Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
A75 (Upgrade) (PE1610)
A77 (Upgrade) (PE1657)
Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first continued petitions for consideration are PE1610 by Matt Halliday, on upgrading the A75, and PE1657, by Donald McHarrie on behalf of the A77 action group, on an A77 upgrade. I welcome Finlay Carson, who is in attendance for the petitions.
PE1610 calls on the Scottish Government to upgrade to dual carriageway the A75 Euro route along its entirety, as soon as possible. PE1657 calls on the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr, at Whitletts roundabout, south to the two ferry ports that are located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75.
The committee previously agreed to consider the petitions together, and last considered them on 27 June 2019. At that meeting, the committee agreed to defer holding a round-table discussion with relevant stakeholders until after the Scotland’s Futures Forum event “Our Future Scotland: Dumfries and the South West” had taken place. It also agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. Scotland’s Futures Forum’s event was originally postponed because of unavailability of speakers, and was eventually cancelled as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. At present, the forum does not have any plans to run the event.
Submissions have been received from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and from both petitioners. Those are summarised in the clerk’s note.
At the Conveners Group’s meeting on 13 November 2019, the chair raised the petitions directly with the First Minister. The First Minister advised that she would respond to the committee in writing. Despite repeated requests by the clerks, that information has not yet been received.
There is frustration about the matter. In the past, there has been a lot of very positive discussion about the importance of the route—not only from a safety perspective, but for the economy. For many reasons—which are not at the door of anyone in particular—the issue has been stalled. There is now a question about how we take the matter forward.
I call Finlay Carson to flag up the issues in relation to the petitions before I ask members for their views.
I again thank the committee for the broad non-party-political position that it has taken. That position reflects that of the communities that the A75 and A77 are routed through. A cross-political-spectrum committee meets regularly, which consists of organisations from Dumfries and Galloway, Northern Ireland and South Ayrshire, all of which contribute to and lobby for action on the two routes.
As the convener said, we were disappointed that we were not able to hold the round-table discussion that would have allowed the petitioners and committee to sit face to face with the cabinet secretaries for finance and transport, and to drill down into why no action has been taken. It is equally—if not more—disappointing that, despite repeated letters to the First Minister, we are yet to receive a response on the petitions.
I would also like to comment on how disappointing the contribution from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity was. He highlighted investment in the roads, but that amounts only to investment to maintain them and to keep them in the condition that they should be in.
The only positive thing that has come out recently is that the change of management organisation—the operating company—to Amey has seen a rapid and welcome improvement in maintenance of the verges and vegetation along the routes.
The cabinet secretary also highlighted South of Scotland Enterprise’s initiation. However, I question what that has to do with investment in major infrastructure routes, because the agency certainly should not be funding that.
We are now seeing the increased importance of the A75 and A77 as links to Cairnryan and onward to Belfast, Larne and down into the Republic of Ireland. The route is undoubtedly becoming more important, and the petitions have the support of the major haulage associations and the ferry companies.
10:15I ask the committee to consider writing again to the First Minister to get the information that was requested way back in November 2019. I imagine that the north channel partnership, which brings together the relevant local authorities, would welcome the opportunity to feed in to the process.
I also ask the committee to consider again constituting a round-table discussion. I appreciate that we are very short of time in the run-up to the election, but I would appreciate the committee considering that suggestion so that we can get the facts in front of the petitioners.
Thank you very much.
Realistically, holding a round-table event, were the committee to agree to it, would be something that we would include in our legacy paper as a worthwhile idea. I do not want to pre-empt what other members think about what we should do with the petitions, but I think that that is how we would address that suggestion.
I agree with the convener that holding a round-table event is a suggestion that should go in our legacy paper. The committee should also write to the First Minister to seek a formal response to the request that was made at the Conveners Group meeting on 13 November 2019. Given that the north channel partnership has been reformed, I think that we should seek its views on the petition, too.
I fully agree with everything that David Torrance said, and I support the proposed action.
I, too, support that action. I have nothing else to add.
I have nothing to add, other than to say that I support the general tone of the committee’s discussion.
I think that we agree that there is an issue. I suspect that given that the UK is no longer in the European Union, there must be pressure points on the routes, and that the pressures will only increase.
We agree to write to the First Minister for a response. We will also write to the north channel partnership. We recognise that the petitions address important issues that will not be resolved overnight. As far as taking action is concerned, we expect to put our suggestions on that in our legacy paper.
I thank Finlay Carson for his attendance. I have no doubt that our successor committee will look at the issues in the future.
Mental Health Treatment (Consent) (PE1627)
Our next continued petition is PE1627, which was lodged by Annette McKenzie. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to provide for consultation with and consent from a parent or guardian before medication to treat mental ill health is prescribed to a patient who is under 18 years of age.
