Public Petitions Committee, 02 Mar 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 2, 2005

Official Report 296KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Local Government Elections (PE726)

Petition PE726, which was lodged by William A Perrie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to appoint an independent body with responsibility for the regulation and training of returning officers for local government elections. The petition also calls for a complaints procedure to deal with any irregularities concerning such elections.

At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive, the Electoral Commission, Renfrewshire Council, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The committee agreed to ascertain whether the Executive would be minded to implement an order that would remove the exclusion of local government elections in Scotland from the Electoral Commission's remit. The Executive's response says:

"Ministers are … concerned that extending the Commission's remit to local government elections could be viewed as handing devolved functions back to a UK body, and that any such extension could possibly result in less emphasis being placed upon issues which are of particular relevance to Scottish local government elections. Ministers have therefore decided that while they wish the Executive to work closely with the Commission on the preparations for the elections in 2007, they do not wish to transfer responsibility for functions relating to local government elections to the Commission. They have, however, indicated that they will review their position after the 2007 elections."

Do members have a view on that?

I am content with the Executive's response. The Executive will review the position after the 2007 elections; it makes the reasonable and valid point that a change in the system could be regarded as handing devolved functions back to a UK body. We should accept what the Executive says and take no further action on the petition.

I agree with Helen Eadie. The Executive's response is reasonable; it has not closed the door on the matter and it intends to review the position in 2007. I hope that the petitioner will be content with that.

I probably agree with John Scott and, although I do not disagree with Helen Eadie, I find it strange that the Executive says that it will review the position in 2007, given that it also says that it will take no action now. In his letter to the committee, the chief executive of Renfrewshire Council expressed

"concern at the procedure adopted in this particular case".

Perhaps somebody will explain to me what the difference is. In one year, it is being said that the change would be regarded as devolved powers being handed back to a Westminster Government. However, everybody seems to be saying that, in another year, it would be good for the commission to have extra powers for training and such things. I cannot understand why there is a difference. SOLACE and others say that the commission should have extra powers; the Executive says that it should not, but that there will be a review. I am not happy with not doing anything about the matter.

There is a contradiction in the responses, but my reading of the situation is that the Executive takes an overview, whereas the local authorities are considering specific sets of circumstances. In taking an overview, the Executive thinks that it would be taking away powers from local authorities to hand them to the commission and that that would not be the right thing to do. However, the election in 2007 will be the next opportunity to consider how things are operating, and it would be appropriate to review things then. What the Executive is saying or why it is saying that is not unclear, but the Executive's position clearly contradicts that of SOLACE. However, I understand why it would do so.

I probably understand why it should do so, but there is a contradiction in saying that it will consider the matter in 2007. Why should it not consider the matter now?

It may, of course, consider the whole issue in 2007; it may consider many such matters rather than the specific issue that the petitioner has raised.

It may do so in the light of experience.

That may well be the case.

I simply think that there are two opposing views, but if the other members of the committee are happy, I will go along with them.

Are members happy to close consideration of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Adults with Learning Difficulties (Provision of Services) (PE743)

The next petition is PE743, by Madge Clark on behalf of the Murray Owen Carers Group, which is on services for adults with learning disabilities living at home. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the implementation of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities" to ensure that adults with learning difficulties who still live at home and are cared for by elderly parents are given the same support and community care opportunities as those that are given to hospital-discharged patients.

At its meeting on 8 December 2004, the committee agreed to invite the Scottish Executive to comment on responses from Enable and the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability. It also agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the responses. Those responses have been received and circulated to members. Do members have any views on them?

On balance, the Scottish Executive's response is very positive. In particular, I welcome the fact that Executive officials will work with Enable to consider the demand for services by older carers—that gets to the heart of the petition.

The Executive is about to monitor the partnership in practice agreements for 2004-07, if it is not already doing so, and it has said helpfully that it will identify key themes from that work. I wonder whether we should ask for the committee to be updated about that, as we want to see local authorities buying into their responsibilities for the implementation of "The same as you?" I am keen to keep the petition going and to invite the Executive to tell us what key themes are emerging. We should also welcome the fact that the Executive will work with Enable.

