Parliament Workbench
Data: Official Report to 12 Nov 2026

Official Report · Committee

Current Petitions

Greater Glasgow Health Board (Consultation) (PE453)

Tuesday 26 February 2002 Public Petitions Committee Petitions 7 contributions · 3 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

7 contributions
John McAllion Lab The Convener · Dundee East
link

We come to the response from the Greater Glasgow NHS Board to the petition that relates to the proposed location of the secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area at Stobhill. The response is fairly detailed. It deals—almost line by line—with the points that were made in the Public Petitions Committee meeting on 5 February. Paul Martin, who has a particular interest in the matter, has not had the chance to see the response from the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Would it be possible—as only four members of the committee are present—for us to carry the matter over to the next meeting? That would allow members to check the Greater Glasgow NHS Board's reply against the Official Report of the petitioner's contribution to the committee and would allow Paul Martin to be informed and to make further representation to the committee, if he wanted.

John McAllion Lab The Convener · Dundee East
link

There is nobody here to speak to it. We could carry the petition over and return to it. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.

Phil Gallie Con South of Scotland
link

Before we move on, I would like to comment on a few of the petitions in the progress of which there have been changes. I made reference to them earlier on. I have the same comment on both the petitions concerned. It seems that we pass on petitions to other committees, which agree to conclude consideration of the petitions. Why do we not receive some kind of feedback on those petitions? For example, the Rural Development Committee simply concluded consideration of the petition about Cowal and Bute and the proposed Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park—it did not register an opinion on the merit of the proposals.

John McAllion Lab The Convener · Dundee East
link

You are referring to petition PE417.

Phil Gallie Con South of Scotland
link

Yes. I would have liked some feedback. Similarly, the Justice 2 Committee expressed no opinion on petition PE227 on the National Trust for Scotland issues that surround Glencoe. Surely the value of passing petitions on lies in the informed views of whichever committees consider them. We might get a division of opinion. It would be of interest to know what the relevant committees' opinions were.

John McAllion Lab The Convener · Dundee East
link

That is a fair point. I am informed that a review is being undertaken of our monitoring procedures and how policy committees report back to the Public Petitions Committee. The issue that you raised will form part of that review, which will be reported back to the committee.

In this meeting

Everything on 26 Feb 2002 →
  1. Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 26 February 2002 (Morning) Petitions · 6
  2. New Petitions Petitions · 52
  3. New Petitions Petitions · 61
  4. New Petitions Petitions · 28
  5. New Petitions Petitions · 1
  6. New Petitions Petitions · 5
  7. New Petitions Petitions · 1
  8. Current Petitions Petitions · 5
  9. Current Petitions Petitions · 1
  10. Current Petitions Petitions · 1
  11. Current Petitions Petitions · 3
  12. Current Petitions Petitions · 7
  13. Current Petitions Petitions · 7
  14. Inadmissible Petitions Petitions · 4
  15. Inadmissible Petitions Petitions · 3
  16. Inadmissible Petitions Petitions · 6

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.