Current Petitions
Green-belt Development (PE435)
The first current petition is PE435, which deals with policy and guidance on green-belt development. We dealt with this petition at our meeting on 15 January. It calls on the Parliament to investigate the Executive policy and guidance on green-belt development, whether it is sufficiently firm, and whether it is being upheld by local authorities. The petition was prompted by concern about the building of a new stadium for Aberdeen Football Club on land that is currently designated as green belt.
We wrote to the Executive and it has responded in detail to the points that we raised. On whether the Executive is content with the application of current green-belt policy by planning authorities, it obviously is. We asked whether the Executive has any plans to update the current guidance on development in the green belt, to which the answer was no, it has no immediate plans to do so. We asked if any exceptions to green-belt policy are likely to be made to allow developments relating to Scotland's bid to hold the Euro 2008 football tournament. It appears that the answer is yes. Under national planning policy guideline 11, on sport, physical recreation and open space, exceptions will be made for football stadiums, although they will be made within current planning procedures, which allow individuals to object and local public inquiries to be held in relation to any site that is selected.
We must remind ourselves that it is not appropriate for us to become involved in the planning proposal that has prompted the petitioner's concerns. Indeed, it would appear that the issue is being dealt with through the established planning process, because the structure plan has been modified in line with established procedure and objectors' concerns have been responded to. Objectors will have a further opportunity to have their concerns addressed should any particular site be identified as part of the local planning process.
On the more general issue raised by the petition—the need to review the green-belt policy—it appears that the Executive does not consider that such a review is necessary at present. In addition, the concerns raised in the petition relate to a particular development proposal in the petitioners' area. It is suggested that those concerns do not demonstrate sufficiently the need for a review of national planning policy on green-belt development. It is therefore recommended that we agree to advise the petitioners to continue to voice their concerns as part of the established planning process. It is also recommended that the committee take no further action other than to copy the Executive's response to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information.
I am not happy with the Executive's response. The words are fine but, quite honestly, the Executive is not practising what it preaches. I have a few illustrations of that.
In Ayr, a football ground in the green belt was cleared recently by the local authority to make way for a housing development. In accepting the situation, the Scottish Executive stood back and clearly went against guidance on green belts. Again in Ayr, a planning application was made for a football stadium—strangely enough—on a brownfield site. In line with the Executive's statement, the local authority made the point that the principle of the planning system is that decisions should be taken locally. A local planning decision that was accepted unanimously by the councillors who attended the meeting has been called in and blocked for almost two years by the Scottish Executive.
I read the words of the Executive's response, but I do not believe them. I would like a letter to be sent back to the Scottish Executive to say that it is not practising what it preaches.
I see no reason why the committee cannot write to the Executive indicating the two examples given by Phil Gallie and asking it to comment. They obviously conflict with the information that the Executive has provided to the committee.
I am happy with that and grateful, convener.
In the meantime, is the committee agreed that we will wait for further comments from the Executive before dealing with PE435?
Members indicated agreement.
Advocacy (Mental Health) (PE436)
The next petition is from Ms Marcia Ramsay on access to independent advocacy. The petition calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that, in the development of the proposed mental health bill, access to independent advocacy by individuals is implemented and a duty is placed on health boards and local authorities to make provision for collective advocacy in hospitals and communities.
The Executive has written back and confirmed that in its mental health policy statement for the first time there will be a legal duty on both NHS boards and local authorities to ensure that independent advocacy services are made available for users of mental health services. That acknowledges the fact that users of such services are people who might particularly need advocacy services.
The Executive makes it clear that the proposed bill will support the petitioner's aims in improving access to independent advocacy. It explains that it will do that by the creation of a statutory duty on services to ensure that advocacy is generally available rather than by creating a right to advocacy.
The Executive also addresses the request made in the petition that there should be a legislative requirement for collective advocacy in hospitals and communities. It goes on to say that that form of advocacy is still in its infancy and should be allowed to develop through local negotiation and discussion rather than in response to statutory imposition.