I agree entirely with Jackie Baillie, but I want to build on what she said. The issue is hugely important. In particular, the suggestions at the end of the document that Madge Clark has signed are vital; we should note what is said, starting from:

"We should like to suggest that a procedure should be introduced making it mandatory in all Local Authorities to review their situation for all long-term carers once they reach the age of 60."

There is a crisis waiting to happen in respect of elderly relatives who are carers. In essence, such crises are dealt with by intervention. There is a huge need for long-term planning. We should invite the Executive to comment on consistency of delivery throughout Scotland and by local authorities.

I am hugely concerned about the long-term availability of funding for the programme. I do not doubt that things are being done with the best intentions, but there are already issues in my Ayr constituency around funding and free personal care for the elderly, which was intended to be fully funded by the Scottish Executive. The reality is that it is not—there are waiting lists. I have concerns that, despite the best intentions, that is what will happen with this programme as well.

A further issue on which we should ask the Executive to comment is the availability of carers. Personal experience tells me that many carers are needed if 24-hour care is to be provided, but there are just not enough people in our communities to do that. Again, that is particularly the case in rural areas. Huge issues are involved in the subject of PE743. I agree with Jackie Baillie that we need to keep the petition alive.

I agree with what has been said, especially John Scott's last point about carers. That point was picked up by Enable, which said in its letter that the implementation group had not looked at the issue of family carers for adults. That oversight gives an impetus for a further report from the Executive.

Enable made another valid point, which is that the Executive has never produced a care action plan with targets and timetables for action. The people behind "The same as you?" believed that that was one of the outcomes that would result from the report. For the reasons that I have outlined, I am happy to support what Jackie Baillie and John Scott said.

Helen Eadie spoke about the need for precise deadlines and timetables, but they may not be as important as she might think. In places where sympathetic consideration is given to the issue—which is certainly true of the health board in my area—the right packages can be put in place. If a health board takes time to put the right package in place, it is better that it does so and is not driven by timetables as was proposed in "The same as you?" policy.

Enable's point is not so much about the health board's implementation of the policy, but about the fact that the Executive has not produced a clear action plan with targets and timetables. That is the point that I was trying to make.

I am sorry if I misunderstood it.

There seems to be agreement that we should keep PE743 open and that we should monitor the implementation of the targets and themes. Are we agreed that we will ask the Executive for that information?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Holidays (Standardisation) (PE747)

Our next petition, PE747, was submitted by John MacLeod. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in aiming to standardise school holidays across all local authorities in Scotland throughout the year. An amended briefing note on the petition has been circulated.

At its meeting on 29 June 2004, the committee agreed to seek the comments of the Scottish Executive and COSLA. The responses have been received and circulated to members.

When the issue was discussed in June, I remember expressing the view that PE747 was worthy of our support. I would like to see standardisation. I am therefore disappointed in the responses, as neither the Executive nor COSLA seems to regard the issue as one of pressing urgency.

Only 45 per cent of local authorities responded to the COSLA consultation, of which only seven favoured national standardisation. As I said, I am in favour of standardisation, but the responses indicate that there is no appetite for anything to be done.

There is certainly no appetite in the Executive response, which says that the matter

"did not emerge as a real issue for parents, pupils or teachers."

That is not my experience.

The matter is raised with me constantly. I represent a constituency that covers North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire and the two local authorities have different holidays. Parents who live in one local authority area and work in the other have to make alternative child care arrangements during holiday times. I wonder who the Executive spoke to before it arrived at its conclusion.

The Executive refers to the national debate on education and implies that there is a degree of consistency in relation to school holidays. However, the example that the convener has just given of the two Lanarkshire authorities shows that there is not much consistency.

That is certainly my experience.

People who sit on the fence are in danger of grievous bodily injury, but, on this issue, I sit on the fence. I understand the arguments from COSLA and the Scottish Executive. When I was on Fife Council's education committee, the issue was discussed perennially. There were always people who said that, on a holiday, it was a benefit to be able to go to other areas where shops were open. On the other hand, particularly because Fife is a dormitory area for Edinburgh, we had families in which one parent worked for the City of Edinburgh Council, while the other worked in Fife, which meant that the whole family could never go on holiday.

