You and I met when you were thinking about submitting your petition. I thought then that the petition was in the wrong terms and I see that you have changed it. You were looking for guaranteed rights, but no one has guaranteed rights to children.I have much sympathy with the petition, as you know from my long background as a family lawyer. I am not terribly familiar with the detail of the act; I would have to examine it. You probably have a good argument on the requirement for consideration to be given to grandparents. In due course, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will be getting a document from the Executive on changes to family law, so your concerns may well be addressed. You have brought to the fore an important issue on the role of grandparents, and I am pleased to see your petition. As I said to you, I have used grandparents when the parents were at war. The grandparents could see beyond the heat of the moment and consider the children first.The role of grandparents has also been in the news in England recently.
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John McAllion Lab 109
- Christine Grahame SNP 45
- Mrs Stewart 34
- Sandra White SNP 31
- Phil Gallie Con 29
- Helen Eadie Lab 26
- Mr Donald 22
- Mrs Reid 9
- Councillor McIntosh 8
- Mark Whittet 6
- Duncan Hamilton SNP 3
- Councillor Donald McIntosh 1
- Mr Alexander Donald 1
- Mrs Lydia Reid Grandparents Apart 1
- Mrs Margaret Stewart 1
The record
330 contributions · showing 201–330Yes. That was the Grandparents Federation in England.
Whether the eventual outcome is a change to the legislation, or a policy shift on the part of sheriffs, the petition is worth while.
I have written to Lydia Reid and I sympathise greatly. Christine Grahame has clarified things for me a wee bit. She is a lawyer, but I am not, so I did not know the ramifications if the changes became law, or whether that was what you wanted. She said that the change does not have to be legislative or statutory as long as grandparents are considered sympathetically.
Yes.
I think that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will take that on board. I just want to know whether you want it to be statutory, because even fathers and mothers do not have a statutory right if there is a divorce, if they have a partner that does not want it.
I can see that.
That concerned me a wee bit, but it has been clarified.
In the background report, I have included all the problems that grandparents have spoken to me about when I am out with the petition, or when they phone me, so it is quite comprehensive. Quite a lot of grandparents have talked to me about each of those problems. Grandparents face problems when they try to see their grandchildren, and somebody needs to look into the situation to find out whether the problems are as widespread as they seem to be. The grandparents that I talk to are telling me about them. If a committee could look into the background problems that grandparents face, that would not be a bad thing.
Once again, as a grandparent I should declare an interest. Having said that, I am not clear on the precise point that the petition is making. To add grandparents to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 seems quite reasonable, but I always understood that if parents were not on the scene, grandparents would be regarded as directly responsible for the children. Is that not the case?
That does not happen often enough. The Children Act 1989 said that if a parent was not fit, if the child was getting no parental help at all, the first person that social services should look at is a grandparent. That just does not happen. In many cases, grandparents are not even allowed to write to their grandchildren who are in care. That is horrendous.
Are you saying that, after the parents, the social work department takes priority over everybody else?
Yes, and the social work department should look first to the grandparents.There is also a case for grandparents being helped financially to look after their grandchildren. Many grandparents would take more of a caring role if they had the finances. They are often caring, loving people, but try keeping a grandchild on a pension. They cannot do it.
I suggest to the Grandparents Apart self-help group that, when this issue comes before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the group should contact the committee if it wants to give evidence, because that is the way to put its case to the committee that will deal with this issue.
I will do that.
Thank you very much. That was helpful. The recommendation is that we pass this petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for further discussion. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
The next petition, PE125, is from Unison Scottish health committee about car park charges. Bristow Muldoon indicated that he wanted to be present to speak to it, but he is not here so we will deal with the petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the justification for the introduction of car parking charges at St John's hospital in Livingston. There are more than 1,000 signatures on this petition.The introduction of parking charges is a matter for West Lothian NHS Trust. I suggest that the committee might want to request background information from the trust on its reasons for bringing those charges in, before agreeing whether any further action should be taken on this petition.
I agree that we should get more information on this matter. This is not only happening in Livingston, it is happening across Scotland. It is regrettable that any trust is imposing charges such as this. The Parliament should take this issue seriously, because it is not right that visitors to hospitals, or patients, should have to pay car park charges. There must be other options. I have views, which I will save for another debate.
