Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations (PE909)<br />Disabled Parking Bays (Improper Use) (PE1007)
Disabled Parking (PE1149)
Item 2 is consideration of current petitions. PE909, PE1007 and PE1149 have been grouped together because they relate to the same subject matter.
Although I agree that we can close PE909 and PE1007, I do not think that PE1149 has been addressed by the 2009 act. The petitioner asked that a disabled parking bay outside an individual's house should be specifically designated for that individual.
Are members comfortable with the suggestion that we close two of the petitions but leave the third one open until we have explored possible options for people who are seeking the designation of a parking bay?
I am sorry for not answering your question directly, but another issue that was raised in the discussion of the petitions was dropped pavements. The speed at which dropped pavements can be put in place is a matter for local councils and it is not something that we can enforce. However, dropped pavements can, in effect, be eliminated by motorists who park in front of them. I am not sure how we can address that issue, but it remains outstanding.
I am just looking through my papers to see which of the petitions raised that issue. John Wilson has suggested that we close two of the petitions but keep the third one open. If the one that we keep open also refers to dropped kerbs, we can explore both the issues that members have raised. Are we happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Sleep Apnoea (PE953)
PE953, from Ms Jean Gall, on behalf of the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of obstructive sleep apnoea; to promote the proper diagnosis and treatment of the condition; and to provide sufficient resources—including adequately funded sleep centres—to tackle the health problems that are associated with it. Christine Grahame has expressed an interest in the petition.
I first became involved with this issue in 2004 because Jean Gall was a constituent of mine. I have a copy of a letter that she sent to you, in which she explains that her husband suffered from sleep apnoea—he was either a dentist or a doctor, which is a bit of a thought—and he fell asleep at the wheel of their car while she was sitting next to him.
There will not be much disagreement from committee members on the issue. We may want to keep the petition open, because there are still one or two areas for us to explore.
I have come close once to the experience that Christine Grahame described, which is frightening. I have a constituent who suffers from sleep apnoea, which is a real condition, so I accept Christine Grahame's recommendation. I know that there is a Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network—SIGN—guideline on obstructive sleep apnoea; we should find out whether there is an on-going plan to update that. A managed clinical network is also being developed to look after people with the condition. We could get in touch with the British Lung Foundation, which has an interest in that. Perhaps a meeting could be arranged between the petitioner and the foundation as it develops the network.
My father had sleep apnoea—I remember taking him to the sleep clinic at Gartnavel hospital. Christine Grahame talked about the potential for serious car accidents. As I recall, sufferers from sleep apnoea are not prohibited from driving—it is not one of the conditions that general practitioners must report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I may be wrong, so do not quote me on the issue, but I think that it was perfectly acceptable for my father to continue driving. If most people are given the opportunity to do that, they will. That concerns me.
The fact is that the condition is highly curable. Everybody is different, but there is a sleep ap machine that monitors the throat closing. When the throat closes, the oxygen stops running and the brain tells the person to wake up, so they are constantly waking up throughout the night for little fragments of time and then falling asleep again. They are unaware that they have stopped breathing, but their brain tells them to wake up and then they go back to sleep again. They know about it only if they have a partner who sees what is happening to them during the night. However, the condition can be treated by using the machine.
Okay. It is recommended that we keep the petition open, explore the issues with SIGN and look at the way in which such issues are handled in other Assemblies and Parliaments. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Could you also find out whether research has been commissioned into the impact of sleep apnoea and other sleeping disorders on road traffic accidents? It is hard to get such statistics, but you might be able to get them.
Okay. Thanks for your contribution, Christine.
Plants (Complaints) (PE984)
PE984, from Dr Colin Watson, on behalf of Scothedge, is on complaints relating to vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines and other plants. The petition has been discussed in the committee before. I understand that the Minister for Community Safety has met the petitioner to move forward on a series of issues that are raised in the petition and that the petitioner regards that as a positive development. In the light of that, I recommend that we close the petition. We may wish to record our appreciation of the fact that the petitioner has pursued the matter over a substantial period. We hope that there can be a proper resolution of the concerns that he has raised through discussion with the minister and the appropriate agencies. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Electricity Transmission Lines (Underground Cabling) (PE1087)
PE1087, from Nancy Gardner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate using underground and, where appropriate, undersea cabling for new electricity transmission lines such as those proposed between Beauly and Denny. The petition has been discussed by the committee before and there is on-going work in the Parliament in terms of the public inquiry. How does the committee wish to deal with the petition?
