���˿���

Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Official Report 377KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Mosquito Devices (PE1367)

Item two on our agenda is consideration of current petitions. There are six current petitions for consideration today. The first is PE1367, by Andrew Deans, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on banning Mosquito devices now. Members have a note by the clerk and the SPICe briefing, which are papers 4 and 5.

Members will recall that we had an interesting evidence session on the petition, and I know that many members have a lot of interest in the subject. I open up the discussion to contributions from members.

Although the Scottish Government’s response is interesting, it has not necessarily moved us forward. The clerk’s note suggests that we could ask the Government to examine some of the existing evidence on health impacts. I am aware that some of that evidence—particularly some of the international evidence—was raised during our witness session. Could we refer the Scottish Government to some of that internationally collected evidence? The United Nations has done some work on the subject, and if my memory serves me correctly, the European Court of Justice or a similar institution did a report. Perhaps we should direct the Government to those reports and ask it to consider them and come back to us with its view.

The clerk has reminded me that the SPICe briefing contains the sources of that evidence.

I agree with Mark McDonald. We should continue the petition to highlight the evidence that we have already received. It is not just a health issue; it is a human rights issue. I was very impressed by the reply from Andrew Deans MSYP, which he obviously put a lot of thought into. We should raise once more with the Government that the petition also raises a human rights issue.

I think that Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People has looked into the matter in relation to the European convention on human rights. I agree with Sandra White: the contribution by Andrew Deans and the Scottish Youth Parliament was excellent. Perhaps we again need to think about encouraging the Scottish Youth Parliament to become more involved in and have an active input in our petitions system.

I am happy to correct what I said earlier: the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called for a ban in June 2010—it was nothing whatsoever to do with the European Court of Justice.

We also had evidence from the National Autistic Society. Should we direct the Government to speak to the National Autistic Society, given its concerns about the pitch of Mosquito devices and the effect that they can have on autistic children and adults, because of their hearing range?

In fairness, in the previous session Fergus Ewing gave a strong commitment to act on the issue and was forthright about his opposition to Mosquito devices.

Are we agreed to continue the petition in line with the points that members have made?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask Mark McDonald to clarify that his point was that he did not wish the Scottish Government to examine existing evidence of health impacts.

No. I said that I did. I suggested that we direct the Scottish Government to look at some of the evidence that has been raised in the committee and perhaps also to speak to the National Autistic Society, which has given oral evidence to the committee but may not have produced any reports.

Option 1 in paper 4 is to invite the Scottish Government to ask health bodies to carry out further research. However, it seems that members do not think that that would be useful, so we will stick with the points that we have raised.

---

Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Diagnosis and Treatment) (PE1402)

The second current petition is PE1402, by Richard Jones, on behalf of Addressing the Balance, on the strategy and policy for the diagnosis and treatment of adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 6. I invite contributions from members.

I suggest that we shelve the petition for a time because a mental health strategy is emerging from the Government that we are told is likely to be published before the summer. I suggest that we wait until then before we reconsider the petition.

That seems sensible. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Uniforms Policy (PE1411)

The third current petition is PE1411, by Luca Scarabello, on reforming school uniform policy in all Scottish local authority schools. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I invite contributions from members. I put on record my thanks to the Scottish Youth Parliament for the survey that it carried out, which is another example of an excellent contribution that will help us to make a decision on behalf of a petitioner.

I, too, put on record my appreciation for the work that the Scottish Youth Parliament has done on the petition and the survey that it carried out.

I think that we have taken the petition as far as we can, but I do not think that we should end consideration of it. We should refer it to the Equal Opportunities Committee for it to deliberate on. The petitioner has raised a number of issues. The Scottish Youth Parliament reflected on those issues and raised others. We can pass on to the Equal Opportunities Committee all the information that we have received on the petition. The petition raises wider issues, so it would be more appropriate for that committee to deal with it from now on.

Do members agree with John Wilson’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Under rule 15.6.2, we will refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee so that it can consider the issues raised.

---

Bonds of Caution (PE1412)

The fourth current petition is PE1412, by Bill McDowell, on bonds of caution. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 8, and submissions. I invite contributions from members.

The petition raised a number of issues that I certainly was not aware of. It was interesting to see what we got back from the Government and others on it. One of our options is to write to the Scottish Government, and perhaps directly to the relevant minister. I would certainly like to continue the petition and to write to the relevant minister to press for confirmation as to when a decision will be made in relation to bonds of caution. The issue goes back a number of years and has been considered before, but no action has been taken. I am not saying that there have been promises, but there has been an indication that action would be taken. I would like to continue the petition for that reason.

I agree with that. When we write to the minister, can we ask whether a statutory instrument would be appropriate in this case? The petitioner seemed to indicate in his response that that would suffice.

The clerk has just advised me that we have already asked that question and that a statutory instrument is not appropriate in this case—sorry about that.