There have been car parking charges at Ninewells in Dundee for years.We will write to the trust to ask it for its case and consider the matter further when we get the response.The next petition is PE126 from Dunlop and Lugton Community Council, with 360 signatures. It is about sub-post office closures. It calls on"the Scottish Parliament to take whatever action it considers to be the most appropriate to relay concerns over the closure and changes to sub post offices to the Westminster Parliament."We have already had a members' business debate on this issue, on a motion by David Mundell. The SNP gave over one of its debates to the role of post offices and the Rural Affairs Committee will shortly undertake an inquiry into the impact of changes in rural employment on rural communities. We have already referred petitions to that committee to be part of its considerations.The suggestion is that we pass this petition to the Rural Affairs Committee, as we did with the other petitions on post office closures.
We might also want to send Henry McLeish's statement to Parliament back to the petitioner. He made it clear that post offices will not be closed and that pensioners and anyone claiming benefits will continue to be able to claim their benefits and pensions at post offices. We must get that message across to people.
When we get the response from the Rural Affairs Committee, we can consider including that in our response.
I do not want to make a political point. This depends on who you believe and who you do not believe. The post office workers and the unions do not believe Henry McLeish's statement; they have issued members with a list of post offices that they say will close.You are right to send this petition to the Rural Affairs Committee. However, I know Lugton and I would not say that it is a rural area—it is near Kilmarnock and Paisley. I do not know what other committee we could send it to, but it is not as rural as some areas.
The Rural Affairs Committee is examining this issue and it will make recommendations. Once we find out what those are, we can consider Helen Eadie's point. We are not yet at the stage of responding to this petition. We are only passing it on.
I have just a brief point, as time is pressing. The petition is not concerned with rural post offices, but with sub-post offices, many of which are in large estates. Although the petition should go to the Rural Affairs Committee, we should remember that it concerns sub-post offices.
Sorry. I should have said sub-post offices. If the committee wants, we can also send the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
The fact still stands that this issue affects every post office in the land. Henry McLeish's position on this matter is very clear.
I hate to be a Luddite on these matters. Although we have already advocated a move into the future with our acceptance of electronic petitions, I am concerned that much of the business carried out by sub-post offices can be done through e-commerce. I hope that we have not sent out the wrong message today.
This committee is not sending out any message. We are merely referring the petitions on to two other committees.
On the way here in the car, I heard on the radio that Barclays Bank, which is closing all kinds of buildings, wants to put business in the direction of post offices.
Good for Barclays Bank.We will now move on to petition PE127 from the Edinburgh Student Action for Refugees, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a variety of measures regarding the detention of asylum seekers in Scotland. As most of the issues raised in the petition are reserved matters, it was initially suggested that the petition should be passed to the Home Secretary with the request that Home Office officials respond directly to the petitioner. However, the Scottish Parliament information centre has advised us that there are differences in Scotland, a major one being that asylum seekers can be detained in Scottish prisons. Thirty-nine asylum seekers are currently so detained. Under Scottish asylum and immigration legislation, persons under 16 years old can also be held in prison.Although, in the long term, we might refer the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I could write as convener to the Home Office minister concerned, asking for a detailed response to the points raised in the petition and for comment on the specific differences in Scotland as highlighted in the information from SPICe. Once we have received that response, we can consider what to do. Are members agreed?Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE128 is an electronic petition from World Wildlife Fund Scotland, which is calling for the Scottish Parliament to ensure that marine national parks are included in the national parks bill. This is the first electronic petition that the Parliament has received via the e-petitioner system at Napier University. As the committee has agreed that the petition is admissible, it is suggested that we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee as part of its consideration of the proposed national parks bill. Are members agreed?Members indicated agreement.
Finally, we will move on to petition PE130 from Mr Paul Shanks, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to investigate the potential effects of the proposed closure of the Carrick Street centre in Ayr on the social justice targets of the Scottish Executive. Mrs Margaret Stewart will address the committee on the petition.Before Mrs Stewart addresses the committee, I should remind members that there is a by-election in Ayr this week and that they might wish to avoid making blatant or overtly party political statements during the committee's consideration of the petition. We have to consider the petition on its merits and decide what to do with it. However, those comments do not apply to Mrs Stewart. She can say whatever she likes to the committee.
Convener, before I start, will you allow me to submit some photographs so that committee members can have a better understanding of my comments?