I do not think that we can deal with it until we get the report on the inquiry. The letter that we received from the Government was almost apologetic because the issue could not be raised before 24 June 2008. That is getting on for a year ago, yet there has still been no report. Is it worth writing to the Government to ask when the report will be published?
Yes. I am happy to take that on board. It would be useful to get a response on that. We will keep the petition open, taking on board what Nanette Milne has said and pursuing those issues. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I am sorry to interrupt, convener, but I want to correct something on the record. I have just been told by a gentleman from the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea that sleep apnoea is reportable to the DVLA if a GP diagnoses it. It is also reportable to insurers, obviously. I just wanted to ensure that I did not get that wrong.
No problem. I wish that the Official Report was as quick, Christine. Normally, I get in there and it is too late—see, the official reporters are blushing because they know. It is a case of "Sorry, but we did not get your call in time."
Fire Service Boards (PE1147)
PE1147, by Mrs Annmargaret Watson, on behalf of the Fire Reforms Action Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the current legislation to ensure that each local authority is represented on the fire service joint board. The matter has been discussed before in the committee. Angela Constance MSP raised the matter in relation to her local authority area. Unfortunately, she is unable to attend the meeting this afternoon.
Given the fact that we know that there has been a meeting but we have not seen a minute of that meeting, I suggest that we defer the matter until we have better information.
Okay. Shall we seek a copy of the minute if it is publicly available?
Members indicated agreement.
Closed-circuit Television Provision (PE1152)
PE1152, by Robert Kyle, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to allocate funding for the provision of permanent closed-circuit television facilities in communities that are subjected to significant levels of crime. The petitioner has been before the committee. I am not sure that we can take the petition much further, but I am in members' hands on whether we should close it. There are community safety partnerships and street watch arrangements that are determined by local authorities in partnership with other public agencies, private sector organisations and housing associations. I am not convinced that we can easily pursue the issue much further, but if members feel strongly otherwise, I am happy to keep the petition open.
It should be left to local authorities to come up with the best solution for the circumstances in their area.
I recommend closing the petition. Is that recommendation acceptable to members?
Members indicated agreement.
Free Public Transport (Under-16s) (PE1174)
PE1174, by Juliana Walkow, on behalf of Holy Cross high school pupils, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to consider providing free public transport for all under-16s who have no income. The petition is similar to others that we have received. We agreed that we would suspend consideration of those petitions while we await the outcome of the Government's review of concessionary fares. Do members agree to suspend consideration of the petition and to address it when the recommendations of that review are produced?
Members indicated agreement.
A92 Upgrade (PE1175)
PE1175, by Dr Robert Grant, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government immediately to improve and upgrade the A92 trunk road, particularly between Prestonhall roundabout and Balfarg junction, to reduce the number of hazards and accidents and to bring about improved benefits to the local and wider economy. We have had the petitioners in front of the committee. I see that Claire Baker has just arrived—I presume that this is the petition that she has come to talk about.
The committee has received oral evidence on the petition. The Glenrothes Area Futures Group extends its thanks to the committee for the time that it has taken in considering the petition. Following the lodging of the petition, communication between the Glenrothes Area Futures Group and officials from Fife Council and Transport Scotland about the A92 has increased and improved.
Has Transport Scotland met the Glenrothes Area Futures Group?
Yes—there has been a meeting. Lindsay Roy MP and I were there; Tricia Marwick and Ted Brocklebank were invited but could not make it. We had a cross-party meeting with Transport Scotland officials, during which they came to see the junctions in operation. There is good discussion between the organisations.
You have discussed route improvements with Transport Scotland.
There was a lengthy discussion, particularly about the junctions. As the letter from Transport Scotland states, the issue is not covered in the strategic transport projects review, so there might be limitations on how far the group can go in arguing for dualling. However, it would be helpful to have the minister's view.
It is suggested that we might want to keep the petition open to explore some further information. It is a difficult one, given the minister's announcements on the strategic transport projects review. All of us want to raise issues about different parts of the country that we care about but cannot get priority for at the moment. I am happy to explore the issue—there is no harm in doing that.
Particularly when we have not seen the final draft of the report. It is a good idea to wait for that.
