Current Petitions
Animal Welfare (Red Deer) (PE455)
We return to consideration of current petitions and will try to get through as many as we can in the time that is left.
Petition PE455 is from Mr Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. It asks for an independent inquiry into the cruelty and animal welfare implications of shooting red deer out of season. Committee members will recall that we appointed John Farquhar Munro as reporter on the petition, with the remit of convening a meeting between the different bodies—including Forest Enterprise, the Deer Commission for Scotland and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association itself—to try to facilitate progress on the matter.
John Farquhar Munro has now confirmed that the parties involved in the petition have reached an agreement. As a result, it is recommended that the petitioners' request that the petition be withdrawn is accepted and that no further action should be taken, other than to inform the other parties that were consulted on the issues raised in the petition. Do you wish to comment, Mr Munro?
No, you have explained the matter well, convener. Peace reigns among the parties. Now that a joint agreement has been reached, the petitioners wish to withdraw the petition. Who are we to object?
I have been informed that as yet there has been no resolution of the issue. However, the petitioners are quite happy to carry on consulting and hope to seek a resolution at some point in the future. Is the suggested course of action acceptable?
Members indicated agreement.
Aphasia (PE475)
Petition PE475, from Ms Cecilia Yardley, is on the subject of recognising aphasia. Committee members will recall that we have considered the matter at several meetings. Most recently, we agreed to seek the petitioners' views on the Executive's response that we received, before considering any further action that should be taken on the petition.
We have now received a response from the petitioners. They say that aphasia is often subsumed by broader issues around rehabilitation and argue strongly that, because of its life-disabling effect, aphasia needs to receive separate, focused attention, which is not the Executive's position at the moment.
Under "Suggested Action", the clerk's paper explains that the Executive does not intend to conduct research to establish the number of aphasia sufferers, on the ground that that would be costly and of limited practical use. The Executive is content with the current situation, whereby NHS boards decide how best to deploy resources that are allocated to them to meet the health care needs of people in their respective areas.
The petitioners have made it clear that, in their view, the Executive's response does not adequately address the issues that are raised in the petition concerning the quality and consistency of treatment that is provided to aphasia sufferers or the specific difficulties that they face. They also suggest that speech and language therapists could be used to collect more accurate data on the number of aphasia sufferers.
It is suggested that we agree to consult the Health and Community Care Committee on whether it considers that the issues that have been raised merit further investigation by its successor committee in the next parliamentary session. The Health and Community Care Committee will not take up the matter now, but I do not want the issue to disappear. If we can get confirmation that that committee would be interested in taking up the matter, it can be held over for the new committee that will be formed after the election. Is that course of action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Rural Scotland (Suburbanisation) (PE495)
Petition PE495 is from Ian Malcolm, on the suburbanisation of rural Scotland. We considered the petition previously and we have received responses from the Scottish Executive, from the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It is suggested that we agree to write to the Executive again, requesting an update on its continuing review of national planning policy guideline 3 and seeking details of the emphasis that is given to housing design issues in any revised version.
We could also ask the Executive to provide comments on the cross-party group's suggestion on the monitoring of the implementation of national planning policy guidelines by local authorities and the use of design advisory panels and design competitions as means of assisting local authorities to arrive at their decisions. We might also pass copies of the responses that we have received to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the petitioner.
I am a bit hesitant to comment, as I am going to have to agree, in part, with COSLA. I do not necessarily agree that there is no evidence of inconsistencies, but I share COSLA's concern that any review might develop "definitive and prescriptive" policies that might prevent local authorities from interpreting policy
"to reflect local needs and circumstances."
The Parliament was set up on the basis of devolution and planning issues are devolved to local authorities. The local councillors who will be elected in May have every right to determine what is right for their areas, without the Parliament breathing down their necks. My feeling is that, by all means, we can pass the responses to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but we should point out to the petitioners that they go to the polls to elect local authorities and that it is the councillors' job to decide on these matters.
Everyone would accept that. However, the issue is the timing of the responses that we have received. We received the Executive's response in June, but we did not receive a response from COSLA until December. That is why the petition has been so slow in coming back to the committee. In June, the Executive was talking about an on-going review of NPPG 3, so it would be useful for us to find out what progress has been made on that. That is one of our recommended actions.
The cross-party group on architecture and the built environment made some helpful suggestions about using design advisory panels to advise local authorities, although it recognised that the decision will always be for the local authorities. There is no question of the Scottish Parliament telling local authorities what to do. We would just like to know the Executive's views on those helpful suggestions from the cross-party group.
Okay. Originally, I had a lot of sympathy for the petitioners and I recognised their aims. However, I feel strongly that we should not usurp local authorities' powers.
The Executive makes that point in its response. Given that NPPG 3 is under review, it is fair enough for the Executive to try to embrace the matter within that review.
