Official Report 255KB pdf
Scottish Criminal Record Office (PE544)
I am aware that this has been a lengthy meeting and that there are still some survivors in the public gallery—I hope that they will bear with us. We have a series of current petitions to consider. I think that we will be able to get through some of them relatively quickly, although we will want to spend a wee bit of time on one or two.
Given that the Justice 1 Committee had a detailed inquiry into the case, can we close the petition? We cannot refer it on to another committee.
Given the level of detailed discussion and examination of the fairly sensitive case that impacts on the petition, are members happy to close the petition?
Methadone Prescriptions (PE789)
PE789 is on methadone prescriptions. It was submitted by Eric Brown, who has already attended the committee, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a view on the need for regulation to ensure that methadone prescriptions are taken by the patient while they are being supervised by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. We have papers and responses in front of us. Are there any strong views on how to deal with the petition?
Thank you, convener. The committee has considered the petition before. Four years ago, Mr Brown suffered a personal tragedy involving methadone. Since then, he has done a considerable amount of research into issues surrounding methadone. He has found some telling statistics that demonstrate that, for example, in the majority of drug deaths involving methadone the methadone had not been prescribed but had passed on to the street.
Thank you. Are there any strong views on the petition? We had a good discussion about it before.
I am on the Health and Sport Committee, which is examining drug and alcohol problems across several budget headings—health, justice and communities—as part of its budget scrutiny. It might be an idea for us to send the petition to that committee as soon as possible for it to consider. There are spending implications to what the petitioner wants, but one of the points that has come out of the work that the Health and Sport Committee has done so far is that, if we spend more in one place, we will make savings in another. However, if we spend most of our money dealing with the issues that arise rather than trying to prevent them from arising, we could end up spending more. The petition would fit well into that consideration.
I see Robin Harper nodding in agreement. Is he comfortable with that suggestion? This committee has been good at trying to deal with petitions itself rather than send them to other committees but, every so often, issues pop up that require more interrogation on policy and implementation than we can provide. It is reasonable to think about referring the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, because it connects with other issues that that committee is considering.
We should take advantage of the serendipity of the situation. It is the right time.
I have always wanted to use that word in a committee, so well done.
I was going to suggest before Iain Gray spoke that the petition should go to the Health and Sport Committee. I am glad to hear about that committee's investigation, because the issue is hugely important for the whole of Scotland.
That is a positive suggestion from committee members. I thank Iain Gray for submitting his view as the petitioner's constituency member. I also thank the petitioner.
Mental Health Services (Deaf and<br />Deafblind People) (PE808)
The next petition is PE808, from Lilian Lawson, on behalf of the Scottish Council on Deafness. There is sign language interpretation. I hope that the interpreter is fluent in Glaswegian English and that the interpretation is of benefit.
There is great concern among the deaf community that the petition is still coming before the Public Petitions Committee. A lot has been done—the Government is undertaking quite a lot of consideration—to address the particular needs of deaf and deafblind people through various provisions. Is there any more that the committee can do in that respect? I would like the Scottish Government to provide the detail of what is going on and I would also like the petitioner to be kept informed of progress. It might be appropriate to close the committee's consideration of the petition, but I would not like the matter to be let go of altogether and we should ask the Government to follow it through.
I will probably be thrown off the Health and Sport Committee this week for suggesting that two petitions be referred to it. That committee's work programme includes an inquiry into mental health services, which is not happening immediately. Could we close the petition but refer it to the Health and Sport Committee, so that it can be taken into account in that inquiry rather than be left hanging in the air?
Who is the convener of the Health and Sport Committee?
Christine Grahame, who will not be speaking to me.
It is not so much that. It is just that I got a cheeky letter from Roseanna Cunningham a while back, so I do not want to antagonise her for a second time.
Work on the topics of this and the previous petition is going on or will take place in the Health and Sport Committee.
It sounds a logical suggestion. Sometimes the world is not logical, but let us think about that suggestion before we commit ourselves to closing the petition. What do other members feel about it? Are there any other suggestions?
I suspect that the person who is signing is one of the 53 fully qualified interpreters. There are not enough interpreters—some of us are pursuing the issue.
We would not close the petition; we would refer it to the Health and Sport Committee.
It is important that we keep the petition open. We are not as good at mental health welfare as we should be.
The petition might not be dealt with in the near future, given the Health and Sport Committee's work programme, but it would inform the committee's inquiry, which is important.
I agree that we should not close the petition but should refer it to the Health and Sport Committee. Can we also write to the Government to say that we would like the petitioner to be kept up to speed on what is happening?
Yes, absolutely.
The previous Executive received quite a lot of representation on issues such as signing and services for deafblind people. The Executive was very supportive and was willing to take the issues forward. We should keep the Scottish Government on board by making it aware of the petition and asking it when it will introduce legislation that supports the cause.
Okay. Members have made a series of points, but the core message is that we will risk the wrath of conveners of subject committees when referring a petition is the right thing to do.
High Voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
PE812 was brought by Caroline Paterson, on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines, and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health. Members have a paper on the petition and I invite comments on the options for action. We should perhaps explore the issue with the relevant authorities. We could write to the Scottish Government and SEPA. Do members have other suggestions?
The issue is highly controversial and will roll on and on, so the Scottish Government should be involved, even at this early stage. I have been involved in a petition from people in the west Highlands but I have not been able to get anyone in our current elected Government to accept it, although it has 10,000 signatures. To whom can we go? We are making arrangements to present you with a bundle of signatures, convener, so that you can decide what to do.
I will happily take on the role of First Minister for a day. What a great idea that is.
Is the matter that is raised in the petition fully devolved, or should we also involve the Westminster Government? I am sorry; I am not sure.
There are probably issues to do with the UK regulatory framework in relation to planning. We should liaise with the appropriate agencies on that. Should we also contact Health Protection Scotland, given that the petitioner is concerned about the impact on public health?
Thank you. I will be happy to receive the petition that John Farquhar Munro mentioned when it is brought to the Parliament.
Neurological Services (Post-polio Syndrome) (PE873)
PE873 was brought by Helene MacLean, on behalf of the Scottish Post Polio Network, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to join the international community in recognising post-polio syndrome and to conduct a much-needed national review of neurological services, to take account of the needs of PPS and all other long-term neurological conditions, with a view to establishing multidisciplinary centres. The petition was considered by the Public Petitions Committee in the previous session. I invite members' suggestions on how to deal with it.
The fact that those meetings are taking place indicates that the concerns of the petitioner have been taken on board. It would therefore be appropriate for us to close the petition.
Is everyone agreed that we close the petition?
Skin Cancer (PE931)
PE931, from Helen Irons, on behalf of Skin Care Campaign Scotland, urges the Government to review its policy on tackling the growing skin cancer epidemic in Scotland. Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?
Part of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill deals with the licensing of sunbeds, but it has not been drafted properly and does not take into account Ken Macintosh's member's bill. The Health and Sport Committee is waiting for the Government to address that. That takes care of one aspect of the petition. I hesitate to say that we should refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, as part of its scrutiny of the bill—I had better not or I will be thrown off the committee.
Two out of three ain't bad—I never thought that I would get a Meat Loaf song into a Public Petitions Committee.
Could we ask the Scottish Government about that? It still has to redraft that section. If it can address the issue, I might be spared by the Health and Sport Committee.
We will continue the petition, seeking further information from the Government on issues raised by the petition.
Supporting People Funding (PE932)
PE932, from Stella Macdonald, on behalf of the Citizen's Rights Action Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the supporting people funding arrangements to ensure that vulnerable adults are in receipt of the responsive services that they require. The issue relates to the strategic spending review. A debate has opened up on ring fencing, and on the approach taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to the Government's relationship with local government. Given that supporting people funding is now part of the overall allocation to local government, it may be worth asking the Government for clarity on the issue. There is concern in some sectors that the money might disappear into a general fund. Vigilance is required on that and on the outcome agreements that are part of the Government's negotiations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual authorities. I have jumped in on that, but are there any other views?
You have just made the point. Obviously, the first thing to do is to write to the Government. I suggest that we also write to COSLA. If COSLA is saying the same thing as the Government, that is fine, but it would be interesting to know whether it is saying something different.
That would be very interesting. Let us try to get clarity on that. The issue is also about the sectors that are dealt with by supporting people funding, which take in social work, housing and community services. It is hard to follow the money unless there is clarity. Are we happy to write to the Government and to COSLA about the issues to do with supporting people funding arrangements?
Oil Depots (Public Health) (PE936)
PE936, from Simon Brogan, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the public health implications of siting oil depots in residential areas in light of depot explosions in the past. Do members have any views on how we wish to process the petition?
There should be stricter regulations on developments that introduce petrol stations or fuel depots into built-up areas. Once the investigation into what happened at Buncefield is complete, fresh information will probably come forward. In the meantime, the Scottish Government and all local authorities should take a controlling interest in what is happening in such developments.
There is an option to close the petition, but another is to hold off final consideration until we have the Health and Safety Executive advice in summer 2008. My inclination is to hold on. Are we okay with that? We would not close the petition but would wait for a more authoritative perspective.
Family Law (PE944)
PE944, from Gary Strachan, urges the Government to address the issue of access to children and children's residence after parents have separated. The petition has been in the system for a while. There are issues to do with fathers and the Scottish court system, and there have been a number of initiatives regarding family law. Have those initiatives addressed the petition?
I do not know whether it has been properly addressed, but many of the points that the petitioner makes are valid, particularly in relation to the consideration that is given to fathers when parents separate. A lot of work is on-going. I do not know whether the committee could take the matter any further.
Justice structures in the Parliament and in the Government have identified issues that need to be addressed through the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. There are various other issues relating to the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006. Is it appropriate to close the petition in light of those developments?
Is there a case for writing one more letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, asking him to confirm that all the issues in the petition are being covered? If he says yes, the petition is finished.
Are we happy to accept that recommendation?
Previous
New Petitions