Yes. If you pass them over, we can look at them while you speak to the petition.
South Ayrshire Council proposes to close the Carrick Street day centre for the elderly in Ayr. Since 1973, this centre has provided essential services for older people, many of whom are vulnerable and disadvantaged. The centre is situated in the town centre and is close to shops and public transport. It is used by more than 1,700 members and provides services that enhance the health and happiness of users.Between 250 and 300 people attend daily. Hot lunch is provided for up to 70 people and others call in to take part in the activities, or for a snack and a chat in a warm environment. To many, it is a second home. A chiropodist attends daily and activities include dancing, bowling, keep fit, whist, bingo and sequence dancing. Concerts and outings are arranged for our members. Groups using the centre include the Women's Royal Voluntary Service Darby and Joan club, the heart stroke lung group, Scottish Old Age Pensioners Association, arthritis groups, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, and Toc H. It is a surgery venue for local councillors.It will be seen that there are varied services providing support for many disadvantaged elderly people and their carers. Carers can go to work or to shops knowing that members are in a safe environment. The Prime Minister recently said that we must become a caring society and must look after the elderly, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable. The closure of the centre and the loss of the services that it provides will be socially and financially disastrous for its users. It is hoped that a way can be found to avert closure. We ask the Scottish Parliament to investigate the potential effect of the proposed closure on the social targets of the Scottish Executive. In nine days we have collected 2,000 signatures.
Thank you for that very clear statement. Are there any questions?
I have a question—not a statement, convener. Is it the case that the centre is being closed but that there is a new centre to replace it?
No. The amenities committee has not been informed of anything. I only wish that you could have seen the faces on the day that the closure was announced. I assure you that there were many broken-hearted people, because the centre is their home and the only pleasure that they have in life.
I have several questions. You are a member of the amenities committee. What pre-consultation did you have with South Ayrshire Council?
The members of the amenities committee—Beverley White, Mr Neil Watson and I—had one meeting with Mr Baillie, Mr Hill and ex-Provost Campbell. The council informed us about the centre and told us that they would have to wrap what we were told in clingfilm so that nothing would leak out. The members of the amenities committee returned to the centre, purchased a paper across the road and discovered that everything that we had been told at that meeting was in the paper. Everything was prearranged.
What did the newspaper report say? Did it suggest that the building would be sold?
Yes, it said that the building would be sold—HGB would take over. We were shown the plans at the meeting, and were asked to show them to our members at Carrick Street. To ensure that nothing leaked out, we refused to do that; however, as I have said, the matter was already in the newspaper.
When you were shown those plans, it was suggested that other facilities could be provided within the new premises at Kyle Street, and other options were suggested at that time.
Not to us.
Were there suggestions at any time from South Ayrshire Council that use of the Affleck building, for example, could be taken into account? If so, were the amenities committee or any other members taken along from the Carrick Street centre to look at those premises?
No, we were never consulted. Only the unit manager and Mr Neil Watson were taken.
Is the unit manager an employee of South Ayrshire Council?
Yes. We were never taken to see any premises.
How many members do you have?
We have eight committee members.
I meant to ask how many members there are at the centre.
There are 1,700 members.
The committee was not consulted. Is that correct?
It was not.
At the council meeting at which the proposals were accepted—I might mention by 14 votes to 13—was the suggestion that money spent on the Carrick Street centre could be better used for care in the community?
That is correct.
In your view, does the use of the Carrick Street centre, the company that the people who go there enjoy and the support that they get, keep people from having to go into the community care programme?
It is their life. If the Carrick Street centre is closed down, it will cost South Ayrshire Council lots and lots more money than it would have done if the council had spent it on the roof. We have a beautiful place; it is a lifeline. There are people with dementia and other people who only go there because they know that they get companionship. They get a hot meal in the morning, they get their lunch, they get afternoon tea and home baking or whatever they want. There is a quiet room and a television room, and a chiropodist is available, as I have already mentioned.When we close the centre in holiday time, the police pick the people up from the street because they do not know that the centre is closed. So what will happen when we close it at the end of the month?
Were you told that, before a sale was implemented, nothing would happen to the facilities at Carrick Street?
Yes.
Can you then tell me what is happening with hot meals, a provision which you say is so important?