Is the suggested course of action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
Petition PE504, from Mr and Mrs James Watson, is on the subject of convicted murderers profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of them for publication. The Public Petitions Committee has dealt with the petition at various meetings. Members will remember that the petitioners made allegations about interviews held at Kerelaw secure unit with journalists about a convicted person's crimes. We agreed to seek responses from the Scottish Executive and the Home Office about the on-going disputes with the petitioners.
Members can see from the Executive's response that it refutes the petitioners' claim that interviews took place with Barbara Glover for either Marie Claire magazine or the Evening Times. On the points raised about the provision of free copies of court transcripts to victims or their families, the response indicates that the Executive is reviewing whether it should incur the significant costs that would be involved in making such transcripts available to a wider group of people. The Executive also remains of the view that it would not make sense to take action in Scotland on the criminal memoirs issue until the Home Office has completed its work.
We need to consider the Executive's view that a UK-wide approach to the issue is reasonable, particularly given the point that any restrictions that applied only in Scotland could easily be overcome by publication in England and Wales. The Home Office has let us know that it will consult on the issue in the near future. It is unlikely that a subject committee of the Scottish Parliament would be in a position to investigate the issue further in advance of the election. On that basis, members might wish to consider whether we should agree to defer further consideration of the petition until the outcome of the Home Office consultation is known—which will be on the other side of the election.
Several points come to mind. I query the denial that Miss Glover made any contact with journalists. How did Miss Henderson, the journalist, put her article together? The suggestion is that she determined the contents of the article when she was working on a Channel 4 programme. I wonder what supervision was carried out when she was in the Kerelaw secure unit at Stevenston making the programme, because the Marie Claire article was certainly fairly detailed and suggested that there was considerable input from Barbara Glover. The Executive statement seems to be a bit of a whitewash.
On the cost of transcripts, the Executive gives a figure of an average of about £500 per transcript. I wonder whether that is purely a cost for copying because—let us face it—the transcripts are compiled in any case. I do not doubt that the cost of compiling transcripts is significant, but once they are compiled, I would not have thought that the cost of copying them, particularly with electronic facilities, is all that high these days.
My third point is about the statement in our paper that the Executive
"also indicated that it was unlikely that the Parole Board would insert a condition prohibiting publication of memoirs into a release licence."
If the Executive told the Parole Board that it should insert such a condition in certain circumstances, I would have thought that the board would be obliged to comply. The Executive again seems to have sidestepped responsibility to some extent. The question that was put to the Executive was whether it would consider prohibiting the publication of memoirs. The Executive should consider telling the Parole Board to get on with it; the Parole Board should not be asked whether it is likely that it would include a condition in a release licence.
Those points are noted. The Executive suggests in its response that when the article was put together, there was an embargo on interviews with any of the youngsters held at the Kerelaw secure unit, so no interview for the article could have been done at that time. The information in the article might have been pulled together from earlier work that the journalist did before the subject became an issue for the authorities and the Scottish Executive. I suppose that she might have got hold of information earlier on and resurrected it for her article in the Evening Times. However, when the article was published, she had been refused an interview with Barbara Glover.
Yes, I accept that.
On the cost of the transcripts, I am not sure what you want us to do. The Executive says that the cost of £500 per transcript is a conservative estimate and is under review. If we continue the petition, as has been suggested, we will be able to return to the matter of the costs of transcripts.
The details of the cost are staggering. In this day of electronic production, the cost of running off copies of a transcript should be fairly low. I query the Scottish Executive's figures.
It is suggested that we ask for clarification of the costs at the same time as we ask for an update on the Home Office review.
That is fine.
I am happy with the suggested action. If we are assured that the Home Office will take cognisance of the points raised in the petition, it is appropriate to defer the issue until we have the outcome of the consultation.
Okay. We will copy the petition to the Home Office.
Educational Provision <br />(Children with Special Needs) (PE516)
PE516, from Sarah Craig, is on educational provision for deaf children. We have dealt with the petition at various meetings and have had various responses from the Executive, but we agreed that the petitioner should be asked to comment on the responses before we considered the issue further.
We have received a response from the petitioner in which she says that she disagrees with many of the points but does not wish to pursue the issues through the committee. However, she wishes us to ask the Executive to consider a review of the legislation that sets out the consultation procedures that are to be followed when a school closure is proposed. Members will remember that many of the school children who were affected by the closure did not attend the school in question, but benefited from teachers who were based in that school and visited other schools. The petitioner suggests that the Executive should change the rules on consultation to ensure that parents of such children are consulted when any such closure is mooted.
It is suggested that we seek the Executive's view on whether there is a case for reviewing the statutory consultation procedures that are to be followed when it is proposed that a school that provides support to children with severe or profound disabilities be closed.
I suggest that we copy the correspondence to the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on deafness, which has undertaken a lot of work on deaf people in Scotland. That group would be interested in the petition.
We will do that. Do members agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Care Homes (PE522)
The next petition is PE522, from Ms Carol Main, calling on the Parliament to encourage the Scottish Executive to investigate and remedy the lack of care homes for young physically disabled people in Scotland, including in the Tayside area. We have received responses from the Executive and COSLA. The Executive's response makes it clear that responsibility for the provision of services for children and adults with disabilities lies with local authorities, and that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care is responsible for regulating and monitoring a range of care services and taking into account national standards.
