Official Report 286KB pdf
Mental Health Services <br />(Deaf and Deaf-blind People) (PE808)
PE808 is by Lilian Lawson, on behalf of the Scottish Council on Deafness, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive—sorry, the Government—to develop and establish a specialist in-patient mental health unit for deaf and deaf-blind people and to provide resources, such as training, for mainstream psychiatric services in the community to make them more accessible to deaf and deaf-blind people in Scotland. The petitioner's letter of 17 April is available for committee members.
We should write to the Scottish Government. It is difficult enough for deaf and deaf-blind people to access NHS services when they have a physical problem, but when a mental health issue is involved and communication is at the crux of finding the solution to the problem, obtaining support is even more difficult. Someone could sign for a deaf person or whatever, but the situation would be really difficult.
Perhaps we should find out what funding is available in the current financial year. What support is the Scottish Government giving to health boards to promote and support services for deaf and deaf-blind people, particularly those who have a mental health problem?
The petition raises a number of issues, not just about the money that is available but about the quality of services and their capacity to be flexible. I have been lobbied on the issue, so I am aware that discussions have taken place at Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board level about how to put together a more appropriate package of services—such a package might not be ideal but would start to meet needs that are identified in the petition.
Vulnerable Adults (Medication) (PE867)
PE867, which was brought by W Hunter Watson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to provide adequate safeguards against vulnerable adults being given, by surreptitious means, unwanted, unnecessary and potentially harmful medication. Members have the submission dated 23 March from the Scottish Executive and submissions from the petitioner dated 23 June and 20 September. Do members have strong views on how we should proceed?
There is a difficulty in that we must await the review of the code of practice. Perhaps we should seek more information from the Government about the timescale for publication of a revised code.
I am sure that there is a strict code about the administration of medicines to vulnerable people—indeed, to all people. However, what controls are there on what happens inside care homes and institutions? That is where the problem exists.
There have been recent sad cases in the press about the quality of care in one or two institutions, where there has been neglect as a result of failure to follow through on medication.
Neurological Services <br />(Post-polio Syndrome) (PE873)
The next petition, PE873, is by Helene MacLean on behalf of the Scottish Post Polio Network. It calls for the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to join the international community in recognising post-polio syndrome—PPS for short—and to conduct a much-needed national review of neurological services to take account of the needs related to PPS and all other long-term neurological conditions with a view to establishing multidisciplinary centres of excellence to assess, treat and research such conditions, which affect the lives of many thousands of individuals in Scotland.
The petitioner was supposed to meet the chief scientist's office. Do we know whether the meeting took place and what the outcome was? We could perhaps write to find out about that.
Like a lot of the petitions that we have dealt with today, the petition is about the exchange of information and the guidance and guidelines that are available. It also concerns the role of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland on neurological standards. Are there any other key issues that committee members feel strongly about?
If we are writing to the Scottish Government, we could also ensure that there is consistency across NHS boards in how they deal with PPS.
So we want to write to the Government asking about the outcome of the meeting and discussions with the chief scientist's office, the guidelines that are made available to NHS boards, the consistency across those boards in assessing patients' needs, and whether any networks have been developed across NHS boards to meet the needs of people with the condition in question. We can also ask NHS QIS about the development of its document on neurological standards. Are there any other observations?
I have a general point. This is the second time that consistency across NHS boards has come up this afternoon. It is in the back of my mind that it might be appropriate to have a wider investigation into consistency of approach among NHS boards in Scotland.
That is a fair call. I do not envy those who have to deal with that, because the NHS is a complex organisation with lots of different tensions at different levels and lots of lobbies to deal with. We have experienced as elected members—and I am sure that we will continue to experience this in the next four years—how some boards provide a range of services for particular illnesses while others that are cheek by jowl with them are still in the dark ages in their provision.
There must be some cross-cutting of expertise and knowledge among boards. I know that there is a management structure, but surely clinical networks should be in place.
Okay. That was a helpful suggestion. Are we agreed on what we want to do with that petition?
Railway Infrastructure and Services (Inverness, Thurso and Wick) (PE894)
The next petition is PE894, in which Rob Gibson has expressed a particular interest. It is by the association of Caithness community councils, and it calls for the Scottish Parliament to consider investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and timetabling as part of a strategic root-and-branch review of the provision of rail services between Inverness, Thurso and Wick, with unrestricted thinking—that is a lovely phrase—on how best to shorten journey times and ensure the continuing future of the railway to those destinations. Thought should also be given to ensuring that the existing communities of the Lairg loop are provided for.
As someone who has travelled frequently on the network in question and who intends to travel on it during the coming break, I sympathise with the petitioners. Network Rail is making general improvements to parts of the line that runs along the coast, but a reduction in journey times, in particular, would meet with considerable approval in the Highlands—I speak as a visitor, rather than a resident, although I was born in Thurso.