At the end of the month, that all finishes. The equipment will be removed from the kitchen.
I understand that the centre was fitted out fairly recently.
Yes.
What was spent? What was done?
A fortnight ago, the carpet fitters came in and laid the best quality of carpet in the reading room. After spending all that money, why is the centre being closed at the end of the month?
How are the older people—I stick my older person's hat on again—reacting to this?
There are no words to describe it. They are so down. It is possible to feel the atmosphere in the centre, and the heart has gone from all the people there. It is a shame. The whole thing should be made public. I feel like pulling in members of the public to show them what the people in there are like. It is a disgrace what South Ayrshire Council is doing to them. The council has a lot to answer for in doing this. Surely it could have spent the money that it has wasted on carpets and new units on putting a new roof on the building? That would have cost it a lot less.
I have read through most of the petition, the letters of support and the communication that you have had with various community councils. Is it a fact that the centre was gifted to the elderly people of Ayr?
Yes, it was a gift, but the Auld Kirk of Ayr Halls sold it to South Ayrshire Council. We heard at one time that it had been sold to Strathclyde, but Strathclyde had given it back to South Ayrshire Council, which gave it the right to do what it liked with the building.
Basically, it has been a football.
We will look into it more.
Yes, because someone told me that it was gifted to the people of Ayr.
Yes, it was.
Do you know how much the council contributes to the running of the Carrick Street centre? It must have mentioned in the council minutes how much it spent.
It spent £119,000.
A year?
Yes.
So for £119,000 you have 1,700 members, and the council is prepared to close the centre and those members will have nowhere to go. It does not need a mathematician to see that if those people were put in the community with extra social services, it would cost the council a lot more than it is contributing just now.
Yes, it would cost the council a lot more. South Ayrshire Council does not help our amenities committee. We work hard for the money. We raise money, run raffles and put on concerts. It is all our money. We have to pay for all the tea, even for us volunteers, which we do not mind. We pay for the supervisor, the catering and the band. We are not looking for appreciation, but we do not get any help from South Ayrshire Council.
I appreciate that. You do work hard. I know that there was a lack of consultation, and that you only found out about this matter in the newspapers, but did the newspapers report how much South Ayrshire Council would receive if it sold the hall? Was it something like £400,000?
Yes.
So the council will make £400,000.
The thing is, we are sitting on a prime site, but we have asked why they cannot just build round us, and leave our part.
Christine brought up the matter of hot meals and how you are in limbo. You do not know what is going on, and whether the centre is going to be shut and the kitchen equipment removed. Do you have any other equipment that members have donated, which presumably belongs to the amenities committee? If you have any donated pianos, chairs or tables, what is happening to them?
Unfortunately, I have received a lawyers' letter. The piano was donated to me for the centre. The letter allows me to take home the piano and the organ, but we have to make an inventory of all the other equipment. Nothing belongs to South Ayrshire Council: it all belongs to us. They are trying to take our equipment away, but they are not going to do it. We will fight them.
Good for you. I am sure that you will succeed.
I notice that Fort and Seafield Community Council, which is the council for the area that you are in, has written to all the other community councils in South Ayrshire. Virtually every community council in South Ayrshire has written back, which is remarkable, and every one has backed Fort and Seafield in opposing closure of this facility. Why do you think that all those community councils feel so strongly?
The council that I belong to is Masonhill and Holmshome, which has written to Mr George Thorley, but no action has been taken and no information has been given out. It is by pure luck that we found out about the centre being sold, because a member of Fort and Seafield Community Council who was at the council meeting leaked the information to us; we took action right away on the Friday morning. That was the first information that we had. South Ayrshire Council thought that it could keep the matter quiet and slip it through, but it has a fight on its hands. That is why we have done so much background work.
When you heard the news, what was your first action?
We were all completely shocked.
I asked what your first action was.
We wrote to the Prime Minister, who sent the letter to Donald Dewar. However, we have not yet received any word from him. I should not be using names, but John Prescott was at our centre three years ago and said that we were very fortunate to have such a place in Ayr.
Did you ask for a meeting with either the convener or the leader of the council?
Yes.
Did you have that meeting?
They have not come forward—we have sent another letter by recorded delivery but, at the council meeting on Thursday, they said that they had not received a letter from us. However, I have the recorded delivery slip and tomorrow I am going to the Post Office to see when the letter was delivered and who signed for it.
