Official Report 276KB pdf
Sleep Apnoea (PE953)
Item 2 is consideration of current petitions, the first of which is PE953, from Ms Jean Gall, on behalf of the Scottish Association of Sleep Apnoea, which urges the Parliament to urge the Government to increase awareness of sleep apnoea, promote its proper diagnosis and treatment and provide sufficient resources, including adequately funded sleep centres, to tackle the health problems that are associated with the condition. I am aware that Christine Grahame has expressed an interest in this petition before. I invite her to make a contribution.
I do not have the paperwork for today's meeting, so I will listen to the committee members first, if you do not mind.
We have been exploring issues to do with the managed clinical networks approach and so on with the Government health directorates, but we have reached an impasse in our ability to influence things any further. At the moment, we do not think that we can contribute much more. That is why I was inviting you to comment; I know that you like a battle.
Thank you for that lead-in. I am aware that I am sitting at the table with another member of the Health and Sport Committee. I suggest that you remit the petition to the Health and Sport Committee. I am most concerned that the petition has been batted about for a very long time, given that sleep apnoea is a serious condition with serious social impacts. I can tell by the number on the petition that it has been going for a long time, but nothing has been done. I am keen for something to be done. I see Bill Butler nodding, although I do not know whether he agrees with me. There might be spaces in the Health and Sport Committee's timetable to conduct a short inquiry, although that is a matter for the committee.
We always welcome it when other committee conveners offer to lessen the workload of this committee. That is why you saw us all popping up like meerkats when you suggested remitting the petition to the Health and Sport Committee.
I have to say that we have not had many petitions remitted to us in this period.
Now that you have said that, we would love to remit more to you.
Given that the convener of the Health and Sport Committee has made such a compelling argument for our remitting the petition to her committee, it would be ill-mannered of us not to do so.
Are there any other comments?
Some of the hospitals in my area are looking into this condition much more seriously than they used to. They are producing machines that people can take away to test themselves, which is a very good thing. Sleep apnoea is one of those conditions of which people are becoming much more aware, so something should be done.
We have been encouraged by your very receptive contribution, Christine. We are happy to try to work with the Health and Sport Committee. We will refer the information to you. Some progress has been made, but you might be able to do more to assist and to broaden out the support.
I was not stating that this committee had not made progress, but external agencies have not made the progress that we sought.
It would be helpful for the Parliament to have the Health and Sport Committee deal with some aspects of the issue, because we are getting different responses from different health boards. Does the committee accept the recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Broken Glass (PE986)<br />Beverage Containers (PE1145)
The next two petitions are grouped together. PE986, from primary 6 and 7 at Woodlands primary school, was submitted a few years ago. The pupils are now in senior school and will probably conclude their highers this year—that shows how long the petition has been in the system. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take greater action to protect the public by promoting the use of plastic bottles as an alternative to glass and highlights the way in which broken glass in public places can impact on children's play and activity. PE1145, from Dr Alexander Gemmell, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a statutory deposit-and-return scheme on all used beverage containers. Both petitions have been with us for a while, and we have explored some of the issues that they raise. I invite comments from committee members.
Like other members, I am aware that the Scottish Government has taken a number of measures. It is committed to tackling antisocial behaviour relating to littering and has launched a strategy. There is the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, of which the whole Parliament can be justly proud. We have reached the stage at which we should consider closing the petitions.
I agree, but it might be useful for us to pass on to the minister the letter that we have received from Cathy Macleod, the class teacher. She suggested that an award to industry be named after the school, to acknowledge the work that the children have done.
Do members endorse that recommendation and agree to close both petitions?
Members indicated agreement.
Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)
PE1050, from Councillor Ann Watters, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce legislation to provide better protection for common good sites such as Ravenscraig park in Kirkcaldy and to ensure that such assets are retained for their original purposes for future generations. Our background briefing indicates that Audit Scotland is completing its assessment of progress by local authorities on compiling common good asset registers and that we are waiting for it to provide us with further information on the issue. I know that the issue has been raised in questions in the Parliament in the past few months. I suggest that we postpone consideration of the petition until we get further clarification from Audit Scotland.
