the site, to work to erect a 90ft flagpole in Crown Square at the Castle from where a Saltire, Scotland’s national flag, will be flown on a permanent basis. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 20110) to seek further information on this petition from Historic Scotland— • Can you provide the Committee with a note of the recent meeting held with the petitioner? What are your views on the suggestions made by the petitioner in his recent response regarding a review being carried out to establish the legal status around flag flying at Edinburgh Castle and on carrying out a consultation to establish a new binding flag flying policy? and the Scottish Government— • What are your views on the request made by the petitioner that a review is carried out to establish the legal status around flag flying at Edinburgh Castle and on carrying out a consultation to establish a new binding flag flying policy?
PE1364 Petition by Phyllis McBain calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all guidelines relating to trespass and encampments for Gypsies and Travellers to ensure their intent is clear and that they are being applied. Action: The Committee agreed (1 March 2011) to write to the Scottish Government seeking responses to specific points and to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1369 Petition by Jodie McCoy on behalf of the South Ayrshire Youth Forum calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require local authorities, under the ‘Power to advance well-being’ provisions (Part three) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003, to undertake impact assessments and specify how, when, with whom (and certainly community planning partners) and on what they will consult when considering the provision of local leisure and cultural facilities and confirm that it will develop guidance to local authorities on this issue which would assist in achieving its National Outcome on young people. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to write to the organisations below seeking a further response— Scottish Government— COSLA— • How many local authorities, community planning partners or other organisations have used VOiCE, developed for the Scottish Government by SCDC, on consulting and engaging with young people since the system was introduced in 2008? • What information do you have on the use by local authorities of children’s rights impact assessments as developed by SCCYP? Is the use of such promoted or encouraged in any way? PE/S3/11/6/3
• Will you respond to the Committee’s letter of 12 January seeking a response to PE1369/B? [COSLA only]
PE1370 Petition by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of ‘Justice for Megrahi’ calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. Action: The Committee agreed (1 March 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1372 Petition by Duncan McLaren on behalf of Friends of the Earth Scotland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clearly demonstrate how access to the Scottish courts is compliant with the Aarhus convention on ‘Access to Justice in Environmental Matters’ especially in relation to costs, title and interest; publish the documents and evidence of such compliance; and state what action it will take in light of the recent ruling of the Aarhus Compliance Committee against the UK Government. Action: The Committee agreed (1 March 2011) to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board seeking a response to specific points and to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1376 Petition by James McDonald calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take necessary action to bring about a ban on the use of free methanol released by aspartame and to run an awareness campaign amongst health professionals to alert them of free methanol present in our diet. Action: The Committee agreed (1 March 2011) to write to Michael Lean, Professor of Human Nutrition at the University of Glasgow, seeking a response to specific points and to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition.
PE1379 Petition by Michael Gallagher on behalf of Green Alternatives to Incineration in Scotland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to (a) immediately ban the construction of new waste incinerators and large biomass burners, and shut all existing plants within 5 years; (b) improve the monitoring of emissions from existing waste incinerators; and (c) accelerate Scotland’s drive to reduce, reuse and recycle waste. Action: The Committee agreed (1 March 2011) to invite, in its legacy paper, the Session 4 Public Petitions Committee to give further consideration to the petition. PE/S3/11/6/3
PE1381 Petition by Gwen Garner, on behalf of Action for Sick Children (Scotland) calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to (a) demonstrate how all local authorities are consistently complying with the duties imposed on them by sections 1(1) and 14(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and section 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc. Act 2000 in respect of all children and young people who are absent from school through ill-health, regardless of where they live or where they are being treated and (b) review the Guidance on the Education of Children Absent from School through ill-health (Circular 5/2001). Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to write to the following bodies seeking a response to the following questions— Scottish Government— • What is your response to the points made by the petitioner in their latest submission (PE1381/C) with an emphasis on: o specific instances where the 2001 guidance is applied differently, e.g., in Yorkhill hospital; o local authority funding hospital teachers to teach only if the child has certain chronic conditions, whereas for other conditions the hospital has to seek the authority’s permission to teach hence causing delays. Does this not demonstrate a lack of consistency? o including newer legislation and Codes of Practice in the 2001 Guidance
COSLA— • Can you demonstrate whether all local authorities consistently comply with their duties to provide education to children in their areas who are absent from school due to illness (where education was provided at home or in hospital)?
PE1383 Petition by Helen McDade on behalf of the John Muir Trust calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the protection for the best areas of wild land by introducing a new national environmental designation. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to invite the Session 4 Committee to consider this petition under the legacy arrangements, once the Scottish Government has had the opportunity to consider the work currently being undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage.
PE1384 Petition by Kim Hartley on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate how its policies and guidelines ensure local authorities and NHS boards protect provision of quality speech and language therapy services for all people with speech/language communication support needs and/or swallowing difficulties. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to write to the Scottish Government seeking a response to the following points— PE/S3/11/6/3
• What is its response to the point made by NHS Lothian (PE1384/D) on the subject of dispute resolution and will it act on this matter? • What is its comprehensive response to all the points/questions raised by the petitioner (PE1384/F)?
PE1385 Petition by Shona Haslam on behalf of Asthma UK Scotland – Youth Ambassadors calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to (1) provide appropriate support and training to school staff to ensure that all schools create and implement a policy to support school pupils with asthma; (2) implement a set of consistent national standards for asthma services in schools; (3) increase the number of school nurses trained to treat asthma; and (4) ensure that school inspections measure the performance of schools in supporting children with asthma. Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to write to the Scottish Government asking it to meet with the petitioner to discuss the issues raised within the petition and to see what action, if any, can be taken. The Scottish Government could then submit a further letter to the Committee setting out the action points to be taken forward.
PE1386 Petition by Richard Munday on behalf of the Torridon Nephrops Management Group calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and pilot the establishment of further spatially separated static gear only inshore fisheries to improve fisheries management Action: The Committee agreed (22 February 2011) to write to the Scottish Government seeking a response to the specific point below—
• Will you consider the written submissions received in respect of this petition and provide a further response to the Committee indicating whether your position on this matter has changed or whether there are any actions which you will take as a result and, if so, when?
PE/S3/11/6/2
(b) 40% of petitioners were aged between 60 and 74 years of age (c) 60% of petitioners were male. (d) 33% of petitioners were retired. (e) none of the respondents indicated that their first language was anything other than English.
Conclusion
35. This final parliamentary year has been a busy one for the Committee with a steady volume of new petitions being lodged, coupled with an extremely high number of current petitions being considered by us. As in the previous year, associated with the consideration of all of these petitions, was the substantial volume of written evidence we gathered. In 2010 we estimate we issued around 2000 requests for information on petitions. For every new petition that comes before us we issue requests for information to both the petitioners and relevant organisations, both at home and abroad if appropriate, with the intention of gathering information and broadening understanding of the issues highlighted. It has also been an important one for us as we continued to develop, enhance and promote the public petitions process and work towards a satisfactory resolution to petitions.