We will keep the petition open, but we recognise that dialogue needs to take place between Transport Scotland and Fife Council in order to push the issue up the agenda and ensure broader support for the improvements sought by the petitioner.
Members indicated agreement.
Permitted Development Rights <br />(Port Authorities) (PE1202)
PE1202, from Joyce MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to remove the general permitted development rights of port authorities. We have considered the petition previously and have had a chance to explore the issues. The Government has indicated that, as part of the review process, it will take on the issues raised in the petition. Broadly speaking, the legislation seems to be working well. I would prefer to close the petition, but I seek the endorsement of committee members.
I am inclined to agree. This is a classic case of a petition that is in general terms but which relates to a specific issue of understandable concern to the petitioner. We cannot get involved in the individual case, knowing that the Government is considering the issue as a whole, which is all that we could expect as a sensible response to the petition. On that basis, we should close the petition.
I disagree. I ask that the petition be kept open until we see the Government's response on its intentions in relation to permitted development rights and port authorities. There may be general agreement from the port authorities that the current legislation is working well, but the petitioner has raised an issue that is relevant to all port authorities in Scotland. The committee needs to be clear that objections to developments in those authorities should be dealt with appropriately. I would like the Government to lay out in black and white how it intends to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner. We should not brush the petition aside and allow port authorities to continue doing what they are doing. The petitioner has given evidence of her concerns about how, in many respects, port authorities ignore reasonable objections that have been made by residents and others in an area.
Who is in favour of keeping the petition open? There are two different views.
I am happy to keep it open for the moment.
I thank Nigel Don for that generous concession. Harmony is restored.
Bone Marrow Services (PE1204)
PE1204, from Jessie Colson, on behalf of the Richard Colson Severe Aplastic Anemia Fund, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to recognise and promote the life-saving impacts that bone marrow testing and donation can have on people with life-threatening illnesses, and to provide adequate funding to the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to support bone marrow services and encourage more donors.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to return to the committee to discuss the petition—in happier times, I am pleased to report. The previous time I was here, there was the prospect that Richard Colson may have found a match, which is what his family had hoped would happen as part of the campaign. I am glad to be able to say that he got that match—he had his transplant on Thursday, and so far the signs are positive.
The committee hopes that Richard is doing well and that the transplant is a big success. It would be traumatic for any family to face what the Colson family have faced and at the same time to run a campaign for Richard and other families that are in the same circumstances. We wish them well.
I have a serious question for Michael McMahon: what do you want us to do now? I get the impression that, to put it simply, we should ask the Scottish Government to get everyone who has an interest in the issue in a room and to obtain a piece of paper that outlines the best way forward. Do you agree, or have I misrepresented you?
That is absolutely right. Everyone is doing the best that they can with what they have at their disposal, but everyone agrees that the pie—the resources that are available—must be made bigger so that more can be done. How much more could be done if GPs were involved? How much more could be done if the people who take blood samples encouraged those from whom they took them to consider having them tested to find out about compatibility? There are options available if, as you say, we can get more people talking to one another about how to make best use of work that, in many cases, is already being done; it is a question of going beyond the minimum. Blood samples and bone marrow donations are being taken, but that is as far as it goes. The idea behind the campaign is to widen the availability of information about compatibility with people who need donations.
Has the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service updated its webpage to provide information on the issue?
As of now, there has been no change in the information that is available. We can pursue that, given the commitment that was made to provide specific information by the end of April.
Public Transport (Equal Access) (PE1206)
PE1206, by Catriona Black, on behalf of the mums need to use Lothian Buses too campaign, is on the accessibility of public transport. The petition, which has been in front of us before, raises the issue of the accessibility of buses in Lothian for parents with buggies.
The committee should be congratulated on progressing the petition and getting Lothian Buses to consider the design of buses and to introduce the required education campaign. Initially, there seemed to be a great deal of resistance from Lothian Buses to treating the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. The committee should congratulate itself on dealing with the matter and getting a good result.
Robert the Bruce's Castle Gardens (PE1209)
PE1209, by A J Morton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take all necessary action to protect Robert the Bruce's castle gardens in Ayrshire. Do members have comments to make on the petition?
I thank the committee for previously allowing consideration of the petition to be continued. In light of the information that we now have and the responses from the organisations, it is clear that all that we can now do is close it. I think that the various organisations and the petitioners will continue to disagree and that the committee has done all that it can do until they can resolve the issue between themselves.