Violence against Women (PE1103)
PE1103, from Susan Moffat, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to prioritise the continuing development of strategic work on violence against women by following a prevention of violence against women and children approach, making adequate provision of quality support services for women and children, and providing appropriate and effective legal protection for women and children. The petition has been in front of us previously and is part of the broader debate on tackling violence in Scotland, especially violence against women in Scotland. I know that members have expressed interest in and views on those matters in the past.
The document to which you referred, "Safer Lives: Changed Lives", is really helpful and there is now a shared approach. My reservation is that, although we have a shared understanding and an increased focus, closing the petition would be almost like saying, "There's a document on the shelf, so it's solved." Obviously, just having a document on the shelf does not solve the problem. The petitioner was asking for adequate provision of quality support services and I am not confident that that part of the petition has been addressed, although I realise that steps have been taken towards it.
I and others on the Justice Committee, which dealt with the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, know that very well. It is a fact that we rewrote the law in Scotland significantly. The intention was for the law to protect women better and I think that, in time, it will. However, if I were an ordinary member of the public who reads the press and listens to the television and radio, I would not have noticed that the bill had been passed. I therefore wonder to what extent the things that we have done to change the law, as that bill did, have registered with wider society.
The petitioner has asked for a commitment to a three Ps approach, and such an approach is contained in the policy framework that has been adopted by the Government and endorsed by the Parliament. However, Marlyn Glen has, quite rightly, identified that, as always with these things, the issue is the delivery of the policy and the monitoring and support for it on the ground. That is always dependent on getting a matching level of national and local resources.
That is exactly what we should do. Any Government or authority that comes up with a strategy should always be asked for an action plan and what it is going to measure.
Okay. We will keep the petition open and explore that. The petition will come back to us in the next couple of months, depending on the speed of the response from the appropriate minister and department.
Transport Strategies (PE1115)
The next petition is PE1115, from Caroline Moore, on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway Again, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that national and regional transport strategies consider and focus on public transport solutions such as the reopening of Blackford railway station, which is identified as a priority action in the latest Tayside and central regional transport strategy. Richard Simpson MSP, who covers the area, has expressed an interest in the matter in the past. I invite him to introduce the subject, after which we will determine what to do with the petition.
The new material that is in front of the committee is the Tayside and central Scotland transport partnership report. It suggests that upgrading Gleneagles station at a cost of £3.75 million is preferable to the reopening of Blackford station at a reputed cost—it is disputed by the campaigners—of £4.5 million. As part of the original Victorian network, we have a station that was built to serve a hotel and a station that was built to serve a community. The problem is that, when Beeching decided which one he was going to close, he decided that the one that served the hotel and those who came up to shoot on the moors in Perthshire was much more important than the one that served the community of Blackford. That might have been correct in the 1960s, but I suggest that it is not appropriate today.
I wonder whether Dr Simpson could help me with one fact. I can visualise the road but, as is the way with such roads, I cannot tell you how far Gleneagles is from Blackford.
I am not sure. I think that it is about 2.5 miles or 3.5 miles. It is not really walkable from Auchterarder, either. At the moment, it is in the middle of nowhere.
I was just trying to compare that distance to the distance from Leuchars station to St Andrews. People take a shuttle bus or a taxi ride for that, so the situation here is not terribly different from that at the home of golf.
You are right. Once the decision is made to spend money on Gleneagles, I suspect that that will be the end of the matter for at least 10 to 15 years for Blackford, which has a hugely growing population.
Is it accepted by all concerned that it is not practical to have both stations, in essence because of timetabling issues and the length of time that it takes trains to stop at a station?
That is correct. An hourly service to Perth is to be developed and it is proposed that the service will stop at Gleneagles, but there is no way that trains can stop at Gleneagles and Blackford.
So there is no sense in having both stations—we have to go for one or t'other.
There is no sense in that in my view. Blackford is flat and has easy access. There is a signalling station next door, so a new one would not be required. The local bus companies are willing to provide a shuttle service between the station and Auchterarder and even Gleneagles hotel. The taxi drivers are also quite keen on doing that.