Substantial work is needed on the petition. The speeding up of journey times would be a huge improvement and would open up the north. Much work is going on to consider economic development in the area in the context of the decommissioning of Dounreay. The rail line and journey times are important.
The issue has been on the agenda of Highland Council and Network Rail for many years. I am sympathetic to the implementation of any measure that could cut journey times between destinations. It is estimated that the journey time between the far north and Inverness could be cut by half an hour or more.
If no other member of the committee wants to comment, I will bring in Rob Gibson, who has expressed an interest in the petition.
Thank you. I have been involved with the issue for a while, but now that I am a member of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee I am aware of discussion about the Scottish Government's tier 3 rail projects, which are being costed. Of course, other projects must form a queue.
There is a reasonable consensus on what the next stage should be. I am sure that I will endear myself further to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee by referring another petition to it; I await the committee's letter with interest. The Public Petitions Committee has been cautious about referring petitions to other committees when we think that we can take up the issues that they raise. However, given the detail of this petition and the fact that major organisations such as the local authority have been involved in the history of the transport network in that part of the country, it strikes me that a policy committee would bring more rigour to the process. Do we want to draw attention to particular issues that the petition raises, or should we allow the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to determine the matters that it wishes to pursue?
We should allow the committee to take on the petition without any constraints.
Plenty of information has been gathered over the years, so there is no scarcity of documentation.
I note with interest that the members for the Highland region did not declare an interest before we discussed the petition, but what can we expect? I thank Rob Gibson for his time. We will refer the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. That is a Glaswegian's response to such issues.
Disabled Parking (PE908, PE909 and PE1007)
We have grouped together PE908, PE909 and PE1007. PE908, from Connie Syme, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that traffic regulation orders are applied to all disabled parking bays and that such bays are used by registered disabled users only. PE909, from James McLeod, on behalf of the Inverclyde Council on Disability Ltd, calls on the Parliament to review the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, to allow for speedier provision and enforcement of dropped kerbs and disabled parking bays to prevent their abuse, ensuring greater and easier access for disabled, elderly and other users. PE1007, from Catherine Walker, on behalf of the Greater Knightswood Elderly Forum, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to prevent the improper use of disabled parking bays and to ensure that they are used by registered disabled users only.
We discussed a similar petition last week. Can we consider it with this week's petitions? There needs to be consistency, as people travel between local authority areas. We should write to the Scottish Government to ascertain whether it has made progress on achieving consistency across local authorities.
That sounds reasonable. Previously, we queried whether COSLA has guidance for local authorities on the subject. Given our constituency case loads, I am sure that we all understand the issues that are involved in PE908, PE909, and PE1007, and are aware of enforcement agencies deciding, despite clear byelaws, not to deal with an infringement because it considers it not worth while or productive to do so, or because it has other priorities. I am in correspondence with agencies in a couple of cases where they have ignored issues that were raised at the community level.
It is similar. The blue badge scheme is not consistent with other schemes, which leads to the question how we can get a consistent approach.
We agreed to write to the Scottish Government on the research review. We have also discussed how issues that the review may raise can be brought forward, either through the role of the minister or the policy framework, and we have discussed consistency. We will write to COSLA to ask for its position and to query its commitment to meeting the disability legislation. Does any member have a further comment to make?
I seek your guidance, convener. I understand that there should be consistency among—or uniformity between—local authorities in how they deal with the blue badge scheme and other disabled parking measures. Are we saying that the local authority should be the enforcing agency, or are we suggesting to the Government that it should consider other aspects of the enforcement of blue badge and disabled parking bay usage?
At present, the committee's position is that we cannot take an absolute position until we have all the information to hand. At this stage, we are exploring the reality of people's experience and seeking to discover what assessment of enforcement is in place, if any, whether by the Government—including the justice department—the police, or the various tiers of local government. We feel that it is helpful to seek COSLA's view on where we are on that. Obviously, we expect a response on the blue badge scheme, which might be helpful in terms of this range of petitions.
Until we get responses from the relevant councils, I would be a bit cautious about including the issue of the blue badge scheme.
I am happy to concede that.
Is it worth making contact with Jackie Baillie MSP, in view of her proposed bill, the disabled persons parking bays (Scotland) bill? Her consultation on the bill may have highlighted some of the issues on which we seek answers.
Okay.
Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (PE934)
I am conscious of time, so I will try to get through the remaining petitions as quickly as possible—with apologies to the remaining petitioners.
The council's executive director of land and environmental services gave a very detailed response to the 10 points made. What more can we do?
If members are happy with the recommendations, we will take the petition to the next stage.