The statistics provided by the Executive, which are admittedly rather crude, show a rise in the number of residential care homes, but a drop in the number of residents and available beds. The number of young physically disabled people in homes appears to have remained reasonably static in recent years. The Executive has simply given a statement of the statutory and regulatory position and has not addressed the petitioner's main concerns, which are that, in practice, a young physically disabled person finds it extremely difficult to find a place in a suitable care home.
COSLA was unable to provide any information on difficulties that local authorities might experience in implementing national policies and argued that the Executive is better placed to provide such information.
Although the petition deals specifically with the needs of young physically disabled people, it could be argued that it raises similar issues to those raised in PE551, on St Meddan's Court, and in PE576, on Leslie House, which deal with the reduction in the number of available residential care home places for the elderly. Do members agree that the three petitions should be linked, along with PE599, which has just been submitted and which is on the same issue?
One difficulty for young disabled people is that they do not have such a clear-cut case for residential home care. Perhaps there is a fundamental problem with the attitude of local authorities that provide care plans for such individuals, which might be the reason why the private sector is not really prepared to make provision for residential homes that are specifically for young people.
There is a problem—whether it lies with the local authority or the Scottish Executive, I am not sure. I am aware that there are some excellent housing association projects around for young people with disabilities. They provide a degree of residential care, but profound care seems to be provided only in homes for the elderly, and that is not always ideal for young people.
The issue is important at any time, but it is of special importance in this European year of people with disabilities. I am in favour of linking the petition with the other petitions, as suggested in the recommendations. Members should also be aware that a special conference is being held at Heriot-Watt University on 28 February, dealing with care provision and alternatives such as the mutual option. I declare an interest: as a Co-operative Party member, I like to promote the mutual way of addressing problems such as this one.
Shall we agree to link this petition with the others that deal with residential places? That is essentially what the petition is about. We will note the points that Phil Gallie makes, but let us also agree to seek the comments of Capability Scotland on the petition itself and on the correspondence between the Executive and the petitioners, before finally deciding. Capability Scotland could provide us with useful information on how to handle the matter. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Early-years Education and Child Care (PE523)
Petition PE523 from Ms Carol Ball calls for an inquiry into early-years education and child care. Several responses have been received, from the Scottish Executive; Children in Scotland; the Early Years National Training Organisation—EYNTO; and Sport, Recreation and Allied Occupations—SPRITO. Significant work has been undertaken by the Executive and SPRITO in an attempt to increase the number of qualified workers in early-years education and child care, and to promote clear opportunities in the sector. Indeed, SPRITO is of the view that research work commissioned by the Executive addresses the petitioner's call for a review of early-years education and a standardisation of qualifications.
Children in Scotland has expressed concerns about the new system of child care training, especially the replacement of existing national training organisations with sector skills councils, which may not be able to meet the requirements of the newly established Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. The organisation recommends that the Parliament examines urgently current proposals to set up sector skills councils, with a view to establishing which, if any, of them will be most appropriate to the early-years sector. The Executive has pointed out that discussions continue among employers and others on proposals for a sector skills council for the early-years workforce, but no decision has yet been reached.
I suggest that we agree to ask the Executive for an update, if possible by the end of February, on the status of those discussions, and for comments on Children in Scotland's concerns. We could consider the petition further once we have that response. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Public-private Partnerships (Schools) (PE526 and PE527)
Petitions PE526 and PE527 are from the Rayne North School Action Group, and concern the use of funding through public-private partnerships—PPPs—to replace schools in the Aberdeenshire area.
We have now received responses from the Executive, the Accounts Commission and Aberdeenshire Council. It appears from the council's response that the school closures that promoted this petition will not now take place as part of the PPP proposals. The petitioners will probably welcome that development. It is also clear from the responses that it is for councils to make decisions on the funding mechanism to be pursued to replace schools and to provide appropriate justification for any school closure.
The Executive is content that the current system is robust and contains sufficient assessment criteria to ensure that local authorities follow the correct procedures.
The Accounts Commission has confirmed that there are no plans at present for the Auditor General for Scotland to examine the Executive's procedures in relation to PPP projects in education.
We must consider whether the concerns raised in the petition—many of which have been addressed in the responses received—are now sufficient to warrant a general review of the PPP process as it applies to projects to renew local authority schools.
I dare say that this will become quite an important election issue. Any progress on the issue might be pre-empted by voters themselves at the next election.
The petitioners will be delighted with the situation that has come about in Aberdeenshire. Perhaps pressures on the local authority representatives induced the decision that they require. After all, the matter is for local authorities and, as you say, will be a political issue come 1 May.
We should write to the petitioners, congratulate them on the local effort, and point out that the issue will be resolved in future by the politicians elected to do so.
That is an excellent suggestion. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.