Having heard Dr Simpson's view, we could perhaps suspend the petition for about four months, which is the timeframe for Transport Scotland to consider the proposals that are laid out in the study. That is a reasonable way to proceed: we will see what Transport Scotland, in its wisdom, has to say.
In light of Richard Simpson's comments, it would be useful to support Bill Butler's suggestion. We can write to Transport Scotland to get its estimate of the usage of the two stations if Blackford were reopened. As Richard Simpson indicated, the Highland Spring development and others are taking place in Blackford, along with a lot of new house building.
That would be very helpful. One estimate states that there would be 5,000 additional passengers if Blackford were reopened, and zero if Gleneagles were enhanced. However, I should point out that the figure that was given for Alloa, which was the line that I was fighting for in 1999 when I was first elected, was 150,000, but the number has turned out to be 400,000. I do not really trust those estimates, and they certainly do not seem to take into account either the growth in the population due to new housing, or the fact that it is hoped that a tourism complex will be built that will add another 300 staff and 1,300 tourists to the immediate Blackford area.
We will take the recommendation to suspend the petition while we await further deliberations and observations. The committee is happy to receive further submissions from the petitioners if they have any more up-to-date information. I recognise the contribution that Dr Simpson has made. We will keep the petition open and bring it back to the committee at a future date.
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
PE1124, which the committee has considered on a number of occasions, is from Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to introduce provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Agricultural Wages Board (PE1139)
PE1139, by John Quigley, on behalf of Unite, calls on Parliament to urge the Government to retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board as a separate body and to expand its remit to cover all workers in the agricultural sector, including those who work in private and ornamental gardens and in all types of fish farming.
As a member of Unite—I want that on the record—I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's decision, which was announced on Thursday afternoon in response to a parliamentary question from John Park, that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board will be retained for another two years and reviewed in 2011. The petition has been very successful.
Can anyone—perhaps John Wilson—tell me whether the decision covers everything in the petition? The retention of the board hit the headlines, but the petition also mentions the expansion of the board's remit to cover all workers in various other areas. Has that been achieved, or should we still be considering it?
I asked on Thursday afternoon about the board's role and remit and whether that remit had been extended, but I did not get a clear answer from the cabinet secretary. On the basis of the press release, I assume that the full text of the petition was not taken on board when the cabinet secretary made his decision.
As a member of the GMB, I congratulate colleagues in Unite on their campaign to retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, which is essential. I also thank the Government for seeing the irrefutable case for its retention.
Okay. We will continue the petition, explore those issues and try to satisfy the petitioner's ambition.
Disabled Parking (PE1149)
PE1149, by Kenny Shand, on behalf of Disability Help Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to allow for parking bays for disabled drivers with mobility impairments—for example, outside that person's home—to be allocated specifically to the person who made the application and for such bays to be legally enforceable. Do members have comments?
I have read the petition, I understand people's positions and still think that there is a real issue. When I was a councillor, the biggest thing in my area was a large hospital. Constituents who lived within a few hundred yards of that hospital's entrance and who needed disabled access parking bays would find that somebody had come along during the day and parked in their bay in order to be very close to the hospital, for obvious reasons. The bay was therefore simply not available to them, and it was extremely difficult for them to find somewhere else they could park, while the other person could have found somewhere else to park in the hospital area.
Do other members support Nigel Don or do they feel otherwise?
I have sympathy with the concerns that Nigel Don has expressed, but I am slightly confused about who has the power to issue traffic regulation orders. If local authorities have the power to issue them, surely the Government could encourage them to issue them in all cases in which there is a residential parking bay outside a disabled person's house and in which doing so is necessary.
The distinction that is being made relates to the bay becoming legally enforceable for the person who applied for the bay. At present, under the regulations, a person can apply to have a bay marked outside their residence, but that bay is available to anybody who can display a blue badge. I support Nigel Don's suggestion that we write to the Government asking it to clarify its views on the idea of allocating such bays for use solely by the individuals who apply for them. We might also want to test out a couple of local authorities to find out their views on the matter.
