Public Petitions Committee, 04 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Official Report 288KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Methadone Prescriptions (PE789)

The next item of business is petitions that are already in the system. Petition PE789, by Eric Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a view regarding the need for regulation to ensure that prescribed methadone is taken by the patient while supervised by a suitably qualified medical practitioner.

In the past, the committee agreed to write to NHS Lothian and the Scottish Government, and the responses have been received and circulated to committee members. A further response from the petitioner Mr Brown has also been circulated.

Since the petition was last considered, the results of a UK Government-led working group on clinical management have been published for consultation, and revised guidelines are expected in the autumn. Do members have any views on how best to deal with the petition?

In the past few months, the new Government has set out its views on some drug-related issues, including methadone and alternative methods of care for people who are addicted to drugs. Given the huge and increasing number of people who are dying from drugs overdoses, we need to consider those issues.

I suggest that we write to the new Scottish Government to ask whether it has any views on the petition. Things have moved on since we were in touch with the previous Executive. We should try to get up to date with the current thinking.

We could ask for the Scottish Government's view on supervised consumption—that is the core of the petition. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

NHS (Provision of Wheelchairs and Specialist Seating Services) (PE798)

The next petition, from Catherine Mathieson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to resolve the current critical problems in the provision of wheelchairs and specialist seating services in the NHS through increased funding. It also calls for a review to address minimum standards, the scope of equipment provided and service delivery.

The petition was last considered by the previous committee on 31 January 2007. In the meantime, the report "Moving Forward: Review of NHS Wheelchair and Seating Services in Scotland" was published in March 2006, and the Scottish Government responded to the recommendations on 19 January 2007. When the committee last discussed the petition, it agreed to consider the Scottish Government's response to the independent review in more detail. We now have that response, and a response from the petitioner is also in our papers.

As I said, the independent report was published in March 2006 and the Executive responded in January 2007. The recommendations that have significant additional financial implications will be considered as part of the spending review, and the spending review debate obviously is continuing under the new Government. Things will become clearer some time in the autumn. Additional central funding totalling nearly £2 million was allocated for the five NHS centres to undertake interim measures to reduce to acceptable levels waiting times for wheelchairs and specialist seating.

That is the background to the petition. Do members have any strong views on how we should deal with it?

The £1.9 million was an interim measure. I know that the issue will be part of the spending review and that we will have to await its outcome, but is there merit in flagging up the issue to the new Scottish Government? We could simply say that, when the Government is considering the spending review, it should consider mainstreaming this kind of provision. It is a fair chunk of funding, but mobility is really important to people. Being able to get out and about is important, and if wheelchairs cannot be updated and upgraded, or indeed mended, an increased burden is placed on people who are already up against it.

Do we wish to keep the petition open, with the proviso that we want further information; to close the petition before we get a response; or to wait until we receive a response on the inquiry?

I am not suggesting that we keep the petition open; I am simply suggesting that we should flag up the issue. It has been flagged up before, but issues can sometimes disappear.

The clerk tells me that, if the petition is closed, we cannot formally consider any response. We might receive a response, but we would not be able to bring it back to the committee for a summation.

We are unlikely to receive a response before the spending review—and the review will be the subject of a parliamentary debate.

Perhaps we should say that we have explored the issues contained in the petition, but that a final point relates to the interim funding programme for the five NHS centres. We should say that we are closing the petition but feel that that final issue might be taken into account in the spending review when decisions are being taken on priorities for NHS spending. We can therefore formally close the petition. If individual MSPs still have a bee in their bonnet about the issue, they can still flag it up as individual MSPs or as members of the Health and Sport Committee.

---

Small-scale Energy Generation<br />(PE837 and PE969)

The next petitions are PE837 from Neil Hollow and PE969 from Alan Kennedy. PE837 urges the Scottish Government to use its influence to ensure that by 2020 all buildings in Scotland are fitted with small-scale energy generation equipment; that such equipment is brought within permitted development rights; and that no charges for connecting to the grid will be made for such equipment.