Do members agree that the petition should be closed?
Members indicated agreement.
Bus Services (Rural Areas) (PE1215)
PE1215, by Janie Orr, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the frequency of, access to and routes of buses in rural areas, in order to increase mobility and improve local communities' access to social, entertainment and education outlets. Do members have any comments to make on the petition?
I find the petition quite troubling. The final sentence of the Scottish Government's letter says:
Are members happy to accept that recommendation and to explore those issues?
Members indicated agreement.
Enterprise Education (PE1216)
PE1216, by T J Clancey, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for new legislation to improve funding to promote and support enterprise education in schools. The petition has been in front of us before.
Members indicated agreement.
I agree. However, it is good that the provision of enterprise education has increased to 100 per cent of schools. That is satisfactory.
Licensing Reform (PE1217)
PE1217, from Christopher Walker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to revise its proposals to introduce new licensing regulations under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, in order to protect local tourism and businesses in rural areas from unnecessary regulation and charges. The petitioner has been in front of the committee. Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition?
I recall the Justice Committee approving the statutory instrument that set up the fees structure. The point is well made that banding on the basis of net area—the size of premises—might be oversimplistic. It might be useful to consider accommodating the fact that some reasonably large shops actually have a very low turnover, particularly those in more remote areas.
That is a good idea. Many small businesses are suffering significantly in the current economic climate anyway. The new regulations are yet another potential nail in their coffin.
Are there any particular aspects of the matter that we should highlight if we write to the Government? We should perhaps take on board issues around the equitability—if that is the word—of fees across Scotland. As is often the case with national frameworks, local authorities will adopt different charging regimes, which might have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. Perhaps the fairness of any charging policy could be monitored and assessed. Taking on board the points that have been made, we will keep the petition open until we get responses.
Clostridium Difficile (Public Inquiry) (PE1225)
PE1225, by Michelle Stewart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to instruct, with immediate effect, an independent public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the outbreak of Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital. Jackie Baillie was hoping to be here this afternoon, in light of the recent announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on an inquiry, but she is still convening another parliamentary committee at the moment.
I propose that we close the petition but ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to take on board the issues that were raised in the petition and seek a meeting with the petitioners and others to consider the inquiry's terms of reference and the engagement with the petition.
It might be appropriate to write to Michelle Stewart to congratulate her on the work that she put into the petition.
Forgive me for this—it might seem to be tit for tat—but I would like to turn the tables on John Wilson, exactly as he did on me.
Boys, boys—don't fight.
Harmony does prevail, of course—it takes two notes to get a harmony.
Except for Philip Glass.
There is a case here, on the same basis that we discussed previously, for waiting to see how the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing—I take it that it will be her—sets up the inquiry. We should check that the appropriate people are funded. It would be nice to know the terms under which that is done before we close the petition, although, clearly, it is for the Government to work that out.
I will resist the temptation to respond to that. Nigel Don can deal with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing regarding his proposal.
I would recommend you, rather than me, Nigel.
Members indicated agreement.
Biological Data (PE1229)
PE1229, by Craig Macadam, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to establish integrated local and national structures for collecting, analysing and sharing biological data to inform decision-making processes to benefit biodiversity. Do members have any suggestions about how we should deal with this petition? We still lack information about certain areas, and it might be helpful to explore some of them.
Given that it took such a long time for the biodiversity action plans to be produced in the first place, it would be wise to keep this petition open in order to keep up the pressure on the gathering and recording of biological data.
Could we ask whether there is a possibility of the Government's science group inviting the petitioners and interested organisations to discuss the issues? The area is quite complex.
I would not say that I am a specialist in this area. That suggestion is helpful.
There needs to be a way of testing the biodiversity information that is contained in the environmental statements that are produced by developers and of finding out how widely available that information is.
We will take on board those comments and keep the petition open while we explore the issues that members have raised.
Public Service Contracts <br />(National Framework) (PE1231)
PE1231, by Simon Macfarlane, on behalf of a range of trade unions and voluntary sector organisations, concerns funding for the voluntary sector. The last time that we debated the petition, we discussed whether another parliamentary committee should consider it, given the level of detail that it contains and the impact that the issue has on other sectors. I understand that the Local Government and Communities Committee is willing to take on that responsibility, but I am happy to consider any course of action that committee members suggest.
