Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Official Report 450KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

Item 2 is consideration of 12 current petitions. The first two petitions are on school bus safety and will be considered together. They are PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, and PE1223 by Ron Beaty. Members have a note by the clerk—paper 3 refers—and the submissions.

Members will be aware that we have considered having a special event on the petition—the idea was raised at the planning day and the clerks are looking carefully at it. What is in mind is to have a chamber event, chaired by the Presiding Officer, and to invite local authorities and other interested groups to attend. It is likely to take place on a Friday morning. I think that it will echo what happened on previous occasions. The session on knife crime got a lot of media coverage. It will be a major event, which will bring forward the debate on both petitions.

I know that a number of members want to comment on the issue. I can understand the frustration of the petitioners—the petition has been with us for some time. I am certainly getting frustrated and angry at the lack of any final decision. I fully support the fact that the Public Petitions Committee will have a full or half-day discussion on the issue in the chamber. It absolutely merits it.

I forgot to mention that the event is likely to be early in the new year, which is not as soon as I would have wanted. However, there are practical considerations because the chamber is not easily available. It is looking like it will be a Friday morning early in the new year.

I agree absolutely with that approach. I am sure that local authorities and the minister will be invited to the event, but it is important that we also invite the United Kingdom minister or representatives of the UK Government, given the role that they have to play.

The other important thing to emphasise—Mr Beaty has been banging this drum in many of his submissions—is that this is not just about seat belts. Coverage of the petition has focused too heavily on the issue of seat belts. Seat belts are a vital aspect, but there is a wider safety issue here. If the event can be tailored with that in mind, it will be to the benefit of everybody.

I have sat on the committee and considered the petitions over a period of time, and issues still arise. In the first paragraph of the second page of his letter dated 15 August, the former Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Alex Neil, says that it has “proved impossible” to get data on costs from 20 local authorities.

The petition has been kicking around for a number of years. The committee has asked ministers and local authorities to provide information on the fitting of seat belts and yet, in a response to the committee, a cabinet secretary says that it

“has proved impossible, despite a sustained and exhaustive effort by officials through the Association of Transport Coordinating Officers”

to get the information that has been requested.

11:15

The petitioner was right to lodge the petition to try to get the issue resolved. I know that Ron Beaty felt frustrated in trying at the local level to get answers to the questions that have been raised. It should not be impossible for the Public Petitions Committee and the Parliament to get local authorities to respond to the crucial questions on the implementation of seat belts.

I said to one or two of my colleagues before the meeting started that I still see double-decker buses that are more than 20 years old and have no seat belts ferrying children on lengthy journeys to and from schools. I have sat on the committee for almost four years, and that has been going on throughout that time. To my mind, local authorities are taking no notice of the guidance or the encouragement and insistence of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, which want local authorities to consider fully the safety of the buses that ferry our children.

Ron Beaty must be congratulated on the tireless work that he has done on the petition. He has raised a number of other questions for the committee to consider today. I suggest that we continue the petition, send the questions off to the appropriate Government department and ask it for the answers. I would also like the committee to write to the new Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities to find out what action she will take to ensure that we get the information that we seek from local authorities on the cost of fitting seat belts to all school buses and school transport in Scotland.

You make your points very well, Mr Wilson.

We have noticed in other debates, not least on diabetes, that there is a postcode lottery between health board areas, but we also find that with local authorities. Either we cannot get information, or we find that an authority uses a different cost base from everyone else, which is a bit bizarre.

We need to pursue the petition and ensure that the local authorities that have not responded do so. I think that we have a technical right to cite them. I am not suggesting that we do that, but we need to make it clear to them that we will name and shame them if they do not respond to us.

Are members happy with the proposed course of action of holding a major event on the issue? We have suggested some extra speakers for that, and the clerks are aware of our proposals. As I said, the event will be in the new year.

Members indicated agreement.

We should invite some of the authorities that have not provided costings so that they can be answerable at that event and say why they feel that they do not have to gather that information or take action on seat belt safety.

I agree with that.

