Congenital Heart Disease Patients (Care) (PE1446)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of current petitions. PE1446 by Dr Liza Morton, on behalf of Scottish adult congenital heart patients, is on Scottish standards for the care of adult congenital heart patients. Members will have a note by the clerk and the various submissions. Malcolm Chisholm MSP, who has an interest in the petition, would have attended the meeting to speak, but he has a prior constituency engagement.
I invite contributions from members.
I have nothing to say other than that I agree with the proposed action. We will have more information by the end of the year.
Indeed. I should perhaps have said that the petitioner is keen for us to defer the petition until the end of 2014 and maintain a watching brief on progress towards the development and implementation of national standards.
I am pleased to note from the briefing and from questions that members have asked in the chamber that the issue is on the radar of the Minister for Public Health, who is fully aware of the Scottish adult congenital cardiac service.
I see that Dr Morton is pleased with the establishment of the working group, which she describes as a very positive step forward. However, I also note her request that the committee keep a watching brief on the issue, and I agree with Chic Brodie that we should do so.
I remember Dr Morton’s evidence vividly; her case was forceful, compelling and well articulated. I am happy to support the recommendation, but I suggest that we note in the committee’s minutes our very strong support for the petition’s aims and our desire for it to succeed. In our watching brief, we would be putting the issue out of sight and out of mind, but we would expect the work that is under way to lead to positive results and outcomes.
I commend the petitioner for the work that has been undertaken so far, but it is clear that there is still work to be done and progress to be made. I agree that we should keep the petition open with a watching brief, but we should ensure that we are watching the issue.
Are members happy with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I endorse the comments that have been made. Dr Morton gave excellent evidence to the committee and the petition is very good.
Alzheimer’s and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
PE1480 by Amanda Kopel, on behalf of the Frank Kopel Alzheimer’s Awareness Campaign, is on Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness. Members will have a note by the clerk and various submissions.
This is another strong petition. I noted recently in the press that Alex Neil visited the family and that some positive publicity resulted from that. One key issue is the importance of extending free personal care to under 65-year-olds who have dementia. There is a suggestion that we consider the petition again after the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has made a statement to Parliament, which we expect to happen soon, and has written again to the committee on the matter.
The cabinet secretary’s letter says that a statement will be made later in March. I presume that, given that we are now into April and heading for the Easter recess, the statement will be made later in April. That said, I am certainly content to wait for it.
I want to make two points. First, I know that the local member has been diligent in following through the petition and arranging meetings with the cabinet secretary. Secondly, I take Angus MacDonald’s point that the statement was supposed to be in March; perhaps it will be backdated. One hopes that it might be made this week, but the matter is in hand.
If members agree, I am happy to write to Alex Neil asking when the statement will be made, just so that we have a timeframe. Do members agree with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
We will continue the petition until we have a note back from Alex Neil.
Single-room Hospitals (Isolation) (PE1482)
The next current petition is PE1482, by John Womersley, on isolation in single-room hospitals. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Alex Fergusson MSP has an interest in the petition and would have attended today’s meeting, but he had a prior engagement.
I invite comments from members, although I flag up one option, which is to write to the Government seeking confirmation that patient and public views should be sought to inform the proposed review and to ask whether the Government has undertaken a cost benefit analysis of having 100 per cent single rooms compared to 50 per cent over the course of a hospital’s lifetime and, if so, whether it will share that information with the committee.
When we considered the petition previously, I raised a question about expense and, leaving aside the personal aspect, how much might have been saved had we consulted on mixed-room hospitals. To an extent, the cabinet secretary’s letter of 19 March lays out the estimated impact. One also has to look at the longer-term costs arising from the impact of non-socialisation of patients who do not wish to be in single rooms. I have had several representations from people in the medical profession who have suggested that there is a disbenefit from applying a policy of single rooms, because multibedded rooms can assist with the betterment of a person’s medical condition. Of course, that does not apply to everyone, but the 50 per cent rule was initially aligned with that thought.
I am kind of with the cabinet secretary on this. There are people who, in response to public opinion surveys, would say that they would prefer that we still had segregated carriages on trains rather than open carriages, but we cannot provide a mix of both just because people would like that. The development of a hospital is a long-term thing. It might not be easy to simply reconfigure accommodation to suit at any particular moment in time.
Politically, I have supported the Government’s announcements on the development of single-room hospitals for a variety of reasons, including infection control and having en suite facilities for each patient—a whole range of things has influenced my decision on that. Although I think that there is a role for patient opinion in all this, the hospital’s primary responsibility is to heal the patient and have them leave hospital at the earliest possible time and in the best possible health.