Sleep Apnoea (PE953)
The next petition is PE953 by Jean Gall on behalf of the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to increase awareness, promote proper diagnosis and treatment, and provide sufficient resources, including adequately funded sleep centres, to tackle the health problems associated with obstructive sleep apnoea. I will do my best on the pronunciation—it is one of those words that will confuse me for the rest of the afternoon.
I am looking at the Official Report of the committee meeting in February 2007, when the committee agreed to write to the then Executive on producing guidelines for health boards to follow, given that what was once a national service has become a local service and that at least 55,000 people suffer from something that is entirely manageable. Have you had a response to that?
We received a response. I apologise to members, as this is the first time I have seen it. It was sent on 22 March by the then Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Lewis Macdonald. I will try to summarise it as best I can.
This is a serious issue. In road traffic accidents, we are unable to determine whether somebody has fallen asleep at the wheel, but many drivers will admit that they have dozed off while driving, and lorry drivers are in particular danger because of their sedentary lifestyle. On top of all the other issues, a road traffic accident with fatalities costs about £1 million to the public purse.
My impression from the notes that are in front of me is that the question has not been answered.
I understand that, given the change of Government, it would be unfair or too cruel—
I do not want to blame the Government.
Not yet, convener—give us time. As a new minister is in place, we should emphasise that the petition has been on the go for 18 months. The committee worthily pursues issues for the public, but perhaps some ministerial responses are not being provided crisply and promptly enough. That question needs to be answered.
I suggest that we reinvigorate that inquiry, particularly on what plans the Government has for Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline 73 to be revised and updated and what plans it has to address the issues that the petition raises, such as whether resources are being made available for health boards and others to address the concerns.
When Jackie Baillie made her commendable suggestions, she said:
This is another issue on which we need to find out whether cross-cutting information on the same treatment is being issued across health boards, regardless of the health board area.
I hope that nobody in the health department has been asleep on the job on the issue.
If you saw the Official Report of the meeting on 6 February, you would realise that I must have been asleep, because I could not remember what to call an air traffic controller.
Committee members have made helpful suggestions. I thank Christine Grahame for coming to express her views on the petition. We want to ask several questions about the response and we will cover Rhoda Grant's point about consistency across health boards.
I will listen to what the committee says about the petition on high hedges, on which many of us have been lobbied.
That is fair enough.
Plants (Complaints) (PE984)
The next petition is PE984 by Dr Colin Watson, on behalf of Scothedge, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints about vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines and other plants. We have a letter of 22 September from the petitioner and several unsolicited letters have been sent to the committee to call for action to be taken. Do we have strong views on how to proceed? Does Robin Harper have strong views as a Green member?
I backed Scott Barrie's bill. The suggestion of using the antisocial behaviour strategy is interesting and worth considering, because blocking the sun from a neighbour's garden is extremely antisocial.
I understand that the UK Government has taken steps to address the issue. Could we write to it to find out how successful those measures have been? I think that steps were taken as part of addressing antisocial behaviour. If the clerks could look into that, that would be appreciated.
I think that UK legislation on high hedges has been passed—it was mentioned when attempts were made to amend the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill to deal with the issue. I stayed to say that I understand that the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, is prepared to consider legislation on the matter. I do not remember whether I was told about that in an e-mail or a parliamentary answer. It might be useful to ask the minister to clarify whether the issue is being investigated with a view to producing legislation, which I think is being considered.
That is helpful. I thank members for those suggestions. We will pursue the petition through the suggested measures. Okay?
I thank Christine Grahame.
Accountant in Bankruptcy (PE1008)
The final petition is PE1008 by James Ward, who calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review the operation of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, particularly in relation to the implementation of section 187(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. We have the Government's letter of 29 June 2007 and the petitioner's letters of 11 and 26 July 2007. Do members have strong views on how to deal with the petition? The subject is complex and members probably do not have expertise in it, but do we want further information from any agencies?
I am interested in the petition. In its letter, the Accountant in Bankruptcy cannot say how many refunds have been made in cases in which individual trustees are appointed. I am not sure whether that body could give us more information on that, but we could try asking. I would like to know more about the number of individual trustees and whether they are aware of the existing guidance. That seems to be a gap in knowledge.
That would help. Do members have other strong suggestions?
Does the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 contain relevant provisions? If so, we could ask the Scottish Government when such provisions will come into force.
We will write to the Government about the timetable for the 2007 act and about whether any guidance is required to address the concerns that the petition raises. Claire Baker suggested writing to the Accountant in Bankruptcy about the number of cases that involve individual trustees, and we can also ask it about relevant statutes. If we are happy with those recommendations, we will process the petition.
I thank members for attending that fairly extensive meeting. We try to keep meetings within two hours when we can, but we had an awful lot of petitions to consider today. That concludes our consideration of the petitions on the agenda. We will next meet on Tuesday 23 October 2007.
Meeting closed at 16:32.
Previous
New Petitions