Thank you for your comments. We have agreed that we will continue the petition. We are looking forward to our major event, and we will chase up the local authorities and others that have not yet responded.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

Our third current petition is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on the St Margaret of Scotland hospice. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

I welcome Gil Paterson, who has taken an active interest in the petition for a considerable time—he is almost an honorary member of the committee. With apologies for the delay, I invite him to make some comments.

I do not want to appear to sook up to you, but it would be an honour to be a member of the Public Petitions Committee. Over the years, it has done some really good work. It is a credit to the Parliament, so we all benefit from it.

I draw the committee’s attention to the letter from Jean Anne Mitchell, who is one of the petitioners. The second last paragraph highlights the crux of the matter. The last time I was here, I brought to the committee’s attention some information that pointed out the disparity between what is paid to hospices throughout Scotland. The paragraph that I mentioned states that a hospice in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s area that has 10 palliative care beds enjoys more funding than St Margaret’s, which has 30 beds. That is a contradiction of the Government’s recently published chief executive letter—CEL 12 (2012)—which gives guidance on achieving some parity across the sector. I know that the committee has been extremely patient with the petition; I am fully aware of that. However, St Margaret’s needs the committee’s assistance yet again.

When I read the papers, I almost feel as if we are going round the houses and we need to be able to drill down into the situation a bit better. The Government says one thing and the health board says another. I would like the committee to write to the health secretary and perhaps pass on the letter from Jean Anne Mitchell. It would be worth getting the health secretary’s input on it.

I am not making a threat in any way, but I will certainly write to the health secretary in support of the work that has been carried out by the committee. It is not an either/or situation and I think it would be beneficial if I wrote as the local member and I would be grateful if the committee would keep the petition open and ask for the cabinet secretary’s comments.

Thank you. The committee appreciates all the hard work that you have done at the local level. It is quite obvious that you have carried the torch well for the organisation.

My only caveat is that in the previous parliamentary session the committee looked at the petition on 13 occasions and we generally try to stick to the admissibility criterion that a petition should be Scotland-wide. I flag that up to the committee.

The petition certainly has been long-running and each time we write to the health board and others, we get more conflicting information. The original petitioner highlighted the fact that one hospice is getting more funding than another. We have had the short-life working group, which concluded and published the future funding arrangements.

Gil Paterson, you said that you will write to the cabinet secretary. Would it be sufficient for the committee also to write to the cabinet secretary, but close the petition while doing so? Would that be helpful to the hospice?

It would be a good idea for the committee to write, but if the committee took its foot off the gas on the petition, that would send out a psychological message. Although the petition has had some longevity, almost half of what has been brought to the committee has been achieved. I am saying almost half because we are not quite there yet, but a lot has been achieved because of the work of this committee. Closing the petition would send a message to those I seek to influence that our foot has been taken off the accelerator.

I am loth to close the petition. I know that the committee is trying to tidy up the historical petitions, but enough issues have been raised by the latest submission, dated 14 September, on behalf of the petitioner about the clarification of the funding methods that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is using in relation to hospices. I suggest that we regard the petition as applying to Scotland more widely, because the petitioner has raised the issue of funding for hospices in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and how that compares with the rest of Scotland. There is a Scotland-wide focus on funding for hospices.

In particular, we need to ask the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for clarification of the disparity in funding between hospices in that area and why it continues. It is also important that we write to the new Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, asking what work he will undertake to address the funding regimes that apply not only in Glasgow, but throughout Scotland, as there is a wider issue. I do not think that the situation that has been highlighted by the St Margaret of Scotland hospice is unique—there are other problems out there.

The hospice movement throughout Scotland is spending a lot of time and voluntary work on raising funds to provide essential care for people but it is being hindered by the funding regimes that are being decided at a local level by local health boards. We can ask the new Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to put his mark on the issue and try to bring together the hospice movement in Scotland and the health boards to look at the overall funding throughout Scotland. In particular, there is an issue in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that must be addressed. I think that the cabinet secretary should re-engage with the debate to get some resolution as quickly as possible.

I am sure that members know about this, but in case they do not I advise them that the new chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has issued a letter on the funding arrangements in order to clarify the funding issues.

