Youth Football (PE1319)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions. PE1319, by William Smith and Scott Robertson, is on improving youth football in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions from the Scottish Youth Football Association and Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People.
In light of the evidence that we heard at the previous meeting, the committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition. As members will be aware, one option is to invite Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Tam Baillie, to review the current registration process from a rights perspective and report back to the committee with his findings. What is the committee’s view on that recommendation?
That is fine, although I would like us to invite the Scottish Schools Football Association to give evidence at the same time.
I welcome the submission from Tam Baillie and his belief that a review of the current registration process from a rights perspective would be beneficial. I agree with the suggestion that we invite him to review the current registration process.
I wonder whether we can make a link between the two. I would be keen to go ahead with involving the commissioner, but we could get the information that Chic Brodie is asking for and ensure that it goes to the commissioner so that he is fully aware of all the information.
That makes sense.
Are members happy with that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
We will invite Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People to review the current registration process.
Chronic Pain Services (PE1460)
PE1460, by Susan Archibald, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on chronic pain, is on the improvement of services and resources to tackle chronic pain. Members have a note by the clerk.
A lot of work has been done by the Scottish Government on the issue. I hope that the committee’s work has made a bit of a difference. I do not see what further work we can do in relation to the petition. Susan Archibald has done excellent work, and I thank her and the cross-party group for their work.
Unless members have any other suggestions, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis that a chamber debate on chronic pain took place on 29 May and that a consultation on the future provision of specialist chronic pain services was held, following which the establishment of a new specialised residential chronic pain management service has been taken forward.
I would prefer to leave the petition open until the Government has confirmed the absolute establishment of that new centre. I believe that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing hopes to be able to do that before the recess, and I have every confidence that he will. However, for the sake of completeness, and given the investment by so many people in Susan Archibald’s petition, we could get to that point and then draw a formal line under the petition, knowing that we had made that final achievement on their behalf.
I am relaxed about that.
Can I put on record the interest that Jackson Carlaw and I have in the issue, as co-conveners of the cross-party group on chronic pain? I suggest that we support Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we hold on to the petition. I agree with him: the cabinet secretary and the Minister for Public Health are about to make a decision, and I would prefer to hold on to the petition until that decision is made public.
Do other committee members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Single Room Hospitals (Isolation) (PE1482)
I am happy to keep the petition open at present while we seek answers to the additional questions that have been raised.
I am happy to keep the petition open.
How long do we have to wait for the other information to arrive?
PE1482, by John Womersley, is on isolation in single-room hospitals. Members have a note by the clerk. Alex Fergusson MSP has a constituency interest. I do not think that he is able to attend this meeting, but I mark his interest in the petition for the record.
Members will be aware that there are two main options for action: we could write to the Scottish Government to request that a cost benefit analysis be undertaken of having 100 per cent single rooms, as opposed to 50 per cent, over the course of a hospital’s lifetime; or we could defer consideration of the petition until the Scottish Government’s review of the research of single-bedded accommodation is complete and the results have been published.
I ask for members’ views on either option. Indeed, if members have other options, I would be interested to hear them.
As we are aware of hospitals being built with single rooms, we should consider more than a cost benefit analysis of operational costs. It would be instructive to examine the capital costs that are involved in building 100 per cent single rooms as opposed to 50 per cent. We should certainly have that information from the south of Scotland.
In my book, the more important issue is the research into the sociability of single rooms as opposed to shared accommodation—in some cases, 50 per cent shared accommodation—but we should still ask for the capital costs.
We will keep a close watch and see when the review is complete, which will be announced by the Scottish Government. The other information is factual, so I would expect to get it in the next four weeks. The review is taking place over the course of a year.
I think that there was some information about the capital costs in annex A of the SPICe briefing. Perhaps Mr Brodie would like to check whether that is sufficient for his purposes.
Do we keep the petition open for that length of time?
It has rather satisfied mine, I have to say.