PE969 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote and encourage the development and installation of micropower renewable energy technology in business and domestic premises.

The committee agreed in January 2007 to invite the petitioners to comment on the energy action plan when it was published. The committee also agreed to reconsider the petitions in this parliamentary session. Since that time, a proposal for a member's bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration has been lodged by Sarah Boyack MSP, and it is likely to go to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for scrutiny.

Given the subject matter of the petitions, my recommendation as convener is that we refer the petitions to the committee that considers the bill, as it will be taking evidence.

Members indicated agreement.

---

A77 (Southern Section Upgrade) (PE859)

Petition PE859 is from Sheena Borthwick, and asks the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the southern section of the A77 between Ayr and Stranraer. In November 2006, the committee agreed to seek comments from the petitioner on the update that had been provided by the then Executive in relation to progress on the A77 Maybole project, which covered some issues raised in the petition. Those comments have been provided. There has also been a recent parliamentary question and answer on the Maybole bypass, on which the petitioner has made no comment.

How should we proceed?

Should we just close the petition?

I think that we should. The petitioner has chosen to make no further comment. In those circumstances, we should close the petition.

Okay.

---

European Drinking Water Directive (PE929)

Petition PE929, from George Packwood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the implementation of the European Union drinking water directive in relation to the replacement of lead piping in public and private sector domestic properties to ensure that drinking water in Scotland has zero lead content.

In January 2007, the committee agreed to write to COSLA and Scottish Water on the issues raised in the petition. We have received their responses, on which the petitioner has, in turn, commented. Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition?

I note that an option for action is to refer the petition to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Given the variations in the responses that we have received and the seriousness of the petition's subject—after all, lead poisoning is really serious and can have a dramatic effect on people's health—it might be worth following that suggestion. I am not sure whether we can do any more with the petition.

I do not know whether our committee can really deal with the substance of the petition, apart from referring it to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Do we want to do that? Compared to a number of petitions that we could refer to other committees, it will not require a lot of work.

The petition asks only for a review.

Given that doing anything about the problem will probably have resource implications, it might be best for the subject committee to consider the petition before any recommendations are made.

In seeking views and receiving responses, the committee has gone as far as it can go with this petition. We need to decide whether to close it completely or whether it should be referred to another committee. My feeling is that we should close it.

Do we have the power to close the petition, even though it has been referred to another committee?

You can either close or refer it.

So it is one or t'other. I sense that members have different perspectives on that matter.

Could we ask the subject committee for its views? If its work programme does not allow it to consider the petition, we will simply come up against a brick wall. On the other hand, if it has scope to examine the matter, it might be useful to refer the petition to it.

There are two options: either we close the petition, but pass it to the subject committee for reference, or we refer it formally to the committee. At that point, the decision on what to do with the petition would be entirely up to that committee.

I think that we should follow the former option.

The recommendation is that we close the petition on the grounds that this committee has gone through its appropriate processes. However, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee might wish to take into account the petition's call for a review of the matter. I presume that, at some stage, senior civil servants, agencies and ministers will be aware of the implications of breaching the EU directive.

Are members happy with the option for action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Inland Water (Speed Restrictions) (PE964)

Petition PE964, from Kevin Lilburn and Fairplay Loch Lomond, is on speed restrictions on inland water in Scotland. We have received responses from a variety of people whose views we sought.

The petitioner has been given the opportunity to raise his objections to proposed byelaws at a national level through the public petitions system. The statutory process has been completed and the byelaws have now been approved and implemented. Since their implementation, the petitioner has been given the opportunity by the Public Petitions Committee to comment on the new byelaws. However, to date, he has not done so. Given our previous discussion, the fact that the petitioner has not sought to take the matter forward and the fact that the byelaws are now in place, the petition should be closed. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Leisure Facilities (PE990)

Petition PE990, from Colin McCall and Derek Rosie, on behalf of Penicuik Community Education Association, calls on the Parliament to review the provision of community leisure facilities and emanates from concerns about the closure of local community facilities in the Penicuik area. The committee agreed to invite the then Executive to indicate whether it intended to review the provision of such facilities throughout Scotland.