Convener, I would like to ask a question of you and the clerks. It is not clear to me that all of the services that are mentioned in the petition are commissioned by local government. If they are, I will be happy to refer it to the Local Government and Communities Committee, but if some of the services are commissioned by health boards or other public organisations, I will be concerned about referring the petition to that committee, as things will slip between the cracks.
Mr committee convener guru?
Members previously discussed the fact that the petition falls into the remit of other committees, such as the Health and Sport Committee and the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. However, a petition can be referred to only one committee, and it would be for that committee to decide how to handle the matter. Previously, members indicated that it would be useful to suggest to the committee to which the petition was referred that it might want to seek the views of other committees in its consideration of the petition.
I think that my position was misunderstood last time. The issues that the petition deals with are too important to be allowed to get lost in the cracks. I do not want that to happen, and if that means that we have to hold on to the petition, so be it. The letter from the Government indicates that a lot of things are going on, which is encouraging. Given that we are moving into even more difficult economic times, when it might be easy for the voluntary sector to be squeezed, I am concerned that we should deal with the petition in a way that ensures that it is taken seriously. My initial thought is that that means that we should hold on to it.
Do we have any idea what the quickest and most efficient way forward is, given the workloads of the committees to which we could send the petition? If consideration of the petition could be deferred for a long time, it might be better to take the route that Nigel Don suggests and to continue our consideration of the petition, given the present funding situation for voluntary services.
Let us explore the issues, which are complicated because they fall under a variety of remits.
I am a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which will have a private session tomorrow on procurement issues, in the light of the "Panorama" documentary that was shown four weeks ago about care of the elderly in their own homes.
Do other members want to express a general opinion before we find a solution? We do not often have the committee saying that it wants to do something itself. I understand the wish to hold on to the petition, but I do not know whether we have the wherewithal to do this important petition justice through the role that we as the Public Petitions Committee can play. We have taken responsibility for some other petitions, because of their nature, but this petition is very complicated because of the numbers and agencies that are involved.
You say that the petition could relate to the remits of many committees. Did Fergus Cochrane say that we can refer the petition only to one committee?
Yes.
In that case, it would be better for us to hold on to the petition. We are best placed to deal with it. The Finance Committee can deal with one part and the Local Government and Communities Committee can deal with another part. The petition is quite big and complex, but we have a wider remit, so we should hang on to it.
In a sense, that throws up—I am sorry; I will shut up for now and let others speak.
I have another view. Given what John Wilson said about the discussion that the Local Government and Communities Committee is about to have, we know that at least one member of that committee knows of the petition and its importance, so should we just refer the petition to that committee? I am sure that, as a member of that committee, he can present our views if he so desires.
Could we approach the conveners of two or three committees to see whether a route for the petition can be mapped through different committees? That has precedents from other pieces of—
I am sorry to interrupt you, Robin, but I think that our clerks have talked to other clerks and, through them, the conveners of other committees. We should hear from Fergus Cochrane before you elaborate further on your point.
After the last time that the committee discussed the petition, I contacted clerks to the Local Government and Communities Committee, the Finance Committee, the Health and Sport Committee and, possibly, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to alert them to the discussion that members had had about how the petition might be dealt with after our subsequent meeting. The petition is, therefore, on their radar.
That strikes me as reasonable. There is a technical issue about the fact that we can refer a petition to only one committee. In the long term, the Parliament might want to reconsider that, given that some issues fall in between the remits of committees.
I agree that that is the right course of action, given the importance of the issues and the fact that the Local Government and Communities Committee could deal with the petition more fully than we could. Since that committee has said that it is prepared to receive the petition, that would seem to be the way to go, particularly if it can refer at least parts of it to the Finance Committee and other committees.
Are we happy with that course of action? If we agree to do that, we can suggest that the clerk bring back to us information about the progress of the petition.
I believe that there is a perception that it would be helpful if the petition could eventually go to the Finance Committee.
I am not really worried about that; I just do not think that we have the expertise to deal with the petition. I mean no disrespect to anyone in the room, as I think that we all bring personal expertise to matters, but the roles that we play in this committee are different from the interrogative role that members of the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Finance Committee will be able to play.
Yes.
I think that we have come reasonably close to the wisdom of Solomon, eventually.
Previous
New Petitions