I am not altogether sure what we do with the petition. The Scottish Government’s policy is clear. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has indicated that he will undertake a review. If we are going to continue the petition, it would be interesting to invite the Scottish Government to provide some feedback on the attitudes of patients who have experienced single-room hospital accommodation. My understanding is that feedback has been favourable, that some of the questioning that underpinned previous surveys of opinion was predicated on some rather pejorative suggestions as to what patients might be likely to experience and that, in fact, the reality has proved to be quite different.
We have given the petition a good airing. The Government’s undertaking that there will be a review in due course to ensure that it learns lessons from the petition is as much as the committee can reasonably expect. I am slightly less persuaded about drilling further into the cost benefit analysis. It is an issue of policy and it is for the Government to determine what it believes to be in the best interests of the health of patients. I am not sure that it is relevant whether the light bulbs cost more in those circumstances.
That is the length of the review, so that is what we would be suggesting in order to keep a watching brief on it.
To be clear, Mr Carlaw, you are suggesting that we take option 2, which is to defer consideration until the Scottish Government’s review is completed.
And in the meantime the other piece of information will be sought.
My view is that we should close the petition on the basis that the Government has guaranteed that the review will take place at some point, which is a sensible and pragmatic course of action.
Yes, that is correct.
I disagree wholly with that because of sociability, which I mentioned. My concern is that the Scottish Government’s review relates to research on single-bedded accommodation in hospitals. I trust that it will not only discuss whether such accommodation is good or bad but consider the alternatives. Having some multibedded areas in hospitals has a good social and, indeed, healing effect, so I would keep the petition open. The costs are important.
Have we kept other petitions open for that length of time?
We have two options: to close the petition or to keep it open until the Scottish Government’s review is complete. What do other members think?
Yes.
I think that we have to complete that work.
Okay—thank you for that.
The petitioner requested in his email of 26 May that we write to the Scottish Government to ask that a proper cost benefit analysis is done. I think that we should honour that request, and we should certainly keep the petition open.
Okay. The majority position is that we continue the petition until the review is finished and seek the piece of information that the petitioner has asked for. We will report that back at a future meeting.
I do not for the life of me understand why it would take a year to do research on single-bedded and multibedded accommodation. The tail is wagging the dog in some of these situations, and we really need to ask questions about when we expect such things to be completed.
We are expecting Alex Neil to appear before the committee soon to discuss another petition. If members want to ask him further questions, that is totally in order as far as I am concerned.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary’s response, which would be entirely reasonable, would be that he would like some people to experience single-bedded accommodation in order to comment on it. That might take some little while.
I am not sure whether or not that is an offer.
We could continue the discussion for some time, but I will draw a line under it now. We will continue the petition until the review is complete, and we will ask for the information that the petitioner is requesting.
Whistleblowing in Local Government (PE1488)
PE1488, by Pete Gregson on behalf of the kids not suits campaign group, is on whistleblowing in local government. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Again, the petition is comprehensive. I will ask members for their views on the next steps.
It is clear that there is an issue in that the petition is largely about policies that are a matter for locally elected representatives. Obviously Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission are responsible for auditing those policies, but to date they have not identified any weakness in relation to whistleblowing, which would require to be flagged up in the annual report for a local authority. We have had a lot of information about that from local authorities.
If members are happy with the way forward, we can close the petition. If they are not, they can suggest another course of action.
I am happy to support that recommendation.
On the understanding that silence is assent, we will close the petition on the basis of the points that I have just made.
Supermarkets (High Streets) (PE1497)
Thank you, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words before the committee considers the petition.
I am here to urge the committee to take the petition seriously. I think that very few people would want to do away with supermarkets, and very few would deny that, when they came on to the high street, supermarkets added something genuinely new to the retail environment and the sector.
However, we have reached the point at which the scale of the domination by a handful of multinationals is getting absurd. I remember the Scottish Parliament discussing some of these concerns about 10 years ago. At that point, the big four controlled somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the retail sector in this country; their share is now getting close to 90 per cent, and it is still expanding.