The committee most recently considered the petition in June 2018, when it agreed to hold an inquiry into how young people access mental health services and treatments. During its consideration of the petition, the committee considered written and oral evidence from the petitioner and key stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
The committee noted that there was strong support among key stakeholders for the idea that young people under the age of 18 should be able to give consent to treatment for themselves. However, the evidence highlighted the existence of serious concerns about the experiences of young people in seeking help for their mental health. The committee therefore agreed to hold its inquiry. The clerk’s note details the key milestones of our inquiry, which culminated in the publication of our final report on 24 July. Following its publication, the committee secured time for a chamber debate on the report’s conclusions and recommendations on 1 December 2020.
I think that we drew a lot from the petition and were all struck by the testimony of the petitioner, Annette McKenzie, on the tragic circumstances in which she lost her daughter. It was clear that there is a huge desire to support young people, but it was also clear that there are strong views on confidentiality for under-18s.
Nevertheless, our report says that the importance of looking for support from their family or somebody whom they can trust in respect of any treatment that they are having is the kind of issue that a practitioner would flag up to a young person. That does not resolve the issues for young people, which are on-going and will be even more important, given Covid. Our report recognised that.
The question is whether the committee can take any issue further. My view is that we have done a substantial amount of work. Although that will not in any way address the huge gap in Annette McKenzie’s life, we recognise the importance of what she has done in highlighting a range of issues relating to the challenges that young people face and the support that they can be offered not only in the educational setting—in schools, for example—but in the workplace, given that employers also have a responsibility.
What are members’ responses on the action that we might take now?
As the convener knows, I was very fortunate to attend several of the field visits that we had, and I was struck by the work that was going on. There are lots of examples in which there have, sadly, been great tragedies. However, massive work is done and massive support is given by volunteers and others in our communities.
For the record, I thank Annette McKenzie for the huge effort that she has made in bringing a most important issue to our attention. If it gives her any consolation, I have adopted some of the issues that were mentioned in our report and in the debate. With the mental health support unit, we have opened up the Vale of Leven hospital in West Dunbartonshire, and I have also co-ordinated with one of the key people in Families and Friends Affected by Murder and Suicide when we met in Motherwell. I have carried forward some very positive things with my team and the Defence Medical Welfare Service. I thank Annette McKenzie for giving me the opportunity to do that; I also thank her on behalf of the DMWS. As the convener said, we have made an enormous effort, culminating in the report and the debate in the Parliament last year.
We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, following the committee’s consideration of the petition, it has noted strong support among key stakeholders for the ability of young people under the age of 18 to consent to treatment for themselves—we support that; the committee has also undertaken an inquiry, which I referred to, and we published our report in July last year. I am content that we close the petition on that basis.
I, too, record my thanks to Annette McKenzie. It is no small feat to get a parliamentary committee inquiry and then a debate in the chamber; that is a huge achievement in itself. The number of stakeholders that we engaged with and the amount of evidence that we were able to draw in gave us quite a clear picture of mental health provision, and the gaps in it, for our children and young people in Scotland.
Like Maurice Corry, I have drawn on the report for my local area. We have undertaken a short inquiry into what is available in the north, and NHS Highland is undertaking a full inquiry into its mental health services. The report can be drawn on by a lot of organisations and individuals. As has been said, it will not fill what must now be a massive gap in the petitioner’s life, but I hope that it will give her some comfort that it will help to improve services for a lot of young people throughout the country.
In that vein, I think that the committee’s work on the matter has come to an end, and I agree with Maurice Corry that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Again, I whole-heartedly thank the petitioner for her input.
I came late to the petition and I have been impressed with the information that has been drawn out and the gaps that have been identified and potentially filled. The committee’s report will continue to act as a motivator and as a framework to carry forward work on the issue. At this stage, we cannot add anything more. I have never met Annette McKenzie, but I am impressed with her courage. The right thing to do is to close the petition at this stage. We should be reasonably content that the petition has done a reasonably good job.
I agree with everything that my colleagues have said. I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. I thank the petitioner for all her efforts.
I think that we are agreed to close the petition. In relation to the work that the petition flagged up, I know that Annette McKenzie and others have an on-going concern about the impact of Covid on stress among young people, as well as the impact of stress pre-Covid. That issue must continue to be a major focus of Government at every level. We need to think about the services that are provided to young people and try to understand how young people are feeling. The issue is exercising people in local communities. I hope that the committee’s work will help to inform responses to the issue. As I said, the report flags up the challenges that all too many of our young people have faced both during Covid and pre-Covid.