The matter depends on the balance of opinion. It is interesting that, as the Executive states, the subject did not emerge as a big issue in the education debate. One wonders why—was it because people do not participate much in politics or because the issue did not occur to them when the debate was going on? I do not want to stop committee members if they want to take action, but I do not see any point in taking the petition further.

I do not want to stop members taking action either, but the Executive's response is reasonable. It states:

"What has been achieved is a very considerable measure of standardisation … yet still allowing for local variations where an authority considers that appropriate."

I was surprised to hear what Michael McMahon said about the two Lanarkshire authorities, because the issue has never been raised with me in relation to Ayrshire. If the system was completely standardised, everybody would leave, using motorways or aeroplanes, on the same day or the same night. The variation that exists, within the standardisation, is reasonable and I am content with it. I am sorry to contradict you, convener.

You did not contradict me. My experience of the matter is not as described in the Executive's response. I do not know whether we can do anything about the issue, but problems occur in adjacent areas when one local authority area is on holiday. Problems often arise for people who live in the west but work in the east, because holidays can be weeks apart. The issue in North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire usually comes down to in-service training days for schools—the South Lanarkshire schools may be on holiday one Monday and the North Lanarkshire ones on the following Monday. That is a matter of days, but mid-term breaks in the east of Scotland are in an entirely different week from those in the west. Some people work on one side of the country, while their children are educated on the other side.

My experience is that the situation causes difficulties, although the Executive says that the matter is not an issue. I do not understand why the Executive made that point, although I accept that the issue was not raised officially and taken cognisance of in the big debate on education. I do not know what we can do about the matter, but I cannot accept that there is not a problem in certain circumstances.

On that basis, we should close the petition.

If there is suddenly a big debate, the issue could be revisited, under the standing orders, in the agreed timescale.

Given that there is nothing we can do on the issue, do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gypsy Traveller Sites (PE760)

Petition PE760, which is by Mhairi McKean on behalf of the Gypsy/Traveller Community Development Project and the Scottish Human Rights Centre, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the provision and cost of electricity for Gypsy Traveller sites and accessibility to central heating and warm deal programmes for people who live in mobile homes.

At its meeting on 15 September 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Communities, COSLA, energywatch and the Eaga Partnership. Responses have been received and circulated to members. The clerk has been advised that the Equal Opportunities Committee is conducting a review of progress in relation to its 2001 report on Gypsy Travellers and public services. Before I take members' views, I declare that I am a member of the Gypsy/Traveller Community Development Project steering committee in the west of Scotland.

The petition should be sent to the Equal Opportunities Committee. I am not happy with some of the responses that we have received from some of the organisations. It would be a good idea to send the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for investigation.

I, too, am worried about the petition especially in relation to fuel poverty. A trial is under way to find out how feasible it would be to put central heating into the accommodation. Malcolm Chisholm has expressed concern about fuel poverty, but there is nothing to say what people should do until the results of the review are available.

The Ofgem document, unless I am reading it wrongly, says that the maximum resale price of fuel—the most that anyone can charge—does not apply

"when an inclusive charge is made for accommodation – for example, where a tenant pays a charge of (say) £100 per week, which includes ‘all amenities' and identifies no specified charge for the gas or electricity."

Could there not be a bit of a rip-off going on there? There is nothing there to tell me that the charges are itemised so that it can be seen that the rent has not been bumped up. The companies are supposed to resell the fuel at the price at which they bought it.

The document goes on:

"Maximum resale price also does not apply … to liquified petroleum gas".

If someone does not have central heating, they might have to fall back on LPG so they could be getting ripped off.

I am a wee bit concerned that there might be loopholes and inadequacies in the responses that we have received.

I have no doubt about the complexity that is involved in trying to deliver on this. I take some issue with Rosie Kane's quotation, because it relates to accommodation charges that include electricity and gas. My understanding is that accommodation is not paid for as well and there are separate charges for electricity and gas, so the situation that Rosie Kane is concerned about would not arise.

