Trampolines (Regulations on Use) (PE1818)
The second item on our agenda is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1818, lodged by Stacey Clarke, calling on the Scottish Government to implement regulations on ownership and use of residential trampolines.
Members will recall that the committee agreed to seek views from the Scottish Government on all new petitions in advance of their formal consideration. Despite repeated requests for the information, the Scottish Government has not been forthcoming with its views on this petition.
We will move to our consideration of the petition. I am not sure about other members’ experience, but I have had instances of people complaining about neighbours using trampolines at inappropriate times and other cases where trampolines have been a source of tension. Although we recognise that the area might be a focus of neighbour disputes, the question is whether the solution that the petition suggests is credible and would actually be enforced. It perhaps follows more along the line of how we deal with neighbour disputes, which is obviously a challenging issue in itself.
It is an interesting petition, which I think comes under the category of general neighbour behaviour—trampolines are just a particular instance of that issue. I have had similar complaints about people using lawnmowers, carrying out do-it-yourself activity or just generally making noise. Quite often, complaints come in about excessive noise from kids in gardens.
We need additional information from local government to progress the petition. We should also ask trampoline sports associations—I do not know their names, but there must be organisations that look after the sport of trampolining. It would be a mistake to unnecessarily kill off the development of trampolining at the grass-roots level. We need more information from the Government and from associations that represent trampolining activity.
We need more information. It would be a local authority issue if trampoline use were to be enforced as antisocial behaviour, so we should write to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning to find out his views.
I agree with my two colleagues who have spoken already, and I have nothing further to add. It would be good to get extra information.
I can see both sides of the issue. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, convener, trampolines can be the cause of neighbour disputes. A lot of the correspondence that I have received has certainly pointed to that. I am less sure whether the planning process is a suitable way in which to deal with the issue. Our briefing tells us that licensing is used for issues such as tattooists and taxis. I think that the most recent issue on which licensing was introduced was air weapons, which was done for safety reasons.
If the petitioner had included a safety aspect in terms of trampolines not being tied down in gardens during storms when they can cause damage, that might be considered, but it just seems to be an antisocial factor and we hope that such things are sorted out between neighbours. I have no qualms about writing to the minister. Champions of the future have to start somewhere, so I am quite happy to write to a UK gymnastics body or whatever it might be, as Tom Mason suggested.
There appears to be recognition that there might be an general issue here about neighbour disputes, but the solution that is presented in the petition would be costly and not necessarily effective. It feels like over-regulation. We want to encourage younger people to go out and do healthy things, take physical exercise and so on. I am not sure that we can legislate for the management of such neighbour disputes, which often involve a lot of diplomacy from local agencies. There is an evident tension between people living side-by-side who share communal spaces, and young people taking exercise—which of course we want them to do.
This is a good example of why we would quite like the Scottish Government to respond to the committee before we discuss a petition, because we now have to write to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning for information that would have helped to inform our first thinking. However, we will write to the minister.
Perhaps the clerks could look for a national body for trampolining; there must be one. It might be that this is the sort of issue that has been flagged up to that body previously and it might have solutions. I think, however, that I am reflecting the views of the committee if I say that, although we recognise that there can be issues about how neighbours manage these disputes, we are not sure that the solution that the petition has flagged up is credible.
Think about how many of us had slides and other play equipment in our gardens for our kids. We need to be careful not to legislate to have everything pinned down in the garden, or what have you. The convener is absolutely right that we should be cautious.
On the point about health and safety, there is an issue if the trampoline does not have the proper netting around it that stops kids from falling from the side of the trampoline; that is a cause for concern.
I think that the committee suggests the right course, but we should be cautious about other kids’ equipment in a garden and whether that will or will not be covered. We do not want to ruin the party.
We agree to write to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning to seek his views on the action being called for in the petition. Additionally, if the clerks can establish whether there is an appropriate trampolining body, we could find out whether there is a broader issue in our communities; that would be useful.
National Emblem (PE1826)
We now move to the second and final new petition for consideration. PE1826 calls for the introduction of a new national emblem of Scotland and is by Catherine Cooper. The petition calls for the Scottish Government to facilitate a national conversation to identify and adopt an additional official emblem for Scotland. The Scottish Government’s submission states:
“Scottish Ministers believe that consideration of any further national emblems should be arrived at informally as need dictates and should not be led by the Scottish Government or by any political party.”
The petitioner’s submission recognises the Scottish Government’s stance, but argues that her petition is not about party politics; it intends to align people “behind a common cause” and develop
“a shared cultural vision for Scotland.”
I am now looking for comments on the petition. My observation is that I am not sure that there is any means by which it is possible to develop a shared cultural vision for Scotland. People will have their own versions of what their society should aspire to.
I was interested in the commentary from the petitioner, which seemed to be much more about dealing with difficult times and how people pull together in difficult times. I respect that, but it does not feel to me to be about emblems and symbols; it was about how tough things are and how we can find a common endeavour, which is important in local communities. During the pandemic there have been good examples of people pulling together, so in my head I have separated the petitioner’s very interesting commentary from the aim of the petition, which is to establish a new national symbol.
The petition is interesting. There are diverse views out there from members of the public on the subject of an additional official emblem for Scotland, but would they ever agree? The key point is that the Scottish Government does not support the action that is called for, so I am afraid that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
I agree with David Torrance that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders. All the work that the petitioner has put in and the comments on the petition are interesting. I think that it is something that grows organically—for example, the emblem of the thistle has been progressed by the Scottish Rugby Union—so there is not much more that we can do. We now know the views of Scottish Government, so I am of the mind to close the petition.
I understand what the convener said at the start about separating the aim of the petition from the discourse that followed it. You are absolutely right about communities coming together, which they have done in spectacular fashion, but the petitioner pinpoints a lot of social issues that I am not sure would be solved by a new national emblem. We have to ask such questions as, “Is an emblem needed? Would it make it make a difference? Where would it be used? Who would use it?” and “Would it replace anything?” Those things tend to grow organically with community involvement. I would equate that to what has been done in Caithness—we now have our own county flag, which was chosen through a competition run in the schools, with the community voting on the entries. That was nothing to do with Government or local authorities; they did not push it in any way, although they supported it.
The petitioner said that it
“is not about party politics”,
which is absolutely right, because if the Scottish Government said that it was introducing a new national emblem, a lot of people would think that it was about party politics, given where we are with the conversation about the constitution. I agree with my fellow committee members that it is an interesting petition and certainly one that the wider population might give cognisance to, but given the Scottish Government’s submission, we cannot take it much further. I agree to close the petition.
The petition seeks to promote unity, but if there were a forced discussion on an emblem, it would go in the opposite direction; people would become very entrenched in their various views and it would be self-defeating. Taking the issue forward at the moment would not be a good idea and, as indicated by other members, we should close the petition.
There is a consensus recognising that what lies behind the petition is quite different from the debate about a national symbol, and a number of colleagues made the point that if the Government conducted such a conversation, there would be a degree of suspicion about it. It feels to me that it is something that should emerge from communities, rather than being done to communities.
As I said, I think that we respect the motivation behind the petition, but I think that we are agreeing that we will close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not support the action called for in the petition and that we think that it is not the role of the Scottish Government to lead that conversation. However, we thank the petitioner very much for submitting the petition and we remind them that there is an opportunity to revisit the petition in a year’s time if they feel that that would be worth while. We thank them for raising the matter for our consideration.
Air adhart
Continued Petitions