St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions. We have 20 current petitions to consider, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to guarantee retention of continuing care provision for patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care, such as that provided at the 30-bed unit at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care provision at hospices in the context of the Scottish Executive’s Health Department letter HDL(2003)18 are fair and reasonable.
I think that every member of the committee apart from the convener has heard me speak to the petition at length. I will not repeat too much of what I have said in the past. I simply re-emphasise that there are strong feelings about how the health board has treated the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. There are strong feelings about how decisions that affect the hospice were made. We have looked for constructive dialogue between the health board and the hospice, but that has not happened yet, although I understand that the health board has asked to meet the chair of the hospice’s board later this month, so perhaps there is a tiny light at the end of the tunnel. However, we will not be satisfied until further progress is made on the issue. There needs to be a solution because what has happened to the hospice is entirely unfair.
I will start where Des McNulty finished. There is a need for the committee to keep the petition live for the reasons that he gave. He said that a meeting is scheduled and that this time—for one of the first times that I can remember—the initiative has been taken by the health board rather than the hospice. It is refreshing that the board has called a meeting rather than being asked to call one. However, there are outstanding issues. I ask the committee to hold back until we find out exactly what happens at that meeting.
I point out that the committee has considered the petition, which is on a serious issue, 10 times. We have considered 37 submissions and we have heard from local members on no fewer than eight occasions—we are delighted to hear from them again, on a ninth occasion. We have also had a members’ business debate in the Parliament. The focus of the petition has for some time centred mainly on a dispute about funding between the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. As members will know, the committee has no locus in that.
Does the committee agree to continue the petition?
Befriending Services (PE1167)
PE1167, by Christine McNally, on behalf of Clydesdale Befriending Group and other supporting organisations, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to recognise and promote the positive impacts that befriending services for adults with learning disabilities have on its “The same as you?” strategy and to ensure the provision of adequate funding to support befriending opportunities and promote social inclusion. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
We should continue the petition, given that the Scottish Government has not yet answered a few questions—or, at least, has not answered them clearly. We could ask it whether the review of “The same as you?” will consider the specific question whether local authorities should be compelled to provide befriending services and when the review’s findings will be known. That question went unanswered in February and June. We could also ask it to write to all local authorities, encouraging them to support the provision of befriending services. If the Government agrees to do so, that will be good; if it does not, we should ask why not.
Do members agree to continue with PE1167?
Permitted Development Rights (Port Authorities) (PE1202)
PE1202, by Joyce MacDonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove port authorities’ general permitted development rights. Do members have any suggestions on how we might deal with this petition?
We should write to the Government for an update on any progress in the work that has been undertaken.
I think that concern has been expressed about timescales on this issue. Does the committee agree to continue with the petition while we await an update on the current position?
A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)
PE1236, by Jill Campbell, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade-separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk. Before I seek members’ views on how we might deal with the petition, I invite Mike Rumbles to make a few brief comments.
Thank you very much, convener. I am very disappointed with Transport Scotland’s response to the committee’s three questions. As members will recall, we were originally told that the junction would cost £20 million; then we found out that £20 million was the price of the most expensive junction ever built in Scotland; and finally we discovered that, according to Transport Scotland’s own report, the cost would be £4 million. I can see, therefore, why the assistant clerk asked Transport Scotland whether it would be possible to provide “an accurate cost”, but all the petitioner wanted was an estimate.
I draw committee members’ attention to the additional document from Jill Campbell, which is a letter that refers to developments that the Government has financed and the potential impact on congestion at Laurencekirk junction.
I recognise the on-going nature of the petition. Mike Rumbles spoke about my constituents and his. I share his frustration that, at the moment, we are getting what we think is the wrong answer. I want to be clear: we will get the flyover eventually; it is just a matter of where it comes in the priorities. All the evidence that we have is of greater building and activity down the A937, which is the road down to Montrose. I am quite sure that we will get this flyover in time. What we are trying to do is get it sooner rather than later. I agree with Mike Rumbles that we ought to have it now. The trouble that we have is that the Government does not see it as the priority—or Transport Scotland does not see it as the priority. I am with Mr Rumbles when he says that he can understand why that is the case. What we are still looking for is the best possible evidence as to why that is the case.
Oh!
I am sorry. I am with you. However, in the longer term, we will get the junction. It is simply a matter of doing our level best to ensure that it comes sooner rather than later. I drive over the junction far more often than I dare to think about. It is not fun. The big lorries trying to cross it are not fun. The real issue is the traffic turning right from the Montrose area in the morning rush hour. That is bad in any case, but when the weather is bad, it is awful. We need to keep with this. The issue is what we can do in the very short term, other than ask for better information, which I will do personally via a meeting. We as a committee might ask for better information, which we will try to tease out.