I agree with Sandra White's recommendation. The issues were raised at the time of the Equal Opportunities Committee's report, which is being reviewed; it would be appropriate to ask that committee to consider the issue further.

I support Jackie Baillie and Sandra White's recommendation that the petition should go to the Equal Opportunities Committee. However, there is one further thing that I would like us to do. The energywatch response seems quite helpful, in that the chief executive said:

"I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that energywatch would be happy to work with the gypsy/traveller community and local authorities to help address some of the concerns."

It would be helpful if that could be communicated to the petitioners.

The petitioners get copies of the responses, so they will already be aware of that. We can certainly ask the Equal Opportunities Committee to look into the specific points.

I agree with what has been said. This is an enormous problem and a great deal more work might need to be done to resolve it. It will be inordinately difficult to reach equality of provision. I recommend that the petition go to the Equal Opportunities Committee.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sub-post Office Closures (PE764)

Petition PE764 is by Margaret Tait, on behalf of the Stoneybank Tenants and Residents Association in Musselburgh. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to request the Post Office to consider sympathetically the needs and requirements of disabled and elderly persons who, in urban areas in Scotland, would be expected to walk a substantial distance—sometimes in excess of 2 miles—as a result of the possible closure of certain sub-post offices.

At its meeting on 29 September 2004, the committee agreed to seek the comments of the Scottish Executive, Royal Mail, Postwatch Scotland, the Disability Rights Commission, Age Concern Scotland and Help the Aged. Responses have been received and circulated.

We should invite the Executive to respond to the concerns of Postwatch Scotland, the DRC, Help the Aged and Age Concern. We should ask whether the programme of restructuring the urban post office network meets the Executive's social inclusion policy agenda. If it does not, that raises the question whether the Executive can force the Post Office to do that.

I have concerns about the closure this month of the fund to develop post offices in deprived urban areas. We could write to ask for information about what will happen after that fund closes. Will it have a successor or was it a one-off? I am concerned in particular about social inclusion, not least in an area in my constituency.

I agree with everything that John Scott said. The subject has caused much concern to all MSPs and communities. We must ask the Executive whether the programme fits in with the social inclusion agenda. I concur with the recommendations.

Does everyone agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)

Petition PE767, which is by Norman Dunning on behalf of Enable, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation and effectiveness of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.

At its meeting on 29 September 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Justice, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Lord Advocate. Responses have been received and circulated.

The Minister for Justice's response says:

"There are currently no plans to amend this legislation. The responsibility for implementing the findings of a Fatal Accident Inquiry by remedying any defects in practices or procedures which the sheriff identifies lies with those who have responsibility for managing the systems in question."

The Scottish Law Commission says that it has

"recently carried out an extensive consultation exercise seeking suggestions of topics that might be included in our next programme of law reform. The 1976 Act was not mentioned".

Do members have comments?

Our briefing says that the Law Society responded that its criminal law committee would consider the petition at a forthcoming meeting, but we have received no further response. Should we chase that up with the organisation? It would be valuable to have the society's comment. I note what the Executive said, but I would feel happier if I had the Law Society's response.

We have received such a response—it is annex E—in which the society's deputy director says:

"This matter has been considered by the Society's Criminal Law Committee."

Our briefing should have been updated. The deputy director also makes the helpful suggestion that

"it may be appropriate for research to be done to evaluate the system and ascertain on an empirical basis whether reform is appropriate."

We have heard evidence that fatal accident inquiries might not work as well as they could and nobody has really investigated the subject. Given that and the Executive's desire to have evidence to back up its proposals, perhaps we could suggest to the Minister for Justice that research should be conducted into whether the system is working.

That suggestion is good. Is everyone happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Screening (Heart Disorders) (PE773)

Petition PE773, which is by Wilma Gunn on behalf of Scottish Heart at Risk Testing, calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that provision is made to offer screening for cardiomyopathy and all heart disorders to all those aged 16 and over who embark on strenuous competitive sports and to all families with a history of cardiac problems.

At its meeting on 27 October 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Scottish Executive, the Cardiomyopathy Association, the British Heart Foundation, the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, the national advisory committee on coronary heart disease and sportscotland. Responses have been received and circulated.