We normally do this, but this is just a reminder that we should send any response that we have received from the petitioner to date to the minister.

In his response, the petitioner raises a number of issues in addition to those that have been raised so far, particularly around the Scottish Law Commission’s 2009 report on succession. The petitioner clearly indicates that there is overwhelming support for abolishing bonds of caution. He has put some more work in and raises a number of issues in his response that we should ask the Scottish Government to respond to in detail.

Although the Government appears to have taken on some of the issues that were raised in the 2009 report, it has not taken on others. The petitioner is quite right to try to find out what the Scottish Government is going to do about the report’s findings—if it is going to take any action at all.

John Wilson makes a good point. There is a danger that petitions can sometimes get lost in a sort of twilight zone in the Scottish Government—it is not a conspiracy; it is just because of the way that bureaucracy works. It is important that we keep a careful eye on petitions, so John Wilson’s point is reasonable.

Are members happy for us to write to the Scottish Government and press for confirmation on when the decision will be made?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855 (PE1415)

The fifth current petition is PE1415, by John Steele, on updating the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 9.

We had positive contributions from some councils and not-so-positive contributions from others. This is another interesting petition that opened a number of doors, not just the specific one that the petitioner sought to open.

I want to continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government to ask how the excavation of land in burial grounds, churchyards and cemeteries is regulated, as it is not regulated by the 1855 act. I also want to ask the Government about the other points that are outlined in option 1 of paper 9.

This is possibly a daft-laddie question, but I am eminently qualified to ask such a question. The North Ayrshire Council response mentions that the council is in the process of

“preparing a petition to the Sheriff Court seeking authority to carry out exploratory excavation”.

Where does the committee sit in terms of sub judice if a sheriff court petition is on the cards?

I think that a civil procedure is involved, but the clerk will check that. It is a reasonable point. We will make sure that members are notified about that before the petition is looked at again.

Notwithstanding Mark McDonald’s point, do members agree to continue the petition in line with option 1 in the clerk’s paper, which is to write to the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Telecommunications Masts (PE1416)

The sixth and final current petition for consideration today is PE1416, by Eileen Baxendale and others. It seeks a review of health issues and planning guidance with respect to telecommunications masts. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 10, and submissions.

Robert Brown, one of the petitioners, is an ex-MSP. I congratulate him on his recent election to a council. He sent a useful letter that clarified some of the points in the petition. If members have not seen the letter, they should have a quick look at it. Members may also wish to look at some additional papers that have been tabled, which give some technical advice.

15:00

In his letter, Robert Brown’s key point was that the petition has called not for phone masts to be banned near residential properties, but for the position to be reviewed in the light of developments. He also raised the issue of the Sitefinder database, which members might recall was the technical database that, in theory, held all the locations of sites in Scotland. The difficulty was that three of the major companies, including Orange, did not participate and the database was not kept up to date. Clearly, individuals who had an interest could update it personally if they knew where particular masts were. However, the fact is that, although having some unified comprehensive database sounds like a great idea on paper, if the main companies responsible are not going to update it because of some legal dispute, problems will arise. Robert Brown’s main argument, however, centres on the need to continue the precautionary approach.

In one of the additional papers, the operators basically rap me over the knuckles by arguing that they have the Sitefinder database. Interestingly, however, I have since discovered that mobile phone operators do not have to update it if they do not wish to and that it is up to individuals themselves to do so.

I have been looking at petitions like this one since 1999 and know that, in the previous session, Nanette Milne and John Wilson also considered the issue. I was minded to send the petition to the Health and Sport Committee to allow it to investigate the health aspects but, having read the additional papers, I now think that we should continue the petition and seek further information, particularly on the Sitefinder database and the number of major companies that do not contribute to it. I do not know how the rest of the committee feels about that suggestion.

I support Sandra White’s suggestion that we keep the petition open and go back to the Scottish Government. After all, Robert Brown’s additional evidence raises further questions about the relevance of the current guidelines. We know that such research is regularly updated. I point out to people on both sides of the argument—those who remain sceptical with regard to the health impacts of mast sites and those in the industry who claim that no such impacts exist—that the evidence submitted by Robert Brown seems to suggest that there has been no evidence on or analysis of the impact on young children or, as one of the papers suggests, foetal abnormalities that might be caused by the siting of masts close to residential areas. As a result, I think that it would be worth while contacting the Scottish Government to ask about the remit and scale of the research that has been undertaken and which it is examining and to find out whether it covers the issue of the impact on children that the petitioners, including Robert Brown, have highlighted. Many of the radiological studies about impacts relate to adults rather than children, and it would be useful to find out whether the Scottish Government is taking such issues on board in reviewing guidelines or regulations in relation to the siting of telephone masts.

That is a fair point. The additional papers have been very useful in clarifying some of those points, and I agree that we should continue the petition along the lines suggested by John Wilson. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.