As a member for West Scotland, where the St Margaret of Scotland hospice is, I have been happy to support Gil Paterson in his efforts in relation to the hospice over a long period. It is fair to say that the suspicion exists in the community that the relationship between the health board and the hospice is disingenuous, to put it politely. I detect within the letter a degree of sophistry in the language, which does not get to the nub of the issue that it is trying to address. I am, therefore, reluctant to close the petition. The chief executive’s letter provides an opportunity to try to get an answer to the question that remains outstanding and nothing would give the health board greater relief than closing the petition. Doing so would leave the issue unresolved and dangling in the air. There is a little more that we could yet do to press the matter to a conclusion.

I agree with the general consensus that seems to be forming. I have sympathy with the petition and can see Gil Paterson’s point that taking our foot off the gas would send out the wrong message. The committee should write to the health secretary and the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, seeking further clarification. It would send out the wrong message if we closed the petition now, and the position can be looked at again once we have received a response from the health secretary and the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Committee members have all argued strongly along a similar line, which is to continue the petition. We will write to the chief executive of the health board and the health secretary. The new chief executive’s letter will be crucial in all this. When it comes back, we will consider the next step and whether we want to close the petition. In the meantime, we will keep it open. I thank Gil Paterson for coming along to give evidence to us today.

I am very grateful to you, convener.

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

The next current petition is PE1236, by Jill Fotheringham, on the A90/A937 safety improvements. Nigel Don MSP has a constituency interest in the petition and is here today. I thank him for coming along and ask him to say a few words to the committee about the petition.

Thank you, convener. I cannot help reflecting—as the committee members will—that some of the petitions have been around for a long time. I will adopt John Wilson’s argument regarding the importance of this one. It would send entirely the wrong message to Transport Scotland if we were to close the petition—on the basis of locality, apart from anything else.

11:30

I am sure that the committee will have looked at the papers, and I refer members to the very last item, which is a letter from the north-east of Scotland transport partnership that is dated 10 August. The second to last paragraph states:

“The work undertaken to date has highlighted that the predictions for future traffic levels have been underestimated and therefore the case for an improved solution has also been underestimated. It is anticipated that the final summary report on the above findings will considerably enhance the argument for upgrading the junctions at Laurencekirk.”

Members will be well aware of the issue. We are talking about a 20-mile stretch of the A90 that has no crossing whatsoever. There is no tunnel or bridge, and the main road is clearly dangerous to everybody who goes across it.

It is not so obvious that it is dangerous to those who proceed up and down the main road between Dundee and Aberdeen, but as far as I am aware that is the only point on the trunk road network where there is a permanent speed restriction of 50 mph. That is a unique circumstance, and it is wholly unacceptable.

I would be grateful if committee members would be willing to keep the petition open to await, at the very least, the final report from Nestrans and Aberdeenshire Council, so we can see what it has to say and decide whether we can bring to bear more pressure on Transport Scotland to get a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk as soon as possible.

Nigel Don makes a compelling case. Given the comments in the Nestrans letter, I think that it is worth waiting for the report in order to see what pressure can be brought to bear.

On the previous occasion on which we discussed the petition, we had a letter from the petitioner that appeared to indicate that they had in effect given up hope of the committee’s ever coming to a satisfactory conclusion. We took some issue with that, and kept the petition open. I note that there is no letter or submission from the petitioner today. Can the clerks tell us whether there has been any contact of any sort with the petitioner in relation to the petition, or what the petitioner’s view is?

We have not had anything directly, but we have kept the communication lines with the petitioner open.

Are members happy with the course of action that Nigel Don suggests?

Can we write to Nestrans to find out when it expects the report to be published? I note—as Nigel Don did—the number of times that the word “underestimated” appears in the letter. That raises concerns, because the evidence that we have received in the past from Transport Scotland and others has said that the work that was done to estimate the volume of traffic was rigorously carried out, and that Transport Scotland knew exactly what the level of road usage was. The Nestrans letter raises other issues.

I suggest that we write to Transport Scotland too, to ask for its views on the Nestrans letter and to find out whether it would like to comment ahead of the report’s publication on the likelihood of whether we can get some action from it on the grade-separated junction.

I see that no other member wishes to contribute. Are members happy with the comments from Nigel Don and John Wilson? Do we agree to continue the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Nigel Don again for coming along.