The Executive also addresses the call in the petition for adequate resources for the development of advocacy services by confirming its previously announced position that the necessary resources will be made available for the implementation of the reforms. A mental health bill will be introduced in the Scottish Parliament later in 2002. That will provide the opportunity for the Parliament to consider those issues.
From the Executive's response, it appears that the aims of the petition are being met. However, further discussion and Parliamentary scrutiny are still to take place. It is suggested that we agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioners to establish whether they are content with the current proposals and with the promise of continued dialogue in the time up to the introduction of the new bill.
If you read the current annual report of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, you will be struck by the need for independent advocacy. There are one or two cases of alleged rip-offs of vulnerable patients but not by staff. The first contact with someone who might be an independent advocate should come from the staff in an institution, who should be vigilant and should refer the patient who might not be capable of seeking out such a service.
We are asking the petitioners first whether they are content with the response from the Executive or whether they have any issues, but we can raise the point that you make when we get their response.
We should approve the action that has been proposed.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Gaelic Language (PE437)
The next petition is from Mr John Macleod on a Gaelic language act. We dealt with this petition at our meeting on 15 January. We have received a response from the Executive that refers to the response that it gave us on PE385, in which it provided details of the support that it provides to local authorities in respect of expenditure on Gaelic-medium education. The response to PE437 updates the details on the growth in the number of primary schools that offer Gaelic-medium education, which is up from 45 to 59, and the number of pupils who benefit from the service, which is up from 1,080 to 1,859.
From their papers, members will see the various steps that the Executive has set out. The Executive has given details of the progress that it is making on moving Gaelic-medium education forward. For example, from the 32 education authorities, the Scottish Executive education department has received 20 improvement plans, of which 12 mention plans for Gaelic-medium teaching. The minimum education authority response has been:
"no target has been set in relation to Gaelic medium education as there has been no demand at this stage".
Other authorities have included feasibility studies on the provision of Gaelic-medium teaching, while others have undertaken to maintain, extend or review existing standards of provision. One council has extended its remit to the promotion of the Gaelic language to adult learners.
A list of councils that mention Gaelic in their improvement plans and a list of councils from which no plans for Gaelic-medium education have been received are provided in the briefing paper. The briefing paper then deals with the targets for a dramatically increased number of Gaelic-medium pupils and learners, targets for increasing Gaelic-medium teachers, the promotion of Gaelic in the public services, the development of statutory state Gaelic education where there is a reasonable demand, funding and so on.
A key point is that the Executive has asked the ministerial advisory group on Gaelic to prepare a plan for Gaelic by the end of March. The group has been asked to advise on the effectiveness of the Executive's existing Gaelic programme, and to include recommendations on funding.
It appears that the Executive is satisfied with its current approach to the provision of Gaelic-medium education. It has given details of financial support that has been provided for Gaelic-medium education, Gaelic organisations and Gaelic broadcasting. It also makes clear that future funding for Gaelic and the co-ordination of public support for the language will be considered in light of the recommendations in the advisory group's report.
It is suggested that we agree to take no further action on the petition, on the basis that the advisory group's report will take into account the issues that the petition raises. It is suggested that following the publication of the report and the Executive's response, it would be open to the petitioners to submit a further petition if they are of the view that the report does not satisfactorily address the issues that the petition raises. In the meantime, we should copy the Executive's response to the clerk of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for information only.
The Executive's response is fairly extensive, and contains a number of encouraging points. My concern, which is shared by the petitioners, is that everything is dependent on the whims and fancies of the Executive, albeit that its response to the petition suggests that it is supportive. The Executive is waiting for the advisory group's report, which is due by the end of March. That is to be welcomed, but our documents say that
"support for the language will be considered"
in light of the recommendations. That implies that the recommendations may not be as helpful as the Executive would hope. If that is the case, the language will be in a vulnerable position.
The petitioners' view is that a language act—the original suggestion was that we should have secure status for Gaelic, which has still not been achieved—would ensure permanent security for Gaelic. That is the petitioners' concern, although I am sure that they, like many of us, welcome the evident support in the Executive's response. In the interval before the advisory group's report comes to us, should we make the Equal Opportunities Committee aware of our concerns?