First, I admit to the committee and to anybody else who happens to be listening to the meeting that, until a few years ago, I had no idea what a grade-separated junction was, but I do now. Some people might have heard about the A80 and they might have heard on Radio Scotland in the morning about the A80 and the Auchenkilns roundabout being blocked. The Auchenkilns roundabout is now a grade-separated junction. I can tell you that listeners to morning radio will know that we do not hear so much about accidents or problems at Auchenkilns. We hear about congestion because of the road works on the A80, but the grade-separated junction has made that part of the road much safer, less prone to accidents and less prone to congestion thereby.
I agree that we should keep the petition open. I do not know how often I have sat at a committee meeting and listened to Mike Rumbles make the points that he has just made about getting answers to the questions that are being asked. Transport Scotland is showing a little bit of contempt for the committee if it is not giving us answers to the questions that we have asked. We should pursue the matter yet again and see whether we can elicit the information that we want.
It might be useful also to inquire about what sort of studies were undertaken before the projects that are impacting on the congestion were given the go-ahead. Does the committee agree to continue with the petition meanwhile?
Physical Disability (National Reports) (PE1279)
PE1279, by John Womersley, on behalf of the charity Disability Concern Glasgow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish processes to ensure that health boards and local authorities fully implement the changes recommended in national reports aimed at improving the wellbeing of people with a physical disability. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
I wonder whether there is any more that we can do with the petition. I understand that, as a result of it coming before us, there was a meeting between the petitioner and Government officials. My understanding is that the petitioner seems to feel that he has managed to get his points across and the Government seems to feel that the meeting was useful and that it will take on board the points raised by the petitioner, so, unless I have missed anything, I think that that is a result all round and I am not entirely sure that we can do anything else with the petition. I suggest that we close the petition and congratulate the petitioner on bringing forward an important issue.
Are there any other views? As there are not, the committee will close the petition.
NHS Translation and Interpretation Services (PE1288)
PE1288, by Dr Godfrey Joseph, on behalf of Multi Ethnic Aberdeen Limited—MEAL—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that every NHS board has the structure, funding and capability to provide speedy, accurate and appropriate translation and interpretation services for patients and their families and that such services are consistent across every NHS board. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
First, we should acknowledge that the issue remains an important one. Secondly, we can acknowledge that progress is being made. Thirdly, as I understand what we are being told, the focus is on the use of British Sign Language for visual translation—which is entirely fair, as BSL is a visual language. If I have read the papers correctly, that is where the effort is being put.
I refer to the petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government’s letter regarding telephone interpreting. The Government said that there is not a strong demand for online interpreting. The petitioner went on to tell us about what it costs to put in an ISDN videolink—the initial cost and the running costs for a year. It seems to me to be good value for money, rather than having interpreters running up and down between hospital sites. Perhaps we could find some more information in that regard, and we could ask the Government what its thoughts are and what its guidance to health boards will be on the issue.
Do we have agreement that we should continue with the petition? What about issues of timing, Fergus? We are coming towards the end of the session.
If the committee is agreed, we could go back to the Government and ask for a response on the point about the costs for a videolink. We could get that response and bring the petition back to the committee, probably at our meeting at the end of November. At that point, you can make a decision to suspend the petition, as the petitioner has requested, or to take some other action. In the short term, however, there is a point to come back on.
Given what happens with telemedicine, we might imagine that the same sort of equipment is already in hospitals. If we asked about that, we could find out whether it is there. Such links need to be in place if people are to consult online.
I bring us back to the reality of the financial situation, the spending review and our budgeting process. It is difficult to expect health services to tell us what they are doing with next year’s budget—they will tell us that they do not know what it is. It might be one of those occasions on which asking for more information will not result in good information, as in effect the response will be, “I don’t know how long my piece of string is.” It might be a question of waiting for a year or even two before we can push the matter again. By that time, people will have developed the technology a bit and worked out what is going on, and they will then be trying to make strategic decisions.
The Government might have a plan that can be implemented over a number of years.
Yes—if there is a plan in place, it would be worth asking what it is, and I am not suggesting that we do nothing.
As far as I understand it, NHS boards have been asked to consider the longer term and to investigate how they could spend some money to save money in following years. The issue is still relevant.
Okay—we will continue with the petition.