---

Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)

The fifth current petition is PE1384, by Kim Hartley, on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, on “Giving voice—speech and language therapy transforms lives”. Members have a note from the clerk, which is paper 6, and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

We know that the Government is undertaking a consultation on the allied health professions national delivery plan, in which the petitioner has participated. Their views will be taken on board in whatever appropriate decision is taken on the plan. With that in mind, we should close the petition.

Do members agree with that suggestion?

I was going to suggest that instead of closing the petition we refer it and all the evidence that we have received to the Health and Sport Committee for consideration alongside the consultation responses that it will no doubt be examining at a later date.

You came in too fast, John—I was just about to recommend that. I was going to recommend that we close the petition and pass it on.

Do members agree to refer the petition under rule 15.6.2 to the Health and Sport Committee for further consideration of the issue?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Child Sexual Exploitation (PE1393)

PE1393 by Martin Crewe on behalf of Barnardo’s Scotland is on tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland. Members will have received the clerk’s note and various submissions.

As members will recall, we had a very useful site visit—as they call it in local government—to an excellent Barnardo’s facility in Glasgow, and I welcome representatives from the organisation to the gallery. This is a very important petition and, having discussed it with some of the key staff, I feel that the more I look at it the more I think that it would make an excellent committee inquiry. No other committee’s remit completely straddles the issues in question and, as far as I am aware, no other committee is carrying out an inquiry in this area.

A note from the director, which I believe is included in the papers, runs through certain useful matters such as learning and understanding more about the scale and nature of the issue in Scotland; meeting practitioners; visiting services that have been set up to tackle and prevent CSE; meeting local authorities, the national health service and schools; and helping to raise the profile of the issue throughout Scotland. As this is a matter for the whole committee, I throw it open to comments.

Unfortunately, I will not be a member of the committee when—as, I am sure, will happen—the committee holds an inquiry, but I certainly look forward to listening in on the evidence or, indeed, to taking part in it. This petition is really important; I visited Barnardo’s in Glasgow before the committee made its own visit, and saw how easily young people can become trapped in a vicious circle and how hard it is for them to get out of it. The educational element is very important and I support the proposal for an inquiry.

As someone else who will not be taking part in the inquiry, I nevertheless agree that such a step is appropriate. I note that, after writing to a number of social media companies, we have received a response from MySpace, but not from some others. I think that it would be worth our while getting them to appear at some stage of the inquiry. Social media can play an important role in the discussion, so I wonder whether the committee might consider getting those companies to come to the committee and address concerns about how their websites, platforms and so on can be misused.

There is definitely merit in the committee’s taking a further look at the issue. It must be addressed and I believe that a committee inquiry is imperative.

I want to put on record that Barnardo’s Scotland does fabulous work in this area. However, it is hugely important for the committee to undertake an inquiry on this issue.

I support the convener’s suggestion that the committee conducts an inquiry. I have to say, though, that I am surprised that no other appropriate committee has felt it necessary to conduct one; after all, the problem is becoming more and more prevalent and we need to find out what is happening out there. If that requires the committee to conduct its own inquiry, I would welcome such a move and look forward to identifying and highlighting to other parliamentary committees the work that we will be carrying out.

I thank members for their comments. The way forward will be for the clerk to analyse the comments, consider the petition carefully and come back with a report, under the terms of reference. Are members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Staffordshire Bull Terriers (PE1396)

The seventh current petition is PE1396, by Ian Robb on behalf of Help for Abandoned Animals, in Arbroath, on overbreeding and abandonment of Staffordshire bull terriers. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper PPC/S4/12/13/8, and the submissions. I invite comments.

I have read the papers, and I think that all members have considered the issue closely. It is rather tragic that some breeds of dogs—not just Staffies—are thrown on the scrapheap by irresponsible owners. I suggest that we refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the remit of which includes animal welfare, for further consideration.

Do members agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we have decided unanimously to refer the petition, under rule 15.6.2, to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the remit of which includes animal welfare, for further consideration.