The petition raises some specifically local issues, but all members will recognise that this is happening in every community. Many dense urban communities and rural communities find that competition in retail is now simply a choice between one supermarket and another instead of the rich diversity that they used to enjoy.
Your priorities might be those that local government and national Government talk about such as diversity, vibrancy in town centres and competition, or they might be about having shorter supply chains and greater trust and resilience in local economies. Because of the nature of their logistics, supermarkets will always be bad at the latter, and we will continue to see problems with the long, complex supply chains that gave rise to the recent meat scandal. Whether we are making the sustainability argument or the competition argument, we should recognise that the objectives that local and national Government is setting such as rich retail diversity and vibrancy in town centres are not being met.
I hope that the committee will give very careful consideration to the various options, whether they be use classes or some other mechanism, such as giving local authorities the ability to consider the cumulative total of floor space that an applicant has rather than simply the individual premises for which permission is being applied or for which permission might not be needed. Whatever the mechanism, we have to recognise that the public policy objectives that Governments have been talking about for a long time are not being met and are, in fact, being undermined by the continued dominance of supermarkets.
We could be here in another 10 years’ time with four companies controlling 95 per cent-plus of the retail sector in this country. That is not competition, and it is not sustainable. Whatever side of the argument you fall on, it is time to recognise that objectives for the common good are not being met.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to the petition, and I also want to thank the Justice Committee for finishing a wee bit earlier today to enable me to come.
Ellie Harrison’s petition might have originated from an issue in the Great Western Road area of my Kelvin constituency, but, as Patrick Harvie has said, this issue affects other areas. In recent years, small local shops have closed down. There are parts of Maryhill Road in my constituency and Patricia Ferguson’s constituency where all the small shops have closed down, and all we have now in the area are big supermarkets. Local shops do not just employ local people but use local produce and add to the diversity of areas such as Kelvin. In the areas of Kelvinbridge, Finnieston and Yorkhill, small shops are closing down because Tesco and others have opened up.
We also need to address the issue of land banking by the big supermarkets. After they buy up land, they can let it sit vacant for 12 or 20 years before they make a planning application for it.
This serious issue is not just a local one: it is an issue all over Scotland, not just in my constituency. It is great to see a diversity of local shops when you walk around an area; indeed, that is what brings people into an area. People can go to huge supermarkets such as Tesco anywhere. Of course, I am talking not just about Tesco—there are others—but those places all look the same, and they all sell the same produce. If a high street has a diversity of shops that sell a diversity of goods, it can only be good for local areas.
I know that we are looking at planning issues in the national planning framework 3, and perhaps the Local Government and Regeneration Committee could look at the petition, too. I leave it to your expert selves to decide what to do with the petition, but I plead with you to have a look at it. This problem is happening not just in one area, but throughout Scotland.
Thank you very much. As members will know, Sandra White has written to us with some helpful suggestions. She has suggested that we ask the Scottish Government about the use of retail impact assessments for shops of under 2,500m2 and for its views on the suggestion from the Federation of Small Businesses that the town centre master-planning toolkit takes into consideration the issues raised by the petition. Are members happy with those suggestions?
12:15
When I met Professor Leigh Sparks, who is professor of retail studies at the University of Stirling and is now head of Scotland’s Towns Partnership, he enlightened me on the fact that out-of-town supermarkets of 100,000ft2 have now realised that there is a vast need to reduce to something like 60,000ft2.
The petition is about supermarket expansion on our local high streets. I appreciate Sandra White’s request about RIAs, but we cannot talk in such terms just about supermarkets opening such shops. We would be talking about all shops that are under 2,500m2.
I repeat that I have no truck with supermarkets. There is no level playing field. However, high street shops are also suffering from internet shopping.
I understand that there are local issues; I have them in my area, too. However, if we are to restore the vitality and viability of town centres, it is difficult for us to say that we will have some shops but not others. We must recognise that out-of-town supermarkets are seriously on the wane. Just looking at their results provides enough sustenance for that argument.