Safe Guardian Law (PE1294)
PE1294, by Allan Petrie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement a safe guardian law to allow family members to care for children who might be at risk. I seek members’ views.
I notice that there has not been any response from the Association of Directors of Social Work to the committee’s letter way back in December 2009. We should find out what its response is to the guide that the Government launched.
I am not sure whether we have written to COSLA on the issue.
I think that you did.
It might be worth checking whether we have a response from COSLA. I, too, noticed that we had not received a response from the ADSW.
I put it on record that I know the petitioner personally. I also know personally the convener of social work in Dundee—I was a colleague of his for a while.
We will continue with the petition.
Low-dose Naltrexone (PE1296)
PE1296, by Robert Thomson, on behalf of LDN Now, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make low-dose naltrexone readily available on the NHS to auto-immune disease sufferers as well as for other conditions that are not classified as auto-immune, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer and low fertility, in each NHS board area, thereby reducing the danger of sufferers having to access riskier alternatives and incurring higher costs by purchasing the drug through private medical providers; and to provide guidance to all general practitioners on LDN protocol and to require them to collect LDN clinical data.
I echo everything that you have just said.
They have.
They have? We have received no response in that regard. Would it be worth writing to both the petitioner and the Government to find out what the result of that meeting was and to get an update on how both sides are feeling about the issue? When we took evidence on the petition, I was struck by many of the arguments that were made, which seemed to make a lot of sense. I would like to know what happened at that meeting, how the petitioner feels about it and what the Government thinks it got out of it. Were there any action points or follow-up items? I ask for an update.
Is that agreed?
We are continuing with that petition.
Access to Justice (PE1303)
PE1303, by Grahame Smith, on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to restore access to justice for all by abandoning its policy of full withdrawal of public funding for civil courts and by repealing the orders relating to Court of Session, High Court of Justiciary, public guardian and sheriff court fees, which increase costs to individuals in accessing civil justice. I seek the views of the committee on how to deal with the petition.
Has the Government said no? Sorry—there are so many papers in front of us and, like many other members, I am sure, I do not think that I have got every word of every paragraph in my mind. I am left with the impression that the subject has been considered and that, basically, the Government has said no. Having given the petition a good run, perhaps we should close it for the moment. We have asked the right question and have got the right answer—or, possibly, the wrong answer.
Presumably, the response to Lord Gill’s review of the civil courts impacts on the petition. I understand that the Scottish ministers plan to publish their formal response to the review later this year, as a basis for further debate about the future delivery of civil justice, which will lead to legislative proposals for consideration by the Parliament. If no legislation is introduced in the future, we can look at the issue again. However, given that the Government has signalled its intention to legislate, perhaps we should close the petition at this stage.
The other issue is that civil legal aid has changed and gone up. Everything that has been done indicates that the Government will not proceed as the petition suggests and that it will stick with the current principles and try to improve matters through Lord Gill’s suggestions. With the greatest respect, the petition has run its course. I am sure that the Parliament will return to the issue of access to justice in every session.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Bowel Cancer (Screening Programme) (PE1305)
PE1305, by Margaret Paton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the bowel cancer screening programme to the immediate families of those who have been diagnosed with bowel cancer. I draw members’ attention to the BBC news item on Saturday indicating that David Cameron has announced that £60 million will be spent over the next four years to introduce the latest cancer screening technology down south. We do not know what implications that will have for Scotland. How do members wish to proceed with the petition?
I am not sure that we can take it further. The Government has made clear that it does not think that it would appropriate, for various reasons including ethical and confidentiality considerations, to extend screening to the immediate families of those who are diagnosed with bowel cancer. In addition, Bowel Cancer UK and Cancer Research UK, which are both reputable organisations, do not support what the petition calls for, in part because current blood test screening is not sensitive enough for high-risk individuals, especially those in younger age groups. The sigmoidoscopic screening that is proposed may provide answers in the future, but we do not yet know enough about it. I recommend that we close the petition.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Male Victims of Domestic Abuse and Violence (PE1307)
The next petition is PE1307, by Alison Waugh and Jackie Walls—[Interruption.] I hope that that was not a committee member’s phone. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action on domestic abuse and violence fully addresses the needs of male victims and their children. I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition. [Interruption.] I nearly missed Mary Scanlon, who has waited patiently.
An authoritative source said that you would reach this petition at 4 o’clock, but never mind—it has been interesting to listen to the committee’s deliberations.
It does happen.
