Petitions

Item 2 on the agenda is petitions. We have three petitions before us today. Members will have received the paperwork for them and the recommendations. I will start with petition PE113, from the Campaign for Borders Rail, calling for the Scottish Parliament to consider ways of reinstating a railway into and through the Borders. The clerk's recommendation is that the committee notes the decision of the Transport and the Environment Committee to seek information from the Executive on the issue, and that it then co-ordinates the views of other committees. Do members agree to return to this petition at a future meeting, when we have learned the Executive's views from the Transport and the Environment Committee?

Would it be possible for us to write to Scottish Borders Council and to the Scottish Executive, asking them what work has been done on social exclusion arising from the lack of a Borders rail link, so that we are better prepared when we are asked for our comments?

I notice that one recommendation of the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee was to agree to a debate on the matter in the Parliament. I think that, as part of the process of highlighting the issue, we should support that. The issue is important—I had not realised that the area was the only mainland region of Scotland without any trains. I think that we should go along with the clerk's suggestion, but I think that this committee should back an attempt to find time for such a debate in the Parliament.

In the meantime, we would try to get more information. The issue should be somewhere on our agenda for us to return to once we have the information. If there is then a debate, we will be informed for it. You have heard a lot of the information in the Public Petitions Committee, John, so would you say that such a course of action is appropriate?

Yes. The petitioners, in presenting their petition to the committee, made the point that there were important social inclusion aspects about the absence of a rail link. They wanted this committee in particular to be involved in examining that aspect. That is why I suggested that we could write to Scottish Borders Council, which has probably done some work on this matter already, and to the Scottish Executive, asking it what it can say about the social exclusion or inclusion aspects of the lack of a link. That would better inform us.

We need a timetable for that.

I wondered whether it would be possible for this committee to agree to support the Public Petitions Committee in its request for a debate.

Do you mean as a formal decision?

Yes. I would like to know from John McAllion whether the Public Petitions Committee indeed agreed that a request should be made for a debate in the Parliament. I would like this committee to support such a request.

That would essentially take the form of written evidence. We would get the submissions, examine them, return to the matter and take a view on it, which would form our view of the debate. That is now noted. We also need a formal view: do members agree with Mike Watson's suggestion that we formally support the call for a public debate?Members indicated agreement.

No, there were 17,000 signatures.

It shows how widespread the support for this issue is; support is not just from Borderers.

I take it that the convener of the Public Petitions Committee can confirm for us that there is widespread support for this petition.

Yes: the meeting in Galashiels on 27 March was the best-attended meeting that we have ever had.

I know; I saw it on television.Petition PE123 is from the Scottish Warm Homes Campaign, calling for the Scottish Parliament to identify, discuss and seek to implement measures that would eradicate fuel poverty as a matter of urgency. Members will be aware that fuel poverty has been on our agenda; it has been highlighted at a number of meetings and it is the one issue to which we have said that we will give due consideration in preparation for the housing bill. The recommendation is to fit that in with the work that we had already planned. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.

After the Public Petitions Committee decided to send the petition to this committee and to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the petitioners wrote back saying that the issue also has health implications. They suggested that we should consult the Health and Community Care Committee about its views on the impact of fuel poverty on health.

That is part of the recommendation.

That is a useful suggestion. We need, however, to get our heads round the future work load of the committee. We really need to get into the issue of fuel poverty, and we all know that the housing bill is coming up. I will make recommendations about preparations for that later. The recommendations on petition PE123 are broadly agreed. Petition PE136 is from Training Adults in the Community, calling for the Scottish Parliament to persuade West Lothian Council to increase funding for the TAIC project to levels that will allow it to continue to provide a service. The clerk's recommendation is that the committee notes the petition and takes the wider issues that it raises into account in its forward agenda for voluntary sector issues.

The petition has been referred both to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and to the Equal Opportunities Committee. As convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I have taken up the individual case with West Lothian Council, rather than ask committees to do so.

I think that the view behind the recommendation is that we do not have the capacity to get involved in such single, specific issues.

I did some work over the recess on funding, with the intention of coming back with a paper. That will be included in my report so that we can examine the impact of the budget process on voluntary sector funding.

Good.

We considered and took evidence on that issue and we will pursue it. We agreed a set of work priorities, which arose from that evidence.