The Minister for Health and Community Care states in his response that, on the basis of the advice from the NSC, the Executive has decided against providing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy screening.

The BHF states:

"at present, there is no evidence to suggest that a wider screening programme for children who wish to take part in strenuous sport would be of benefit."

The national advisory committee states:

"We are aware that the Child Health Sub-Group of the NSC last year reviewed the case for screening for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and again concluded that a national screening programme would not be appropriate.

However, the NACC wish to hear Professor Hillis' views on advances in treatment of this condition especially in relation to implantation of ICDs."

Sportscotland states that it understands

"the natural concerns around this disease. We consider that further research may be advised and suggest that the Scottish Executive Health Department continue their proposals to consider all soundly-based proposals for further research."

Do members have views on the matter?

We should note the responses. I am surprised at the responses from the UK National Screening Committee, the British Heart Foundation and the national advisory committee. Nevertheless, having sought their opinions, we must, to some extent, take notice of them. It was moving to hear about the individual circumstances that prompted the petition; however, the various bodies make the conclusive case that there would be no huge benefit in offering such screening.

The remaining question is whether the provision of defibrillators is adequate at sports venues throughout Scotland. We should ask the Executive to satisfy itself, at least, that there are a sufficient number of defibrillators. We could also consider the Executive's policy on screening on the basis of on-going research in this area, but perhaps that is a matter for another day.

I support what John Scott has said. In addition, given the fact that we have received extensive responses from those organisations, we should respond directly to the petitioners. I agree that it was moving to hear from them, and that might be helpful.

Are members happy for us to do those things?

Members indicated agreement.

---

A90 (Laurencekirk/Marykirk Junction) (PE778)

Our last petition today is PE778, on the upgrading of the Laurencekirk/Marykirk junction on the A90. The petition, which is from Jill Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to upgrade the junction.

At its meeting on 10 November 2004, the committee sought an update from BEAR Scotland, which had been commissioned to investigate and report on what road safety measures, including signage, would be appropriate at the junction of the A90 and the A972 at Laurencekirk, following a recent fatal accident. The committee agreed to seek comments from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Scottish Accident Prevention Council, Aberdeenshire Council and the European Road Assessment Programme. Responses have been received and circulated.

The Minister for Transport's response says:

"BEAR's report has now been received and includes a series of recommendations to improve road safety at this location."

He goes on:

"Having considered and discussed the options with Grampian Police and the North Safety Camera Partnership … the Executive has decided to take action on all of these recommendations."

Do members have any comments?

A number of points are listed in the minister's letter, but I am not sure whether what he promises constitutes an upgrading of the junction. Perhaps we should ask Jill Campbell and her campaigners whether they regard that as providing what they asked for when they set out on their campaign. I do not know the junction, and I suspect that other members do not. The minister lists eight actions to be taken, which I presume will help, but I do not know whether they will provide what Jill Campbell was asking for. I suggest that we write to ask her.

They certainly do not constitute the grade separation that the petitioners were asking for. Nonetheless, what the petition has delivered thus far is a positive result. Indeed, it is a tribute to the local member, Mr Rumbles, and his colleague, Mr Davidson.

Do you want to comment, Mike?

Mike Watson's comments are pertinent. The campaigners are concerned about both short-term and long-term measures, and everything that is listed in the minister's letter is extremely welcome. The group welcomes short-term measures such as the 50mph speed limit, the new grading system, the lights, and everything else. However, the objective is for complete road safety and a grade-separated junction—basically, a flyover or such. Therefore, although the group welcomes the Executive's response very much—as do I, as the constituency member for the area—we want to keep the pressure on to get the grade-separated junction. That is the important long-term objective.

Are members happy with the responses? I think that there is a longer-term issue, and Mike Rumbles will have to keep an eye on it. If the petitioners want to get back to the committee, we will be more than happy to hear from them. Are members satisfied with the outcome of the present petition?

It is a positive outcome, thus far. It is another accolade for the Public Petitions Committee and a very good point at which to end consideration of the petition.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our meeting. I thank everybody for their attendance.

Meeting closed at 12:36.