Is this your press cutting that we have before us, which talks about the alternative centres that are being offered to you?
We have not been offered any. The amenities committee has not been consulted.
The press cutting mentions four other options for centres. Were you not given that?
We were not involved in that. Only the unit manager and Neil Watson were involved. We were not consulted.
This is a newspaper cutting.
The unit manager and Neil Watson gave that, but we were never consulted.
Thank you for that excellent and clear contribution, Mrs Stewart.The situation is obviously very serious, particularly in relation to what has been said about South Ayrshire Council. Members will know that, at its meeting last week, the council decided that it could no longer subsidise all the lunch clubs in Ayr because of budget constraints, which led to the proposed closure of the centre. We need a response from South Ayrshire Council. I suggest that, rather than simply sending it a copy of the petition and the back-up papers, we send the Official Report of this meeting and ask it to respond in detail to what has been said. We can then consider what to do.
I appreciate the difficulties of intervening in local authority matters. What concerns me is that there does not seem to have been any consideration of the human and financial impact of the council's decision. On top of that, the council is already beginning to strip out various equipment and is moving the provision of hot meals. The status quo is not being maintained but it should be until we have heard the council's response to our discussion today and its explanation of how it reached its decision. If hot meals are to be stopped at the end of the month, we will be fighting a rearguard action. I know that it is not our job to take up a position one way or the other, but I would like us to hold the position until the matter has been fully explored.
The clerk has pointed out to me that it will be a week before the Official Report is available, so what we have suggested is not on. What we could do is refer the petition to South Ayrshire Council with a covering letter from me explaining that the committee wants an urgent assurance that no action will be taken until we have had a response from the council. We will not know how to deal with the petition until we have had that response, but we should request that the council maintains the status quo until the committee has considered the matter.
I agree with the action that you propose, convener. However, today's meeting has highlighted a difficulty. Whenever we hear a case, we are conscious that the person who needs to respond to the points that are raised is missing. Do we have to wait until we have heard from the petitioner before we can invite someone to answer the charges that are being made? I ask that because, if that is so, the process is delayed and we will not hear the outcome of the case for two weeks or so. It would have been helpful—given that there is a by-election tomorrow, and given that this committee meeting is being broadcast—to have had someone from the council to answer at this meeting.
Let us leave that issue until later. First, we must decide what we are going to do with the petition.
I wrote to the leader of the council three or four weeks before this announcement was made, after a meeting with the amenities committee, asking no more than that he communicate with that committee. I pointed out that that committee was prepared to discuss the issues and even alternative buildings, if it could be kept informed. Two days before the announcement was made, I received a letter from the leader of the council, saying that he would take what I had said on board. Then the closure was announced. I listened to what was said at the council meeting. The leader of the council stated clearly that he had communicated closely with the amenities committee throughout. To my mind—I knew the background—that was not the case. I would like this committee to recognise the point about consultation. Moreover, there is a precedent—we brought before us the convener of the Greater Glasgow Health Board. In this instance, we should ask South Ayrshire Council to hold its position and we should invite representatives of that council to give a presentation on the reasons for the closure. At the same time, we should determine what communication it has had with the people in the Carrick Street centre. That falls in line with the point that Helen has just made, in that there are two sides to a story—it is right that both should be able to present their views. The quickest and best way in which to do that—and a precedent seems to have been set—is to request that the South Ayrshire Council leadership comes here to discuss this issue.
I realise that this is a sensitive issue. However, in the case of Stobhill, we wrote to the chairman of the health board in the first instance; it was only after we received his response that we decided to ask him to attend the committee in person. We should not, as a matter of course, invite people to attend to respond to every petition that comes before the committee. The best idea is to write to South Ayrshire Council, explaining that serious allegations have been made in the presentation of the petition today. We want the council's response and an assurance that no action will be taken to close the centre until the committee has had a chance to consider the matter.