We have made incredible progress in recent months, but we are nowhere near achieving the goal that is set out in the petition. Even though it is extremely difficult to find information advertising the helpline, which is based in the south of England, a significant number of calls have been made to it from Scotland. A significant amount of serious violence against men has been found and, unfortunately, although there is a helpline, we have no services in Scotland for domestic violence against men. Just as important as, if not more important than, the fact that men are not recognised as victims of domestic violence is the fact that their children are not recognised as victims of it, either.
Thanks very much. Who has views?
I agree with all that Mary Scanlon said.
I did not realise that there was one, but apparently something new has come in.
I did not prompt this response, but at 12:29 today the Scottish Government sent me an e-mail saying that it would respond by the end of October to the letter that the committee issued in May.
That is helpful. The Government got a prompting from me—that is why you did not have to prompt it.
I echo what Nigel Don said—we should continue the petition until we get a more detailed response from the Scottish Government.
Okay; we will continue the petition.
Thank you for your measured and considered approach to the petition.
Thank you for waiting so patiently.
Medal Awards (PE1312)
PE1312, by William Leitch, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make representations to the UK Government, asking it to investigate the process for the awarding of medals to those involved in the 1949 Yangtze campaign and, in particular, whether the process was corrupted as a result of the exclusion of relevant and important documents relating to the role of HMS Concord in the Yangtze campaign on 30 and 31 July 1949. I seek members’ views on how to proceed with the petition.
First, I would like the committee to note that the Ministry of Defence’s long and detailed response answered a question that was not even asked. The petitioner asks not for medals to be issued, but for the process to be investigated.
The petitioner has gone through the Ministry of Defence’s response with a fine-toothed comb, and he has a number of questions that the committee can take back to the Ministry of Defence for responses.
So, it is agreed that we will continue the petition.
Hot Branding (Equines) (PE1314)
The next petition is PE1314, by Rebecca Stafford, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend immediately the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and to ban the hot branding of all equine animals. Do members have any views on the petition?
I propose that we close the petition in light of the fact that the Government has laid orders, to be approved by the Parliament, to prohibit hot branding and the fact that no further branding authorisations have been given.
I note that the Government said no before but on this occasion has said yes.
Absolutely. We all join in congratulating the petitioner and acknowledging the Government’s action. Do we agree to close the petition?
Wind Farm Developments (PE1328)
The next petition is PE1328, by Jack Farnham, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to guarantee a minimum separation distance of 2km between a wind turbine development and any residential property or building, regardless of whether it is a single dwelling or part of a settlement, to minimise potential health, safety and environmental risks. Do members have any views on how to deal with the petition?
We should keep the petition open. The problem of low-frequency noise that cannot be heard crops up time and again with people who are upset with wind farm developments that are close to them, and it genuinely seems to interfere with people’s lifestyle and enjoyment of their lives. We should ask both the Government and Scottish Renewables whether they can guarantee that the low-frequency noise that is generated by industrial-scale turbines does not cause health problems. We need to get an answer to that.
We want an updated view because, as you say, the issue is long-standing.
I suggest that we also write to South Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Renewables to ask them kindly to respond to our earlier requests for answers to our questions, including on the action that they are taking to mitigate low audible sound caused by industrial turbines. I will not be as forthright as Mr Butler was earlier about making demands on organisations to respond to the committee, but when we request responses, it would be kind of organisations at least to acknowledge the request and respond accordingly.
So, is it agreed to keep the petition open?
Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (Role of Public Guardian) (PE1329)
Our next petition is PE1329, by Robert Adamson, calling on the Scottish Government to put in place a review of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 with the remit of bringing it up to date and, specifically, introducing legislation to cover deceased adults, in particular the role of the public guardian in such cases. Do members have any views on how to deal with the petition?
I suggest that we seek further information from the Scottish Law Commission on the Law Society of Scotland position. Further information on the questions that we put previously to Alzheimer Scotland and Age Scotland would be useful before we take any further decisions.
I do not have it here with my papers, but I understand that the committee has received an e-mail from Alzheimer Scotland, apologising for missing the deadline, providing initial comments and confirming that a substantive response will follow. That removes the requirement for us to write to Alzheimer Scotland, as suggested. Clearly, we should continue the petition.
I agree, convener. We should write to the Scottish Government, asking for its response to the submission from the Law Society of Scotland. We should also pursue the other avenues that Cathie Craigie outlined.
Is it agreed that we continue the petition?
Pit Ponies (PE1330)
PE1330, by Roy Peckham, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prohibit the use of equines underground. Do members have views on how to deal with the petition?
