Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Official Report 372KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

NHS 24 (Free Calls from Mobile Phones) (PE1285)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of seven current petitions.

The first current petition is PE1285, by Caroline Mockford, on free calls to NHS 24 from mobile phones. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Members might wish to comment, although I am sure that you will all know that the Government has agreed that the 111 number for non-emergencies will be effective from April 2014. In that light, I recommend that we close this very good petition.

On a wider issue, we should draw attention to the positive impact that our petition system in the Scottish Parliament is having on the lives of people across Scotland. I say that because the Scottish Government has announced a series of commitments in response to calls for action in three health-related petitions that we have considered. Action on the 111 number is one response. As members will know, the others are the specialist drug for cystic fibrosis and the residential pain service that it is reported will be established.

Ordinary members of the public put all those initiatives to us and the committee spent a lot of time and effort on them. We have achieved success in all those areas. Of course, we cannot achieve that on every occasion, but I thank the committee and the petitioners for raising awareness of the issues and I thank the health minister for achieving success on the initiatives.

Members: Hear, hear.

I formally thank Caroline Mockford for raising the issue in PE1285. I recommend that we close the petition, because its aim has been achieved. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)

The second current petition is PE1395, by Jan Culík, on targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at universities. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

Members will know that the petition has been effective. We have raised it on a number of occasions—most recently with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council.

There is an interesting point in relation to the responses from the Scottish funding council and the petitioner. It is probably a truism that students cannot apply for courses that are not on offer. In general, how can universities assess and tap into demand, when there is no mechanism for doing that? We have considered the petition a number of times, but the Scottish funding council suggests that we write—perhaps finally—to the University of Glasgow to try to get an answer to that interesting question. We all know that there are difficulties with resources, but it is important to get to the bottom of the issue.

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the University of Glasgow to try to determine the answer to the question that I asked. The petition is important. As members know, we have had a good turnout from petitioners and students to raise awareness of the issue.

An important thing that we must be able to do is sell and export abroad, but we lack the ability to communicate effectively in the technical and commercial marketplace. When we write to the university, it would be right to raise that concern.

I do not want to extend the argument too much—

No.

I will make a personal point. When I was in Taiwan recently, I spoke to university students. Students from Taiwan want to study in the United Kingdom, but Scotland is not getting its fair share of students. There is demand, but how do universities sell their product—their courses—effectively in the UK and abroad?

Adam Ingram has experience of the subject from his involvement in the past.

We have a deficiency in our language expertise and we do not appear to be catching up on that.

As well as writing to the University of Glasgow, should we write to Universities Scotland for its perspective?

It can cover the wider issue—that is a good point. Do members agree to what has been proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the University of Glasgow and Universities Scotland.

---

Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)

The third current petition is PE1400, by Libby Anderson, on behalf of OneKind, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. Members will have noted Libby Anderson’s point that regulations in England have been changed to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, and her concern is that circuses could move from England to Scotland as a result—I think that that summarises her point reasonably well.

It would be sensible to consider the petition after the Easter recess, when I hope that we will have an answer from the Scottish Government about its programme. In fairness, I say that the Scottish Government appears to be sympathetic to the point, so I do not think that there will be a huge problem, but I would rather get something in black and white from the Scottish Government. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ambulance Services (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE1432)

The fourth current petition is PE1432, by Joseph and Anthony Duncalf, on improving emergency ambulance provision in remote and rural areas. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.

It has been a useful petition. It appears to me that we have satisfied its objective and I suggest that we now close it because of the work that the Scottish Ambulance Service has carried out.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Miscarriage (Causes) (PE1443)

The fifth current petition is PE1443, by Maureen Sharkey, on behalf of Scottish Care and Information on Miscarriage, on investigating the causes of miscarriage. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.

I highlight the fact that there are still two substantial bits of evidence that we do not have: those from the British Medical Association and Tommy’s. Do members agree to wait until we get those before deciding on the petition?

I was saddened to hear that we still await those two replies. Is it possible for us to continue the petition until we hear from those organisations to ensure that we give it a fair hearing?

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

When did we write to those organisations? I know that we discussed the petition in November.

It was shortly after the meeting in November.

Can we encourage some of the organisations to which we write to understand on whose behalf we are asking such questions and that they should be a bit more expeditious in responding?

Members will be aware that we raised that matter at the previous meeting and it was agreed that I would raise it at the Conveners Group to find out whether the other committees have the same issue across the board. We have had particular problems with health boards. I will try to raise it and get an answer back to the committee as soon as possible.

Thank you.

---

Congenital Heart Disease Patients (Care) (PE1446)

The sixth current petition is PE1446, by Dr Liza Morton on behalf of Scottish adult congenital heart disease patients, on Scottish standards for the care of adult congenital heart disease patients. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.

This is another very good petition. It is important that we write to the Scottish Government about it in some detail.

Do members want to add anything else about the next steps for the petition?

As mentioned in connection with the petition on which we took evidence today, it looks as if considerable work is being done in the NHS in England. However, it also looks as if there is no imperative to draw that work to a conclusion or expedite it. Therefore, it might be helpful if, when we write to the Scottish Government—which, to some extent, is plugged into that process and awaiting its outcome—we invite it to seek to clarify the status of that work and when it expects something to come out of it.

Most of the other evidence that we have read is highly supportive of the issues that the petitioner raised and, because I do not think that the evidence that will emerge from England will compel us to move in a different direction, I can see no reason to hesitate before Scotland gets on with doing something a bit more effective.

I am interested in the submissions with which we have been presented, particularly the one from the Golden Jubilee national hospital, which takes the lead in the Scottish adult congenital cardiac service—that is quite a mouthful.

It appears that a lot of work has been going on and that a new strategy is being put in place. I see that a new clinical network is to be launched early this year and that the first task for the adult sub-group of the network will be to consider standards appropriate for the Scottish service, which is what the petition calls for.

It would be good to get an update on where we are with all that, convener. I hope that progress has been made without necessarily waiting on what is happening down south.

I thought that the Scottish Government’s response was quite defensive. Its response to the question “What are your views on what the petition seeks?” was rather circular. It said:

“Scottish Government awaits with interest the outcome of the Public Petitions Committee’s consideration of this petition”.

I think that our consideration is that something should be being done. Adam Ingram might be correct that standards are being considered, but I am surprised that the Scottish Government was not slightly more alert to those in its response. All of that leaves me lacking confidence that there is a great impetus, despite what I read in various submissions.

I am happy to write the Scottish Government’s health policy for those standards, but I suspect that it would not want my influence.

One of the questions that we raised concerned the fact that, with this particular problem, there are no records, should a patient need to have treatment somewhere other than where they normally have treatment. The network must have some form of meaningful database so that the paperwork follows the patient and people are treated appropriately.

Do we agree to continue the petition in terms of the points that have been raised by the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

For the record—this is not to take anything away from the petition—do members agree to confirm our general position that we do not accept confidential papers, for the reason that we want all the paperwork to be open and transparent and because of potential difficulties with FOI requests?

Members indicated agreement.

Of course, that general position might not apply in relation to extremely exceptional items. I will raise any such incidents with committee members.

---

Court Records (Access) (PE1455)

The final current petition is PE1455, by James Macfarlane, on public access to court records. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

Again—there appears to be a bit of a theme developing—we have not received the substantial response, which, in this case, is from the Law Society of Scotland. It is clearly an important body in relation to the subject of the petition. All the other evidence that we have received clearly goes in one direction but, for completeness, I would prefer to get the Law Society’s view and make a decision at that point. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

As agreed earlier, the committee will move into private session to deal with the final item of business.

10:57 Meeting continued in private until 11:40.