Official Report 203KB pdf
Neurological Services<br />(Post-polio Syndrome) (PE873)
Under agenda item 2, the first current petition for consideration is PE873 by Helene MacLean, on behalf of the Scottish Post Polio Network. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to join the international community in recognising post-polio syndrome and to conduct a much-needed national review of neurological services to take account of the needs of PPS and all other long-term neurological conditions, with a view to establishing multidisciplinary centres of excellence to assess, treat and research such conditions, which affect the lives of many thousands of individuals in Scotland.
Perhaps we should invite the views of the petitioners on the responses that we have received so far before we decide what action to take.
That would be our normal course of action.
Good morning to you, convener, and to the members of the committee. I have had a chance to speak to two of the petitioners, who are present today. We are most heartened and very grateful for the response from NHS Greater Glasgow—perhaps Charlie Gordon could pass on our thanks. It is quite firm about the need for an audit to establish the prevalence of PPS; that is where we, too, would want to see the process start. As far as contacts and so on are concerned, there is a list of 300 to 340 contacts—that is the same size as the survey that was undertaken in Ireland. We have copies of the Irish survey, which is how the process started there.
Do members have any comments on what Margo MacDonald has said or any suggestions? I know that you are speaking on behalf of the petitioners, Margo.
Yes. I have met them this morning. I am here to assist the committee.
I appreciate that. You have made some valid points. It would be worth our asking for a written response from the petitioners, so that we know their views on all the responses.
Aye. Well, I think that you will want to censor their views on one of the responses.
They are entitled to comment on the responses.
I think that you would want to censor their views on one of the responses, but that is a matter for the committee.
The fact that we have not received responses from many health boards, despite repeated requests, is rather disappointing. Margo MacDonald welcomed the response from NHS Greater Glasgow; similarly, I welcome the very positive response from NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which says that it deals with the issue on a case-by-case basis. I do not always agree with everything that Kirsten Major says, but the response is positive. I think that we should take this forward in a constructive way.
Before I came here today, I had to visit my own doctor, and I did a wee bit of business while I was there. I asked him about this issue, about the idea of an audit and about the professionals having access to much more information. He said that that is definitely needed among general practitioners as well. There is a general willingness to take action if it can be worked out how that can best be done. You will certainly get written responses from the petitioners.
Other questions may arise, based on the petitioners' responses. Asking for a written response will allow us to get a detailed analysis of the views of the petitioners on the responses that have been received and to pose other questions on the back of that.
The recommendation that we contact the petitioners is helpful. However, we have had very helpful responses from Michael Bews of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland and Tom Divers of NHS Greater Glasgow. Could we write back to them to point out the co-operation that a national prevalence study might lead to? Asking about a timescale for that might nudge them into activity. It is important to get an evidence base so that we can consider whether more requires to be done.
That could run in conjunction with writing to the petitioner; I do not think that it would cause any hold-up. We will look forward to receiving responses and we will obviously be able to discuss the matter further.
I keep referring to Ireland because the situations are comparable. The Irish started from more or less where we would be starting from.
We will have a chance to consider the matter further when we receive the petitioners' response. At that point, we will discuss what more we can do with the petition.
Thank you very much—what a lovely committee.
It is only because you are such a lovely MSP.
Road Design Standards (PE838)
PE838 by Sheila Carribine, on behalf of Low Valleyfield community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, in the interests of road safety, to review its policy in relation to road design standards and to encourage both the publication of such standards and their proper and consistent application across Scotland.
I notice in our papers a suggestion for action. However, I wonder whether we could seek the views of the petitioner—just as we did with the previous petition—before coming to a decision at the next meeting at which we discuss the petition.
Are members happy with that?
We will keep the petition open until we receive a response.
Wind Farm Construction (Public Inquiry) (PE800)
Our next petition is PE800 by William Robert Graham, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a public inquiry into wind farm construction and in the meantime to introduce an immediate moratorium on further wind farm developments.
Erskine Bridge (Tolls) (PE869)
Our next petition is PE869 by Councillor Andrew White, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to remove the tolls from the Erskine bridge. At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. Are there any comments?
You would expect me to comment, convener. My support for this petition has already been declared and I feel that it would be very helpful to keep the petition open. I note the response from the minister's office, but the petition is part of a continuing dialogue that will, I hope, lead to the removal of tolls from the Erskine bridge. Until that happens, the petition should stay on our agenda.
Are members happy with that?
May I put down a marker for the Forth road bridge too? You knew that that was coming.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (PE836)
Our next petition is PE836 by Ronald E Conway, on behalf of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review, as a matter of urgency, the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and, in particular, sections 17 and 19A of the act in relation to compensation for injured people.
The Scottish Law Commission is taking the issue seriously now; indeed, it is incorporating the views that are expressed in the petition into its further discussions. That is quite a success for the petitioner and the committee, so I do not think that we need to take the petition any further.
Are members happy with that?
Sports Academy (Scottish Borders) (PE849)
Our next petition is PE849 by Kayleigh Boyd, on behalf of St Ronan's Primary School. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a sports academy in the Scottish Borders.
I suggest that we ask for the petitioner's view on the responses that we have received and that we consider his or her view—or their view; I remember that a whole team of them came to the committee—at a future meeting.
The responses are very positive; I hope that Kayleigh will be pleased with them.
I am advised that Kayleigh Boyd might be with us this morning. We will write to her and ask her to let us know whether she agrees that the responses are positive. If she does not agree, we will consider what more we can do to help her to achieve her aim of a sports academy in the Borders. We look forward to Kayleigh writing back to us to let us know what she thinks of the responses. I thank her very much for coming back to the committee.
Fishing Industry (PE804)
Our next petition is PE804 by Carol MacDonald and Morag Ritchie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to use its influence to return control over the fishing industry to Scotland.
Again, I would invite the petitioners to give us their views on the minister's response.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Rural Schools (Closure) (PE872)
Our last current petition is PE872 by Alexander Longmuir, on behalf of the Arbirlot—I know that I have pronounced that wrongly again—parents group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools unless there is an undeniable educational and social benefit to the children and communities affected.
I will make a practical comment, which has a bearing on the petition. After the letter that is included in our papers was received, the minister appeared at the Education Committee, where the position that he took was substantially more helpful than that which is outlined in the letter. I have confirmation from the minister that the letter was written prior to his committee appearance. To investigate the Executive's policy, we should examine the comments that were made during the minister's appearance at the Education Committee. On the basis that the Education Committee can scrutinise the matter much better than we can, I suggest that we send the petition to it.
Fiona Hyslop has joined us. Would she like to comment?
I welcome Jackie Baillie's comments. We had a very good meeting with the minister at the Education Committee. Many serious issues have been raised and it will be helpful if the Education Committee can consider the matter further in the future. We have embarked on our consideration of the issue and the minister is co-operating extremely well with the committee. I hope that we can move things forward. It would be helpful for the Education Committee to hear from the petitioners and it could do so if you were to refer the petition to us.
Are members happy that we send the petition to the Education Committee?
We will wait to see the outcome of the continued discussions; I understand that progress is being made. That is all very positive.
Meeting closed at 11:28.
Previous
New Petitions