I do not mind agreeing to write to the Scottish Government again, but the Government has already expressed its view that it will not introduce legislation on the issue. It views the allocation of bays to specific persons as discriminating against other blue badge holders. I do not know whether writing to the Government again would prove fruitful. If somebody can persuade me that it will be, that is fine; I am not going to die in a ditch over it. However, it seems that we have already had two answers, both of which have been in the negative.
We know the Government's view. What we must explore—if colleagues are happy with this—is whether we can persuade the Government to think again. If we ask it for its view again, we will get the same answer. One way forward might be to write to a few local authorities—I take John Wilson's point that they should perhaps be different authorities from those to which we are writing on other subjects—to find out whether the appropriate director and his or her senior traffic people feel that there is a problem. It might just be that Nigel has a bee in his bonnet about Charleston Drive outside Ninewells hospital. Elsewhere, it may not be a problem and my former constituents will just have to live with the fact that there is no general problem. However, I suspect that there are quite a number of places where local authorities could point to a problem that could be solved if they had a discretionary power to use in the particular circumstances. That is exactly the kind of power that we should, in principle, be prepared to give to local authorities when appropriate and cause for it is shown.
The problem probably exists all over Scotland and beyond. Constituents of mine are in the same position. From the point of view of the individual who has mobility problems, it seems to be ridiculous that they can have outside their house a space in which they cannot park when they come home and cannot then get into their house because of their mobility problem. It is an issue that we should not give up on, because there certainly is a problem.
I gather that the committee does not want to close the petition because there is still uncertainty over issues that need to be explored. We will pull together members' comments and pursue the matter of the decision-making process to see whether other approaches to it could be taken. We will keep the petition open and will touch on the points around which members have expressed concern.
Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 <br />(PE1154 and PE1210)
The next two petitions are PE1154 and PE1210.
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, in order to reduce the number of hazards and accidents and to bring about improved benefits to the local and wider economy.
Members indicated agreement.
Bone Marrow Services (PE1204)
PE1204, from Jessie Colson, on behalf of the Richard Colson Severe Aplastic Anemia Fund, calls on 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.
When we last considered petition PE1204 in May, it was agreed that the Government would meet SNBTS, the Anthony Nolan Trust and the petitioner to discuss the issues. That meeting recently took place.
Committee members should have a note of that meeting, which took place in late August. The note is included as an additional paper. It does not affect the key point on which Bill Butler was about to express a view.
We could perhaps ask the Government whether timed action points have been agreed. People are looking for a positive response from the Government—a way forward and a timeframe for action. I do not think—unless the clerk is about to advise me differently—that the Government has provided timed action points. Perhaps we could write on that basis.
Do members have other views?
I see that the note of the recent meeting states that there will be
I accept Anne McLaughlin's point, but I think that that could be pulled together with a further explanation of two or three other points that came out of the meeting. I do not think that there is any disagreement on the issue.
I think that is the timescale for reaching the objective or destination, but it would be helpful to seek clarification about points along the way.
Okay. I thank members for their patience on that.
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—that is probably required in every constituency in Scotland—in order to increase mobility and to open up communities' access to social, entertainment and education outlets.
We need to close the petition for the very good reason that it is a classic case of a petition that should be taken to the local authority rather than to Parliament.
Does the committee accept that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
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. Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition? The licensing regulations are now in situ, of course.
I believe the petitioner has notified the clerks that he believes that the petition has been fully considered. If that is that case, we should close the petition.
Okay.
Members indicated agreement.
Biological Data (PE1229)
PE1229, by Craig Macadam, calls on 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 comments?
Both we and the petitioner have to recognise that, although there is an important issue lurking behind the petition, given current budgets and the financial circumstances in which we live, there is unlikely to be a significant amount of money to add to what we do in this regard, however important it might be.
It is extraordinarily important that we keep up pressure on the matter. It took a long time for the biodiversity plans to be completed, but that was not the signal for people to sit back and say, "Right, we've got our biodiversity action plan, we can stop there." We need to know the data with which the petition is concerned.
Do we agree to keep the petition open and to look into the issues that members have raised, and the issues that were raised when the petition was discussed previously?
Members indicated agreement.
HM Prison Kilmarnock Contract (Independent Review) (PE1241)
PE1241, by William Buntain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to conduct an impartial and independent review of its 25-year contract with Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd on the design, construction, financing and managing of HM Prison Kilmarnock.