---

Pernicious Anaemia and Vitamin B12 Deficiency (Understanding and Treatment) (PE1408)

Petition PE1408, by Andrea MacArthur, is on updating of the understanding and treatment of pernicious anaemia and vitamin B12 deficiency. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper PPC/S4/12/13/9, and the submissions. Members will recall that we had a successful debate of approximately an hour on the issue, in the chamber. I seek comments from members.

Sandra White has pointed this one in my direction because I have a particular interest in the subject, as my wife has been diagnosed with pernicious anaemia. Issues were highlighted during the debate about treatment of patients with pernicious anaemia, particularly at general practices. I would welcome any move to introduce guidelines that would help patients who suffer from pernicious anaemia. The debate also raised the issue of the crossover between pernicious anaemia and conditions such as multiple sclerosis, which my wife also has. Patients throughout Scotland find that treatment is lacking and GPs are unsure about what is happening.

I suggest that we write to the British committee for standards in haematology to ask when its report will be ready. According to our papers, the report was supposed to be produced in June this year, but has been delayed until 2013. It might be useful to write to ask that committee when it expects the report to be concluded.

We were given assurances at previous meetings that the Pernicious Anaemia Society would be fully consulted and involved in discussions with the British committee for standards in haematology. According to the letter of 25 August, the Pernicious Anaemia Society has not been consulted, despite the fact that the chair of the society wrote to seek involvement in the discussions on how that committee intends to proceed.

I also suggest that we write to the Scottish Government for clarification of when it expects the report to be available, whether it intends to implement the findings of the report fully or whether, given the high prevalence of MS sufferers in Scotland and the lack of information on patients who suffer from pernicious anaemia, the Scottish Government will carry out its own study to find out where the nation stands in relation to patients who suffer from pernicious anaemia and the crossover with other conditions.

Do members agree with John Wilson’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Safeguarding Vulnerable People (PE1418)

The ninth current petition is PE1418 by Katherine Alexander on safeguarding vulnerable people. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

We should consider closing the petition, as is suggested in recommendation 4, because the Government is to establish a working group, to which the petition and the responses will be forwarded. They will be considered alongside the other consultation responses. I think that the petition will get a fair hearing at the working group, so I suggest that we close it.

Do members agree to Sandra White’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Therefore, we will close the petition under rule 15.7.

---

Fair Isle Marine Protected Area (PE1431)

The 10th current petition is PE1431 by Nick Riddiford, on behalf of the Fair Isle community, on a marine protected area for Fair Isle. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

Members will recall that we took excellent oral evidence from the Fair Isle community. On our planning day, we considered a visit to Fair Isle, but decided that for resource and other reasons, such a visit was not appropriate. However, we kept open the option of holding a videoconference with members of the community in the future. There has been some fierce opposition to the petitioners’ proposal from the Shetland Fishermen’s Association. I say that to set the scene.

That said, the Fair Isle community has made some fair comments on the environmental grounds for designating a marine protected area, and some of the environmental agencies support its views.

I note that Marine Scotland has still to complete its final assessment of the development and research proposals, so I think that it would be wise to keep the petition on our books until that has been completed. We could reconsider it at that stage.

Do members agree to that proposed approach?

Members indicated agreement.

We will continue the petition while we await Marine Scotland’s final assessment of the development and research proposals.

---

Ambulance Services (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE1432)

PE1432, by Joseph Duncalf and Anthony Duncalf, is on improving emergency ambulance provision in remote and rural areas. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

We had a good debate on the issue. I know that it affects other members’ areas more than the area of Glasgow that I represent, but all of us are concerned about the lack of emergency response in remote and rural areas. I would like us to keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Ambulance Service. Other members might have more detailed comments to make, but I think that the petition is so important that we should definitely keep it open and write to the service to ask it to engage with the petitioners and with communities.

The petitioners raise a number of issues in their letter. As Sandra White has indicated, it is important that we write to the Scottish Ambulance Service. We should ask it about the first-responder meeting that was held in March, because the indication that the petitioners got from the survey that they carried out to find out about awareness of that meeting was that elected members were not aware of it. Therefore, it would be useful to find out from the service what is happening.