We agree to close the petition. We thank Annette McKenzie for all that she has done. We recognise that we have not addressed the major challenges that she has had to face, but her courage has been inspirational. We recognise just how difficult things have been for her and for the many families that face similar circumstances. I have no doubt that the future Public Petitions Committee will come back to look at the issue. We thank Annette for her engagement with the committee and wish her well.
Housing Legislation (Review) (PE1756)
The next continued petition is PE1756, by James Mackie, calling on the Scottish Government to review current housing legislation in circumstances where a non-tenant has been responsible for domestic or elder abuse. Since the committee considered the petition previously, a submission has been received from the Scottish Government. The petitioner was invited to comment on it but advised that he had no comment to make.
The Scottish Government explains that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill has been assigned to the Justice Committee as the lead committee and that that committee issued a call for evidence on the bill on 10 November. Informally, it is hoped that the bill will be passed in March 2021.
The Scottish Government is currently taking forward the actions that are outlined in “Adult Support and Protection—Improvement Plan 2019-2022: Delivering improvements to support and protect adults at risk of harm in Scotland”. The Government notes that the plan aims to complement and strengthen local adult support and protection improvement activity, provide assurance and identify future areas for improvement so that adults who are at risk of harm in Scotland are supported and protected.
Do members have comments or suggestions for action? It seems to me that the bill that has been introduced might address some of the important issues that have been raised.
I agree that the adult support and protection improvement plan is dealing with some of the issues, and I note the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill, which we hope will be passed in March 2021. Taken together, those initiatives address most of the points that are raised in the petition. Therefore, we should close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I agree with Gail Ross that the bill closes some of the gaps. At this stage, we cannot do anything more, so we should close the petition.
10:30
I agree with my colleagues that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I agree with my colleagues that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
It seems that we agree that the issues that are being flagged up should be addressed in the legislation that is coming up, and that we therefore agree to close the petition at this stage, while being mindful that the petitioner can bring back a petition in the new session of Parliament if he so chooses. The committee thanks the petitioner for the engagement with the committee. We agreed to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
Stocking of Salmon Rivers (Consultation) (PE1782)
PE1782, which was lodged by Robert White on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s fishing group, calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that a full stakeholder consultation is carried out before Marine Scotland formalises policy on the stocking of Scotland’s salmon rivers. The committee asked the Scottish Government about its intended consultation on salmon stocking in Scotland’s rivers and requested a summary of the outcomes as regards the petition. Marine Scotland responded to say that it will hold meetings with stakeholders on 14 December to discuss Marine Scotland’s scientific evidence on risk management in considering stocking, and the existing Scottish Government salmon stocking policy. Marine Scotland also stated that, on the basis of the feedback that it had received in the consultation meetings, it will conduct a written consultation next year.
The petitioner’s submission confirms that that meeting took place and trusts that
“the future consultation will take account of the most relevant international science and the best local knowledge from different parts of Scotland”
and that it will involve the full range of stakeholders.
My sense is that the committee’s role in the petition has come to an end, but I am interested to hear the views of members.
As the petitioner requested, a full consultation has been taking place and will continue to take place. At this stage, I therefore see no further role for the committee, so I recommend that we close the petition.
Considering that everything that the petitioner has asked for is going ahead, I am quite happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I agree with what my colleagues have said and I have nothing further to add. We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
It seems as though we have a successful outcome, so I congratulate the petitioner. Obviously, he is welcome to bring the issue back to Parliament if he is dissatisfied with the way things go. He does not need to wait for a full year for that. At the moment, therefore, the committee has no other option but to close the petition under standing orders rule 15.7.
We are agreed that we wish to close the petition, while recognising that progress has been made and that there has been significant movement and a willingness to consult, and emphasising that, should that progress stall or not be carried through, the petitioner is free to come back. The committee agrees to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. We thank the petitioner for his engagement with the committee and recognise that progress has been made as a consequence of the petition being submitted.
Childhood Cancers (PE1783)
PE1783, which was lodged by Fiona Govan, calls on the Scottish Government to raise public awareness of harder-to-treat childhood cancers and provide additional funding for finding cures. Since the committee’s most recent consideration of the petition, a submission has been received from the Scottish Government. The petitioner has been invited to comment on it, but nothing has been received to date.
The Scottish Government advises that it has already taken a number of actions to provide parents with valuable information about childhood cancers, including the parent club and an insert on childhood cancer in the personal child health record. It states that the glow gold childhood cancer awareness campaign group provided input to the redesigned “Ready Steady Baby!” publication, which includes key signs and symptoms of childhood illness. The latest clinical review of the detect cancer early programme also focused on eight pathways, including children, teenagers, and young adults.
It feels to me that there has been progress on this matter and that, at this point, the Public Petitions Committee should close the petition on the basis that action has been taken. Do members have views?
