NHS 24 (Free Calls from Mobile Phones) (PE1285)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of current petitions. There are five current petitions for consideration today. The first is PE1285, by Caroline Mockford, on free calls to NHS 24 from mobile phones. Members have a note by the clerk—it is paper 4. I invite contributions from members.
I note from the paper before us that we are still waiting for the University of Sheffield’s evaluation report for the Department of Health, which was expected to be available by the end of June 2012. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask when the evaluation report will be submitted for consideration by the UK Government—if that has not already happened—and when the Scottish Government will consider it. I would like us to keep the petition open until we have heard the Scottish Government’s views on the Sheffield report, so that we can decide whether we need to pursue the issue when the full facts are available to us and we know what actions the Scottish Government proposes to take on the basis of the report.
Just for information, I understand that the Department of Health in England has received the report and that it will decide on its publication, so it sounds as if it is imminent.
To carry on from what John Wilson has just said, I think that it is important that we consider the petition once we have all the facts and that we hold off making a judgment until we get the report.
On a general point—as someone who is attending their first meeting of the committee—I agree with the points that have been made, but I get concerned when I read reports saying that there has been no response or a delayed response, or the petitioner has received no indication of what is happening. At some stage, we need to consider how we can accelerate the response procedure. We had a similar problem with inaccuracies and what have you in another committee. As a general point, we need to ensure that everything is being done by this committee and others to ensure that we respond to the people who lodge petitions not with any degree of flippancy. I get concerned when I feel that we are not being responsive.
Chic Brodie makes a good point—it is certainly one that the committee is familiar with—but it is fair to say that the committee has not been slow at coming forward when we have had “deviant” organisations that have not returned information to us. Lots of organisations are busy and it is important that we represent Parliament. It affects Parliament’s dignity if local authorities, health boards or other agencies do not respond. I have no problem at all with publicly naming organisations that consistently fail to respond to us. In fairness, it is sometimes the same one or two organisations that make it difficult for us to do our job correctly.
Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)
The next petition is PE1395, by Jan Culik, on target funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at universities. Members have a note from the clerk and submissions. The petition has been an excellent one. We had a very good oral evidence session and a number of students from the University of Glasgow turned up to listen to the debate. I ask members for their views on the next steps.
I am rather concerned by the response that we received from the petitioner in relation to the Scottish Higher and Further Education Funding Council’s reply to the committee. The petitioner raises what I consider to be serious concerns about the information that the Scottish funding council has provided. I recommend that the committee writes to the Scottish Government and the Scottish funding council with the petitioner’s response to the correspondence and asks them for their views on the petitioner’s comments. The petitioner says that although certain courses continue at the University of Glasgow, they can be taken up only to year 2 and cannot be carried on to a full degree. That raises concerns and it goes against what is said in the Scottish funding council’s submissions, as I understand them. I therefore seek the committee’s approval that we write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish funding council to ask for a response to the issues that the petitioner has raised.
Do members agree?
Ferry Fares (PE1421)
The third current petition is PE1421, by Gail Robertson, on behalf of the Outer Hebrides Transport Group, on fair ferry fares. Members have a note from the clerk and submissions.
I concur that it would only be fair to wait until we have the results of the impact study. I am happy to agree to keep the petition open for the time being.
Are members happy with that course of action?
Remote and Rural Areas Transport Provision (Access to Care) (Older People) (PE1424)
The fourth current petition for consideration today is PE1424, by Joyce Harkness on behalf of the “Road to Health” community partnerships project 3 team, on improving transport provision for older people in remote and rural areas. Members have a note from the clerk and submissions.
Convener, you did not mention the additional paper that was submitted to the committee this morning from the petitioner. The petitioner has some concerns about the decisions that have been made so far and the lack of response from the British Pakistani Youth Council—
We are not on that petition yet, John. We are on the “Road to Health” petition.
My apologies convener. I was skipping ahead.
It would appear that we still await the working group timetable for finishing the report. We need to see the report. At the members’ business debate that preceded the previous meeting of the committee, it was clear that members felt that that was appropriate. It seems quite a long time for us to be waiting for publication of the report. We should write to ask what the timetable for the report is and do all that we can to expedite its publication, which will allow us to proceed.
That is sensible. Members may be picking up a theme, what with all these petitions that are waiting for information to come back. However, it is important that we are properly sighted. We need the correct information to appear before we can make final decisions. That said, Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion is a useful next step. Do members agree that we will wait for the working group?
As Jackson Carlaw just pointed out, it is all very well the working group saying that it is going to produce a report, but it would have been helpful if it had said when it was going to produce it.
That is a good point.
Scotland-Pakistan Youth Council (PE1435)
The fifth and final current petition is PE1435, by Wajahat Nassar, on a Scotland-Pakistan youth council. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 8. As John Wilson said, there is an additional paper on the petition, which members may want to have a quick look at before making a decision. I invite comments from members.
I apologise for skipping some pages in the committee papers.
The petitioner’s letter comments that there has been no response from the British Pakistani Youth Council. I am interested in the second paragraph, where it asks the committee to
No, we do not.
In addition to John Wilson’s suggestion, can we find out who the petitioner means?
We can certainly ask the petitioner for clarification. That is a good point.
Not having been here when the petition was previously discussed, I am slightly unclear about whether there are any Scottish representatives on the British Pakistani Youth Council. Complete indifference to the proposal seems to be emanating from there, and yet it if it is a British organisation, I would expect there to be Scottish representatives to whom young people of Pakistani origin might wish to represent their concerns in the first instance, in order that the matter be raised there. It is not entirely incumbent on us to be doing this—a bit of self-help is required to promote the matter.
If I understand the Scottish Government’s point correctly, it is that setting up a Scotland-Pakistan youth council is really a matter for the petitioner rather than the Scottish Government. Notwithstanding that, there have been some changes in the Scottish Government, and we might get a slightly different view. The self-help issue is important. We need to ensure that the petitioner is aware of that. Are members happy with that approach?
Previous
New Petitions