It would also be useful to write to the Scottish Government to find out what actions have been taken and what discussions have taken place with the service about response times in Dumfries and Galloway and how they could be improved. We would want response times in that area to be closer to the national average, so that its residents do not suffer from what is commonly described as a postcode lottery when it comes to ambulance provision.

Thank you for that. Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Use of Productive Land (PE1433)

The 12th and final petition for consideration today is PE1433 by John Hancox on productive land for landless Scots to grow their own food. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

I must declare a particular interest in the issue. Our first evidence session today was on safe play areas. To all intents and purposes, PE1433 is about turning over unused public land or other unused land for useful food production. However, food comes in many shapes and sizes; it can be produced from fruit from trees, for example. The petition should be continued. I should declare my membership of a number of organisations that have given us detailed responses to the petition.

The petition has raised a number of issues, and it might be worth our while to write to the Scottish Government and others to find out where we can move forward issues to do with bringing into productive use green spaces and other places that could be used by communities and others to provide local produce. As I said, that produce does not need to be vegetables; it could be fruit.

I know that the petitioner has done a lot of work with schools and others to try to get community orchards and growing areas. He has done a lot of work in Glasgow—in the botanic gardens in particular—to get local schools involved. It would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to ask about the issues that the petitioner has raised, and how we can progress them collectively and utilise land that is currently unused—that ties in with the issue of play—for local food production.

I go back to our first discussion today. It seems that the focus should be on the proposed community empowerment and renewal bill, and we should guide the petitioner to it. Obviously, we should do that fairly soon, as the consultation closes next week, but that is the appropriate vehicle to take the issue forward. The committee may want to keep the petition open, but the issue sits more readily in that bill process.

John Wilson talked about writing to the Scottish Government and others. Will he clarify who the others are?

As I said, there were a number of respondents. RSPB Scotland, for instance, gave information about its work with North Lanarkshire Council in its response and said that some of the work has been halted. It said:

“Following discussions with Scottish Government, we identified one such area close to our Baron’s Haugh Nature Reserve in Motherwell.”

That is in my region. It said that it had

“approached North Lanarkshire Council to arrange discussions on how to take forward this idea. Currently, lack of resources and staff to fulfil this project have meant it has had to be put on hold”.

That takes us back to the earlier debate about play. If organisations are willing to get engaged in delivering such aims, they may not be being delivered because of a lack of resources or commitment. I do not always believe that it is down to resources; it can sometimes be down to a lack of local authority commitment to actively engaging in turning around green spaces in communities.

As I said, it might be worth our while to write to the Scottish Government to ask what discussions are taking place with local authorities and others, including some Government agencies that have responded, to find out what is happening, and to find out what resources we need to identify and put in place to ensure that we can deliver. I find it difficult to believe that it is all down to monetary resource; in some respects, I think that it is simply a matter of willingness to actively engage and turn over areas to local communities. I know that there is a major push in the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society to make more land available in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland so that people can grow their own produce.

Do members agree that we should continue the petition and that we should write to a number of organisations—including the Scottish Government, particularly in respect of the proposed community empowerment and renewal bill—that members, including John Wilson, have mentioned?

Members indicated agreement.

I will formally close the meeting.

Before you do so, convener, I want to say something. You were very kind in putting on the record your thanks to Sandra White and me. I record my thanks to you and the clerks for all the work that you have done with the committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on the committee and have learned about issues in which I would never ordinarily have taken an interest. Obviously, I have an interest in at least one of the petitions progressing, so I may come back to haunt you.

Again, I thank Mark McDonald and Sandra White for their contributions.

Thank you very much, convener. Like Mark McDonald, I thank you and the clerks for the support that we have received from you. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on the committee. This is not the first time that I have been on it; I was taken off it, and I came back to it. Who knows? I might be back again. I genuinely think that the committee is one of the best—if not the best—in the Parliament, as it reaches out to everybody and has many different facets, and we can all learn from the people who submit petitions and come along.

I am sure that we will miss you all, but I will happily be at the conference on 27 October on the committee’s behalf, as was said a couple of weeks ago. As a previous deputy convener of the committee, I will happily do that, if the committee wants me to do so.

I am sure that the committee would be very happy with that. Again, I thank both members for their contributions.

Meeting closed at 11:56.