First, I want to thank Fiona Govan for submitting the petition. I believe that action is being taken on the issues that she raised. The Scottish Government will publish its new cancer plan for children and young people soon, and it has provided updated information to raise awareness of childhood cancers, including in the personal child health record, the parent club and “Ready, Steady, Baby!” Due to the progress that has been made, I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I agree with David Torrance, and I also want to thank Fiona Govan for the work that she has done to bring the issue to our attention. Clearly, action is being taken by the Scottish Government, and I therefore agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
This is an important and personal petition, and I also want to place on record my thanks to the petitioner. A body of work is under way on the matter, as has been mentioned previously, so I am comfortable that we close the petition.
I agree with my colleagues.
We agree to close the petition. We recognise that there has been progress on a number of items that have been identified by the Scottish Government and that the petition has secured a recognition of those important issues.
As Gail Ross said, we recognise that this is an issue that is of personal importance to the petitioner, and we are grateful to her for submitting the petition. Of course, if she feels that insufficient progress has been made, she can submit a further petition to us. Again, when a petition deals with an issue of personal importance, the challenges are greater so, in closing the petition, we place on the record our thanks to her.
Spòrs Gàidhlig Funding (PE1795)
The next continued petition for consideration—I suspect that it will be the last one that we will be able to deal with today—is PE1795, on maoineachadh do Spòrs Gàidhlig, or funding for Spòrs Gàidhlig. The petition, which was lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh on behalf of Misneachd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to meet Bòrd na Gàidhlig to discuss longer-term and sustainable funding for Spòrs Gàidhlig, which is a social enterprise that delivers outdoor learning to young people through the medium of Gaelic.
When we last discussed the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlighting the need for long-term sustainability for vulnerable organisations such as Spòrs Gàidhlig, and to ask the Scottish Government for its views on how it will support such organisations.
The former Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing responded. In his submission, the minister described a revised mode of delivery for Spòrs Gàidhlig due to the pandemic and said that it is too early to know whether that is working but that Bòrd na Gàidhlig is monitoring that. The minister also stated that Bòrd na Gàidhlig will make a decision on the funding before 31 March 2021.
On the longer-term funding issue, the former minister stated that the Scottish Government’s community and third sector recovery programme has been in place since September 2020, offering financial support and specialist advice and support. He also described the bòrd’s actions to support Gaelic organisations, saying that it is currently considering a second round of the Covid-19 support fund before Christmas 2020.
This is an issue that is close to my own interests. I think that there has been progress, but the issue of whether that is sustainable in the long term might be the subject of a petition in the future. However, I think that we have gone as far as we can with the petition at this stage. At a later stage, we will know more about the impact of Covid on this organisation and similar ones, so my feeling is that we should close the petition at this point but understand that there needs to be close monitoring of progress.
I endorse the points that you have made. I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition and bringing it to the committee’s attention. It is very important that sports issues continue to be highlighted by communities in rural areas, particularly given the effects of the Covid pandemic and the issues that will no doubt follow on from it.
I advocate closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government and Bòrd na Gàidhlig have put in place funding and processes to assist organisations such as Spòrs Gàidhlig through the Covid-19 pandemic. If the petitioner found that there had been no progress in due course, he would be quite within his rights to lodge another petition with the committee.
As we know, a lot of organisations throughout the country, particularly those in the sporting sector, are in a difficult situation. I agree that we have probably taken the petition as far as we can take it. As the convener and Maurice Corry suggested, there will need to be extra scrutiny of funding arrangements once we start to come out of the Covid situation. The petitioner will be keeping a close eye on what is happening and can lodge another petition in the new session.
I feel that we have no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7.
Short-term funding and a certain degree of stability seem to have been achieved. As is the case with all organisations, the post-pandemic situation is unknown, and the petitioner or other people can lodge another petition in due course.
We have no option but to close the petition.
I agree with my colleagues’ recommendations.
There is agreement that we want to close the petition under rule 15.7. We recognise the importance of the funding that has been put in place, and we hope that the Government will keep a close eye on that area. Longer-term sustainable funding is a challenge for all organisations, but Spòrs Gàidhlig has made a strong case on the basis of its circumstances. We thank the petitioner for his engagement, and I reiterate that there is the opportunity to return to the matter in the new parliamentary session.
Given time constraints, we are not able to address petitions PE1801, PE1812 and PE1823, but we assure the petitioners that there will be a full consideration of their petitions at the committee’s next meeting, which will be on 27 January. We thank the petitioners for their engagement. I hope that they will recognise that timings are not under our control.
I thank committee members for being so professional and efficient in dealing with today’s petitions. As I have said, it was not within the committee’s gift to decide timings; there are obviously pressures on the Parliament’s time. I thank the clerks and the broadcasting team.
Meeting closed at 10:43.Previous
New Petitions