The committee noted a lack of response from the Scottish Executive on the petition and agreed to write to the relevant minister on the subject. Funnily enough, we are still waiting for a response from the minister—obviously, he is taking the word "leisure" very literally.

The recommendation in our briefing notes, which is sensible, is to note the continued absence of a response to the petition and to invite the Minister for Communities and Sport to appear before the committee to explain whether the Scottish Executive intends to review the provision of community leisure facilities throughout Scotland. I do not know whether that recommendation is too severe, but inviting the minister to appear before the committee could be fun.

At its meeting on 20 March 2007, the committee noted the lack of a response to the petition from the relevant minister—that was a minister from the previous Executive, of course. We have been told that Stewart Maxwell has been advised of the situation and that the petition was scheduled to be considered today. When was he advised of the situation? In light of the answer to that question, we may wish to consider whether he has had enough time to respond to the petition before we decide to bring him before the committee.

To address your concern, it might be useful to get a summary paper from the relevant Government minister before we decide whether it would be suitable to get them to address the matter with us. We will find out what we can about that. Would that be a better course of action?

It seems to me that the tone is that, because ministers have not replied, we should call Stewart Maxwell.

We might otherwise have to wait for a long time.

Exactly, but I want to establish when the new minister was notified about the petition. In fairness, it may be better to write to him to ask for his views on the petition before we decide what further action to take.

I am happy with taking that course of action, which would be sensible. I wonder whether the clerk can clarify the timings.

An e-mail was sent to the Minister for Communities and Sport, Mr Maxwell, on 12 July. A follow-up letter was sent to him on 6 August.

I have been a minister and I know what ministers' offices are like. I am therefore willing to give them slack in such matters, because they sometimes do not even know that such things are in the system.

Why do we not ask for a summary paper or whether a position has been adopted? That may show that senior members of Government—whether of the former Executive or the new Government—have not given much thought to the issues involved. We may be given a wee benchmark, after which, perhaps, we can consider the matter. I am happy with that recommendation.

---

Affordable Housing (Subsidy) (PE1002)

Petition PE1002, from Tina Wilson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to prevent private sector developers from receiving public subsidy in relation to the provision of affordable housing. The committee has sought clarification from Communities Scotland on the extent to which private sector developers receive such subsidies. Communities Scotland has replied, but we have received no comments on that response from the petitioner. In light of the previous discussions, are members happy to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Funnily enough, everybody is now discussing affordable housing, which is quite an achievement.

---

National Tourism Website<br />(Public Ownership) (PE1015)

Petition PE1015, by Alan F Keith, on behalf of the Association of Dumfries and Galloway Accommodation Providers, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to return the national tourism website, call centre and booking system to public ownership. I had better declare an interest: I inherited responsibility for the matter for a brief but noble and much remembered period—the history books will record it wonderfully—when I was Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.

At its meeting in November 2006, the committee took evidence from Mr Keith and Elizabeth Chambers, and agreed to seek views from the various organisations that are mentioned in our briefing notes. Members have had a chance to consider the correspondence and the responses to it.

The case for returning the national tourism website, call centre and booking system to public ownership was up for discussion. As someone who has been involved in the matter, I can testify that there are continuing issues. The new minister has had discussions with the tourism sector about those issues, among other things. How should we address the concerns raised by the petition?

With regard to the petition's aims, there does not appear to be a huge appetite for bringing the system back into public ownership. However, issues of concern have been raised and we should raise them with the minister and close the petition. The insight that we gained is almost an add-on to the petition.

It strikes me that this issue bubbles up every so often. The minister, VisitScotland and the other major players in the tourism industry need to address it. We are never going to be able to satisfy everybody, and certain parts of the country have bigger problems than others, but it would be best to ask for a paper from the minister with responsibility for this matter to tell us what action, if any, has been taken to address the issue and how satisfied the minister is with progress to date.

Do we agree to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.