I think that a slightly homoeopathic element is being brought into the discussion, rather than a clinical one. I am not sure, therefore, that I feel moved to disagree with the cabinet secretary’s policy position on this.
Jim Eadie? I am trying to tempt him to comment, but he is resisting the temptation.
I will not rise to the bait of Mr Carlaw’s comments. There has to be a balance and optimal care has to be the driver rather than cost reduction; the comments from other members are largely correct in that regard.
I will not ask the committee to make an absolute decision just now on whether they are in favour of 100 per cent single rooms. I will ask whether patient and public views should be part of this. There is also the issue of the cost benefit analysis to follow up, on which we did not get a categoric reply. That is what I am asking the committee to do now, instead of making any definitive decision. Do members agree with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you.
Supermarkets (High Streets) (PE1497)
The next current petition is PE1497, by Ellie Harrison, on behalf of Say No to Tesco, on supermarket expansion on local high streets. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. There was a good response from local authorities. I found the submissions quite interesting when I looked through them this morning. Do members have any general comments?
I was interested in the response from Falkirk Council’s chief executive, Mary Pitcaithly, in which she made a number of valid points, as did Alastair Mitchell from the Falkirk business improvement district company and Falkirk and District Town Centre Management Ltd—I suggested that she might contact him. Their comments relate mainly to Falkirk town centre. As they point out, the situation there is quite different from that which is presented by the petitioners in the Glasgow area, but similar concerns to those of the petitioners have been expressed with regard to the district centres in the Falkirk Council area—in particular in Grangemouth, where a new Asda store opened just on the outskirts of the town centre in 2007. That store had a dramatic impact on the footfall in the town centre and hurt a number of independent retailers, which are still trading, but only just.
Similarly, I am aware of the situation in Stornoway—as you will be, convener—where a Tesco and a Co-operative are operating on the outskirts of the town centre and have severely impacted on the footfall in the town centre.
A number of valid points are raised in the submissions that we have received and I have some sympathy with the petitioners when I see what has happened with the larger out-of-town retail stores. However, the other argument from local authorities is that smaller supermarkets—Tesco Metros and so on—seem to retain footfall in the town centres and high streets. I would say that the jury is out on this one until we see more of those smaller stores developing in our high streets.
I am still not entirely persuaded. I invited the petitioners to send us an evidence-based list of the stores that had closed. In fact, I spent some time on Great Western Road on Friday afternoon just to see what it was like and there was hardly a vacant unit the length of Great Western Road. The shops were all thriving and they were busy.
I assume that if some units have gone in the natural course of business, others have taken their place. Specifically, I took time to look for the Sainsbury’s Local unit, which is about halfway down the road between the River Kelvin and the city centre. I looked around and I saw other fresh produce stores that were still operating in that environment. The petitioners attributed the closure of a specific store at the other end to the opening of Waitrose, but in fact the Waitrose store was not a new unit—it replaced an existing supermarket.
I wonder whether these small supermarkets have a prejudicial effect, as has been suggested, or whether they bring a certain amount of pizzazz and attraction to an area that has suffered from a drop in footfall traffic, and collectively bring more business to the area. Like Angus MacDonald, I am not persuaded that it would be right to try to introduce any kind of restriction.
11:00
When the petitioners appeared before the committee, I engaged in some robust questioning on why the name of the company had been used, which concerned me.
Having looked—as I would—at the response from South Ayrshire Council, and having had discussions last week about other developments in South Ayrshire, I am somewhat concerned about the limitation that would apply to the class 1 planning process. A large toy retailer, which will remain nameless, applied to have a shop in the middle of Ayr High Street, but it was turned down because it did not fit in with the development plan or the planning process. We sometimes micromanage things unnecessarily. I share Jackson Carlaw’s view that some of these shops can bring in footfall that there might not otherwise be in the town and therefore bring benefits to other shops.
The key issue for the committee is whether we see this as something that the Scottish Government has a role in; if we do, the suggestion is that we ask the Scottish Government how business rates relief is used to support small and medium-sized businesses. If we see it as a wider issue that is really to do with competition—as members know, that is a reserved issue—we do not really have a locus.
I seek members’ views. Should we continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government? Alternatively, is it predominantly about competition, in which case we do not really have a locus?
There is a tension between the need to promote economic growth at all costs and the need to reflect the views of local communities. There has been an expansion of these businesses in the south of Edinburgh, which I represent. There has to be a balance and it is necessary for each application to be taken on its merits. However, there is concern among the community that some of these developments reduce the footfall for small, independent traders. It would be valuable to have some information on that; perhaps we could ask the Federation of Small Businesses whether it has had any feedback from its members on the impact of the growth in smaller supermarkets.