I have said previously that I am unpersuaded by the evidence. I do not regard supermarkets as an evil empire. The petition asks for a restriction on supermarkets owning smaller convenience store-sized units, many of which are abandoned former Woolworths stores and other stores that have lain derelict in many town centres for years and which nobody has expressed any interest whatever in operating.
I have repeatedly gone to Sandra White’s constituency; indeed, I am attracted to the corridor that has been mentioned of Great Western Road and Byres Road, where the shopping diversity is remarkable. I went to school round about there. The shops that are there today are very different from the shops that were there then, but I would expect that. The nature of retail is that units progressively change. What is fashionable and desirable is completely different now and will be again in the future.
Having said that, I am happy to support Sandra White’s suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government to seek information on the proposals that have been made. I am interested in the feedback from that.
Do members agree to that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Patrick Harvie and Sandra White—an honorary member of the committee—for attending.
PE1497, by Ellie Harrison on behalf of the say no to Tesco campaign, is on supermarket expansion on local high streets. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
We are joined by Patrick Harvie MSP and Sandra White MSP, who have made some useful points and recommendations. I ask both of them to make a brief comment before the committee enters its deliberations.
National Bird (PE1500)
Can I have members’ views on Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government with the evidence that we have?
That is fair. There was concern about the national tree, but we hardly see people rushing around saying, “Hurray! The pine is the national tree of Scotland!” Although it is good to have that symbol, I suspect that, Mr Carlaw permitting, the golden eagle would follow the same route.
Do members agree with the suggested course of action, which is that we write to the Scottish Government with all the evidence that we have received and that we therefore continue the petition to a future date?
Members indicated agreement.
PE1500, by Stuart Housden OBE on behalf of RSPB Scotland, is on declaring the golden eagle Scotland’s national bird. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
There are a couple of options to consider. One is to ask RSPB Scotland to undertake a public consultation to enable it to demonstrate widespread support for the concept of a national bird and for the choice of the golden eagle over other bird species. We could also suggest that the Scottish Government undertakes research on the benefits of assigning further national symbols.
The petition was significant because it was our 1500th petition. I know that some members have strong views on it, and I would welcome hearing the committee’s views.
I hesitate to contribute, convener, but I return to the minister’s comprehensive response after our earlier consideration of the petition. I am also interested in his thoughts on the subsequent submissions that we have received.
The responses from the conveners of other committees were mixed; indeed, some must be described as indifferent. One response that expressed enthusiasm used the word “I” rather than giving the committee’s view. I was not altogether clear whether the convener’s personal view or the committee’s view was being given.
The minister articulated well the concerns about the value of national symbols and the process for adopting them. I am interested in knowing whether the Government feels that, in light of everything else that has been said, a case has been made or an appropriate process has been identified.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
The final two petitions, PE1510 by Jody Curtis on emergency service and non-emergency service call centres and PE1511 by Laura Ross on Inverness fire service control room, will be taken together. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I think that I mentioned before that, subsequent to the petition being lodged, Laura Ross came to speak to me about the generality of the issue.
There are a number of options to consider. We have written to the Justice Committee about the issue. Given that its sub-committee is looking at some of the workings of the emergency services and is therefore covering some of the areas that are highlighted in the petitions, it seems sensible to refer both petitions to the Justice Committee to allow it to look at them in more detail. Clearly, these issues are very important, but the point is that the Justice Committee has its sub-committee. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I am conscious of the time, so I ask whether members agree to defer agenda item 4, on the inquiry into tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland, to our meeting in two weeks’ time. I am keen that we do not lose this work to the recess, but I have a couple of issues to raise and I do not think that we can do them justice in the time available. I am sure that members agree that it was right to keep the discussion of the mesh petition going a bit longer than we actually had time for.
I agree with you on that, convener. You say that you have a couple of questions, but I certainly have many questions about the Government’s response, and our discussion about the inquiry might require a meaningful amount of time.
That is a good point. I will ask the clerk to ensure that we schedule a decent chunk of time in our meeting in two weeks’ time to let us discuss the matter further.
As there is nothing further to discuss, I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:22.Air ais
New Petition