I agree with that. Concern has been expressed not only because this is a by-election issue—it is an important issue in any event—but because similar situations are arising elsewhere in Scotland. The letter should be specific. We cannot ask people to come along and answer the allegations in a petition on the spot; that would be asking them to respond to evidence that has been given without allowing them the chance to consider it. At the very least, there would have to be an adjournment, and I do not think that that would be appropriate.First, we should write to South Ayrshire Council on the main points that have been raised today, asking it to respond clearly on the issue of consultation and on whether any assessment was made of the impact of the closure in financial and human terms. This is not just a financial exercise; there is more to this than the cost implications of care in the community. Secondly, I would like the council specifically to undertake not to stop the provision of hot meals and not to remove equipment pro tem. What we are asking while the matter is under investigation is clear. What is a month or two here or there to the council? If it comes up with an alternative that is acceptable to the elderly residents, that is all well and good, as long as it is in the centre and is fully equipped. That is another point in the letter—what are the alternatives? Have alternatives been offered? We might want the council to write to us about consultation, removal of equipment and alternatives.
I am glad that Christine supports the line that you are proposing, convener. I, too, support the recommendation. You were right to highlight the fact that, in the first instance, we wrote to the chairman of the Greater Glasgow Health Board. The danger is that we try to take over the role and function of local government. Local government is elected and if it is determined to go a certain way, it would be wrong of us to intervene. However, we have a role in ensuring that the public are adequately consulted in all those matters.
I can accept the suggestion, provided that an absolute freeze is put on the current situation. Irrespective of our request, the Greater Glasgow Health Board continued to act along the same lines. If I had an assurance that we could freeze the situation, I would be happy to accept the comments of Helen and Christine.
It is clear that we are not in a position to demand a freeze of the South Ayrshire Council. I remind members that the budget for Scotland, which included the local government financial settlement, was passed unopposed.
Excuse me, but the SNP opposed it.
The distribution of revenue support grant to local authorities was opposed, not the total sum given to local authorities. We must recognise that local authorities have the right to decide such issues in their budgets. We can request a freeze, asking that no action be taken until the Parliament is in a position to consider the petition properly. However, we do not have the right to demand it.
I know that we cannot demand it. However, although this is not part of the committee's business, I must stress the fact that we did not accept Jack McConnell's budget.
You did not vote against it.
I do not want to go into that now, but I will say that we lodged an amendment asking the Executive to get Gordon Brown to open up his war chest.We cannot force the council to do anything, but we can make a request. Having been a councillor, I am concerned that provosts and leaders of councils are saying that they did not receive letters that were sent by recorded delivery. I am on record as saying that that had happened in the council of which I was a member, where it was proven that the letters had been sent. You say that the electorate can vote out the council, convener, but that is not the point. The council must be accountable to the public. It should consult people, particularly on such an issue. The council should not be saying that it cannot meet the petitioner, supposedly because it did not receive a letter. It should listen to the people. We must make it clear that the status quo should prevail and that nothing must happen until we have heard from South Ayrshire Council. That is nothing to do with a by-election or anything else. Some councils do not conduct themselves democratically.
It is not for the Public Petitions Committee to make judgments about which local authorities are democratic and which ones are not.I suggest that we write in the terms suggested by Christine, asking for assurances, although we cannot make demands. We must recognise that local authorities have the right to make such decisions and that the local electorate will hold them accountable. South Ayrshire Council deserves the opportunity to respond on the matter and we cannot reach any conclusions until we have had a response to the detailed issues that have been raised.
From years of writing letters as a lawyer, I know that demands and threats only make people's hackles rise. There are ways in which to show how seriously something is regarded without being too dramatic. We can say that we want to give the council the opportunity to address the serious issues that have been raised and that in the meantime we would like assurances about the non-removal of equipment and so on. That is in the interests of South Ayrshire as well.
I am sure that Mr Farrell is adept at writing such letters and that he could frame one appropriately. Can we agree to write to South Ayrshire Council along the terms suggested, asking it to respond to the serious allegations that have been made in this petition, and that we further consider the petition when we receive its response?Members indicated agreement.
I would like to depart—I think that the committee remains quorate.
I think so.
It would be useful for the committee to look at the photographs that the amenities committee has brought. I had the opportunity, as I am sure other members did, to see round the Carrick Street centre
We will see them at the end of the meeting.
I have seen them.
The committee will adjourn for the time being.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
In this meeting
Everything on 14 Mar 2000 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 14 March 2000 (Afternoon) Petitions · 1
- Electronic Petitions Petitions · 24
- New Petitions Petitions · 330
- Current Petitions Petitions · 18
- Convener's Report Procedure · 10
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.