Thank you, convener. I note from the responses that neither the Scottish Prison Service nor Serco support the call for an independent review. Both state that there are enough provisions in the contractual arrangements to allow negotiations to take place. That is encouraging to an extent, but further progress would be achieved if, in the process of negotiations to resolve some of the issues that have been outstanding for a number of years, there was engagement and dialogue with the prison officers at Kilmarnock themselves. There might be merit in the petition coming back to the committee at a later date as a check and balance to ensure that good progress is being made.
There were five submissions in response to the committee's call for evidence. As Willie Coffey said, two of the bodies were against an impartial, independent review, but two others were in favour—the Prison Service Union and the Prison Officers Association Scotland. Audit Scotland was at best neutral.
There is not much disagreement at our end of the table that issues still have to be pursued, so we will not be looking to close the petition.
As the petition was submitted before the opening of Addiewell prison, it would be useful to find out whether the contract that the SPS negotiated for the operation of that prison is exactly the same as the contract for HMP Kilmarnock or whether any amendments or changes have been made.
As we have still not received full responses to certain issues that arose when we previously discussed this petition, I suggest that we follow those up and take on board the comments made by Margaret Mitchell and the constituency member, Mr Coffey.
John Wilson is right to mention Addiewell because, as I have been led to believe and as the petitioner's submission makes clear, certain issues are beginning to emerge at that prison. This is a very much a live issue and, as I say, an independent and impartial review would go a long way towards resolving it.
We will continue our consideration of the petition and pursue the matters that have been highlighted. I thank the members who have come along to speak in support of it.
Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 (PE1244)
PE1244 by Donna Mathieson on behalf of Aberlady primary school parent council calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to revise the regulations and accompanying guidance under the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 to allow schools to provide full fat milk where the child and the parents have indicated that that is their wish.
Members indicated agreement.
Clostridium Difficile (Public Inquiry) (PE1225)
We now return to PE1225 by Michelle Stewart. The petition has already been discussed by the committee, and I hope that our contribution has helped to progress the very difficult issue of tackling clostridium difficile not just at the Vale of Leven hospital but across the national health service in Scotland.
Thank you very much. I apologise for not returning in time for the petition's slot, but I was involved in evidence taking at the Finance Committee.
You know that you have arrived in politics when the opposition is always quoting your name. There are issues that we still wish to pursue, so I do not wish to close the petition at this stage. We might want to postpone that until we get the details that we want.
We need to get the inquiry's terms of reference, too. That would be helpful.
I hope that that is satisfactory to the petitioners. I know that they have been in contact with Jackie Baillie over the past few months. Is that approach agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I never thought that I would say this, Jackie, but go back and enjoy the Finance Committee.
Voluntary Sector Mental Health Services (Funding Framework) (PE1258)
The final petition for consideration today is PE1258, by John Dow, on behalf of TODAY—Together Overcoming Discrimination Against You and Me—which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a fairer funding framework for all local, regional and national charities and organisations that support individuals with mental health issues and new guidance on the best value and procurement of such support services. We know that there are other petitions on similar subjects. How do members wish to deal with the petition? I certainly would not want to close the petition at this stage. Should we continue it, or refer it to another committee?
The petition raises a big enough issue for us to refer it on.
The clerk, in his wisdom, has indicated that the Local Government and Communities Committee will look at the broader issues raised by the petition at its meeting tomorrow.
We have incorporated the petition into a Local Government and Communities Committee inquiry. We have invited a number of witnesses along to speak on voluntary sector funding.
The clerk, in his further wisdom, is about to make another suggestion.
Does John Wilson know what stage the Local Government and Communities Committee's inquiry has reached and whether it would be appropriate to refer the petition to it now? What precisely is the Local Government and Communities Committee doing tomorrow and is tomorrow the last evidence session in the inquiry?
I need to refer you to the clerk to the Local Government and Communities Committee. I do not have the paperwork with me, so I cannot give you a definitive answer.
It may well be too late to refer the petition on, so we should continue it in this committee and explore a couple of issues relating to the concordat and voluntary sector funding. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
New Petitions