Do you mean that we should pass the information that we have to the Equal Opportunities Committee and ask for its comments? Any committee of the Parliament—not necessarily the Equal Opportunities Committee—has the power to introduce bills of its own. It would be open to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to introduce a Gaelic language bill, if it so desired. The petitioners could pursue that avenue if they are not happy with the report of the advisory group that will be produced at the end of March.
If the committee considers that to be the appropriate course of action, I am happy to accept it, as we have to wait only a few weeks for the report. However, I would like the Equal Opportunities Committee to be aware of the continuing debate about the language.
It has been suggested that we hold back the petition until the end of March, when we will have the advisory group's report—if it comes out at the end of March. That is the problem—the report has been promised for the end of March, but that does not mean that it will come out then.
That is just a couple of weeks' away, so the suggested course of action might be appropriate.
I suggest that we send the Executive's response to the petitioners—there is not much point in our holding on to it. We should ask the petitioners to come back to us if they are not happy with the report that is published at the end of March. We could keep the matter pending until we hear back from the petitioners and then refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, if need be.
That is fine—it would keep the petition alive and we can return to it. It would also give time for the report to be published. I thank Rhoda Grant. Are members agreed with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Greater Glasgow NHS Board (Consultation) (PE453)
The final petition is from Father Stephen Dunn on the proposed secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area. At our previous meeting, we agreed to postpone consideration of the petition until this meeting to give members time to consider its contents.
Greater Glasgow NHS Board's response defends its procedures in respect of the second consultation and tries to answer the various criticisms that were made of the process by the petitioners and Paul Martin, who is the local MSP.
Before we consider the suggested action, does Dorothy-Grace Elder wish to say something?
The response is a classic fudge. Paul Martin and Fiona McLeod would be the first to agree with that. The board's line is that elements of the local community vehemently opposed the proposal, but there was massive opposition by a huge part of the community, stretching from the north of Glasgow down to Bishopbriggs. Father Stephen Dunn is concerned not just about the secure unit, but about its effect on the future of Stobhill as a major hospital. People continue to be outraged about the matter.
I was one of the MSPs who simply gave up on the scoring process. It was an effort to make the process look democratic when it was not. Indeed, from the start, the so-called consultation was not consultation at all. We were told what was being done in the north of Glasgow. The public is still highly dissatisfied. There is about £12 million to spend on the unit and every occupant will cost about £100,000 a year. In that part of Glasgow, people are being denied medicines as a result of postcode prescribing. There is still public fury about the issue and consideration of the petition must continue.
It is suggested that we cannot interfere in executive decisions of Greater Glasgow NHS Board—those are its responsibility and not the Parliament's. However, we could consider the petition as a test of the recommendations for improved consultation by health boards that were made by the Health and Community Care Committee following its consideration of the original petition about the siting of the Stobhill unit. It is suggested that the committee could agree to refer the petition and associated correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee with a recommendation that that committee further consider the more general issues that the petition highlights in the context of its previous recommendations. In other words, did the consultation live up to the standards set by the Health and Community Care Committee in its original report?
I apologise in advance for levity on a serious subject, but the financial figures that Dorothy-Grace Elder gave pale into insignificance in comparison to those relating to the Scottish Parliament building.
I am against that too.
That aside, other health authorities, particularly Lanarkshire NHS Board, Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board, and—I think—Dumfries and Galloway NHS Board—have started in the right way by opening up their consultations. It might be worth while keeping them abreast of the situation that has developed and underlining the importance of continuing their good start to their consultation processes.
The clerk has informed me that west of Scotland health boards will be conducting a consultation on future proposals and will be assessing what went wrong with the Stobhill one in order to learn from it.
I am sorry to tell Paul Martin, who has just arrived, that we are nearing the end of the discussion on PE453. However, as we have not finished, he will be able to speak on the matter. I will summarise for him what we have discussed.
As ever, we cannot interfere in the executive decisions of Greater Glasgow NHS Board. However, we consider the matter to be a test of the recommendations on how consultation should be conducted that the Health and Community Care Committee made following the original petition about the Stobhill site. We are recommending that PE453 be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee, in the context of its previous recommendations, to ask that committee to consider further the more general issues that PE453 highlights.