To balance our consideration of the issues, I add that a Sainsbury’s Local has opened in Marchmont in my constituency. Through a partnership with Remploy, it is employing people who would have had trouble accessing employment in the current labour market. A number of issues have to be considered in reaching a judgment, but there is no doubt that there is concern in the south of Edinburgh about what is perceived to be the overexpansion of this type of businesses.
I agree with Jim Eadie about consultation, but it is about something much wider than the consultation process; it is about looking at how development plans are being developed, and the definition of the retail policy and what areas it applies to. For example, one issue is whether a food shop is allowed to open in a certain part of an area. Funnily enough, the policy is not applied equally across all councils, so I think that a much wider issue is involved. However, I take the point that awareness of the impact on the local community should be part of the application of planning process policy.
We received a full report from the Federation of Small Businesses that probably covers Mr Eadie’s earlier point. Are members agreed that we should write to the Scottish Government about business rates relief? Its response will not be the answer to all the issues that are raised in the petition, but I believe that it would be useful to have that information before we make a final decision on the petition.
I am not sure whether a change to the application of business rates relief will change the policy in question. As I said, we should consider how consistently planning policy is being applied across different areas for the macroretail sector. I am sure that the policy has not been defined clearly enough and I know that it is applied differently by different councils.
We could write to the Scottish Government and ask how it ensures that there is such consistency.
It would be interesting to see the response to that. Experience of my local area suggests to me that there is very little consistency of the kind suggested.
All our regions or constituencies have experienced problems from urban town centres losing footfall as a result of out-of-town developments. I had a one-off meeting with a retail developer the other day who said to me that it is not a zero-sum game. Perhaps I should rephrase that—they said that they are not looking to develop within cities but that they want to develop on the outskirts of cities. It is not a case of developers saying, “Either we develop here or we don’t develop at all.”
I know that BID teams in my area are concerned about city centre developments and how small local and family businesses are losing trade. It is a worry across Scotland.
Yes, but it is much wider than that. I can talk only about some of the towns in the south of Scotland, but it is not just about shops. It is about having places to live in town centres, having entertainment complexes in town centres and having proper transport facilities that make it easier for people to shop in town centres. That is why I have expressed concern about why we are focusing on business rates relief.
Are members happy for us to ask the Scottish Government about the consistency of approach point, to which Chic Brodie referred earlier? We can consider the Government’s response at a future meeting. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
National Bird (PE1500)
The final current petition is PE1500, by Stuart Housden OBE, on behalf of RSPB Scotland, on the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
The petitioner is happy for the petition to be continued in light of the response from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. We may wish to accept the offer of assistance that RSPB Scotland has made and suggest that it undertake further work, possibly through a public consultation, to enable it to demonstrate that there is widespread support for the concept of a national bird and for it being the golden eagle rather than other bird species that might be worthy of consideration.
The minister has suggested that we consult other relevant committees on the issue—for example, we could consult the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and the Education and Culture Committee.
I invite members to give their views on those points. I will take Jackson Carlaw first, because he has a well-known interest in this subject.
Rushing in where angels fear to tread, convener, I can say that I very much welcome the minister’s letter. I think that it made many of the points that I made previously, but it perhaps did so less pejoratively. However, he made two or three recommendations that I think we should follow up. Given that the minister, too, was an advocate of Scotland having a national tree, I am impressed by his caution in believing that, before we press ahead with the adoption of other national symbols, we should have a broader discussion about the process that might underpin that.
I would very much welcome this committee taking the lead, as the convener indicated the minister has suggested, on what would be a useful piece of work and writing to other parliamentary committees to establish what their thoughts might be on the process of adopting additional national symbols. We might need to take further evidence on that at some point, but our work could lead to a recommendation on how the adoption of future national symbols might be achieved, which we could give to ministers for their consideration.
I very much agree with the minister’s point—again, I made the same point previously, but he makes it less pejoratively—that it really ought not to be for Parliament, without having a broad public consultation on a broad range of candidates for a national symbol, to prejudge or dictate what the outcome of such consideration might be.
I was very taken by the evidence that we received from Scottish Natural Heritage, which detailed a number of other birds that could be considered. The osprey, in particular, struck me—I have referred to it previously—as a possible candidate for popular affection.
Before we progress consultation on, or support for, any further national symbols, we should consider the principle underpinning consideration of the adoption of national symbols and whether such symbols are desirable.
Yes, it is about having a route map for consideration of future national symbols—that is a good point. I think that my points and Jackson Carlaw’s are very similar in terms of a recommendation for next steps. We need to take leadership over the wider issue. Do members agree that we will write to the other committees that I identified to pursue the point?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 11:11.Previous
New Petitions