I propose that we close the petition on the basis of the responses that we have received from the Scottish Government. Any action that would be taken on the issue would have to be taken by the UK Government under the Coal and Other Mines (Horses) Order 1956. Despite that, we should urge the UK Government seriously to consider taking appropriate action and the necessary steps to end the practice immediately if ever there was a request by a pit that was being reopened to use pit ponies in the production of coal.
Indeed. Adequate protection in Scotland would be provided by legislation that has already been passed. Is it agreed that we should close the petition?
Parkinson’s (Medication) (PE1331)
The next petition is PE1331, by Tanith Muller, on behalf of Parkinson’s UK, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that NHS boards support people with Parkinson’s to get their medication on time, every time, in hospital and at home. Do members have views on how to deal with the petition?
This is an extremely important petition. It is incredibly important that sufferers from Parkinson’s disease get the correct medicine at the right time. I see that Tanith Muller is still sitting in the public gallery. She must be bringing her bed into Parliament these days—it is the third time in a week that I have seen her here. I think that we should keep the petition open.
Is that agreed?
Tanith Muller waited so long and we dealt with the petition fairly speedily, but I hope that she is satisfied with the result.
Can I make one further observation? The issue is hugely important not only in the context of Parkinson’s, but in the context of self-medication in our institutions. It recognises that the patient probably does know better. The problem has been around since my dad passed away in hospital, many years ago. He was diabetic and the hospital staff thought that they knew better, but they did not know better. We must get the medical profession routinely to understand that the patient probably knows a thing or two. Therefore, the issue goes well beyond Parkinson’s.
Gypsy Travellers (Council Tax) (PE1333)
The next petition is PE1333, by Shamus McPhee, on behalf of the Scottish Gypsy Traveller law reform coalition, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the inequalities and discrimination faced by Scottish Gypsy Travellers and other members of the settled community residing in mobile homes in terms of assessing council tax liability and water and sewerage charges. Do members have views on how we should deal with the petition?
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s written submission raises two critical issues. First, different rights are afforded to people depending on whether they live in council housing or in local authority Gypsy Traveller sites. Secondly,
Bill Butler has set out adequately what should be done but I simply observe that, as we come up to the Scottish Parliament’s 12th year, a number of equality issues concerning our Scottish Gypsy Travellers still need to be addressed. The petition highlights one such issue and we must continue to be aware of the situation as well as dealing with such matters as they arise.
I am not sure how members will take this suggestion but, if we are agreeing to continue the petition, I suggest that we write to Scottish Water, asking about its system of levying water and sewerage charges for particular residences. After all, the petition raises that very matter and, as we have heard, some sites are paying full charges for services that they do not receive. Any clarification that we can get from Scottish Water on how it determines the charges for providing water and sewerage services might help us to take forward the petition.
First, we should remember that the committee will very soon be considering a rather more general petition, which I hope will give us the opportunity to explore various issues in relation to a part of our society that has been much maligned and misunderstood for far too long now.
So the committee agrees to continue the petition.
Disabled Services (Consultation) (PE1334)
PE1334, by Ann Cassels, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set out its expectations in relation to how, when, with whom and on what local authorities consult when considering the closure or relocation of centres that provide services for people with disabilities and what evidence there is that, in reality, that is what local authorities are doing. Do members have views on how we might deal with the petition?
I do not know whether the committee can do much more with the petition. As members will know, the Accounts Commission regularly and routinely audits local authorities’ performance in relation to best value and community planning; overall performance throughout Scotland is reported through Scotland performs; and Scottish ministers and COSLA have had a series of meetings to discuss how local authorities can meet their statutory obligations in light of tighter economic constraints. The Scottish Government has also launched national standards for community engagement, which set standards for best practice that local authorities and other public bodies should follow in engaging with communities. Given all that, I do not think that we can do anything else with the petition and, on that basis, I suggest that we close it.
Do colleagues share that view?
Cerebral Palsy/Acquired Brain Injury National Football Team (PE1335)
Our last current petition is PE1335, by Maggie Tervit and other parents on behalf of football players with cerebral palsy or acquired brain injury, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action, including by making representations to the SFA to bring Scotland more into line with England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland by adopting the Scottish national team for footballers with cerebral palsy or acquired brain injury. I seek members’ views on how we deal with the petition.
I suggest that we continue the petition and write to sportscotland, which the Scottish Government has asked to take the issue forward, to find out whether it has raised the matter with the SFA and what actions have been taken as a result. Further to our earlier deliberations with Henry McLeish, we should write to the SFA for its response to the petitioner’s proposal to create a national team for those suffering from cerebral palsy or acquired brain injury.
Are we agreed?
Previous
New Petitions