I apologise for being late. I thought that the committee would discuss other petitions before discussing PE453. I waited across the road for that reason.
My first point is that there were inaccuracies in the board's response. I know that the committee has had a long morning and perhaps does not want me to discuss each of those inaccuracies. However, an important inaccuracy in the board's response is the claim that I was the only MSP who boycotted the scoring event. Dorothy-Grace Elder, who is present, is also a Glasgow MSP and I think that she will confirm that I was not the only MSP who boycotted that event. Correspondence that I received from Brian Fitzpatrick will also confirm what I say.
Misinformation has been provided to the Public Petitions Committee. The committee should pursue that important point. I will pursue the issue, because the correspondence that I have and which I should provide to the Public Petitions Committee, makes it clear that I was not the only MSP who decided not to take part in the final event, which was scoring option number 3. The Public Petitions Committee should pursue the fact that it has been provided with misinformation.
There are other inaccuracies in the board's response, particularly about the transport study that must be carried out in relation to the proposed closure of a hospital facility, such as the closure of east end mental health services at Parkhead hospital. As members will be aware, the legislation is clear that, prior to the closure of a hospital facility, a transport study must be carried out. The board says in its response that the transport study will take place later, although it has already decided to close the Parkhead facility. That is a serious discrepancy in the implementation process. The petitioners made the point that that decision about the transport study was pointing a loaded gun to ensure a decision in favour of the Stobhill site.
My final point is about the board not wanting to hold an event at which we would disagree with each other. The board did not want to have mixed scoring groups that consisted of MSPs, councillors and community representatives because it claimed that we would not reach a consensus. On that point, I remind the convener that he and I are members of a parliamentary party that disagrees on many issues, but that does not mean that we are forced to join other parties. As much as some people might often want that line to be followed, we are not herded into separate political parties in which we all agree with each other. I have made the point on several occasions that the design of the scoring process was carefully manipulated to ensure that the outcome would be the choice of Stobhill.
A much broader issue for the Health and Community Care Committee to consider, beyond the consultation process—as members will know, I have raised that issue in my member's bill proposal—is the broader issue of misinformation that has been provided to the Public Petitions Committee. That is a serious issue for Parliament and this committee. However, there is also the issue of how the consultation process was designed to ensure that the Stobhill site was chosen. The Health and Community Care Committee should consider that issue—not to change the decision, but to look at the way in which it was made.
It strikes me that if the Public Petitions Committee challenges the board on what you said about misinformation to the committee, the process will be delayed. If we pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, it can start work immediately. We would have to wait for the board's response, which we would eventually send to the Health and Community Care Committee, so the petition would just be delayed from going to that committee for weeks.
I appreciate that, convener. I must raise one point with you, and perhaps with the Presiding Officer. The board's response is misinformation. The board shows contempt of the committee by advising it that I was the only MSP who did not participate in the event.
In fact, neither Dorothy-Grace Elder, who is a committee member and an MSP for Glasgow, nor Fiona McLeod, who attended the meeting at which the petition was first discussed, participated. I have correspondence from Brian Fitzpatrick and letters that I sent to the board to advise it on behalf of my fellow Labour MSPs who represent Glasgow that we would not participate in the event because we were concerned about the design of the scoring groups. That makes it clear that we would not participate in the event.
Misinforming the committee is serious. The committee and the Parliament must pursue that issue. Unelected quangos cannot provide the Parliament with inaccurate information. We must take a stance on that.
I suggest that we refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee and refer Paul Martin's other points to the Standards Committee. It is important not only for this committee, but for every committee, to ensure that information is accurate. That small part of the matter should go to the Standards Committee, while the petition should go to the Health and Community Care Committee.
That is helpful. We could refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee to consider the process and whether it met the standards that have been set. We could give the board a chance to respond to what has been said before we consider whether to refer some issues to the Standards Committee. The board must have the chance to respond first.
We might delay the process and go over the top by referring issues to the Standards Committee. Writing to the board first might be enough to obtain an admission and an apology. The Official Report of Paul Martin's comments should be given to the Health and Community Care Committee, along with the other paperwork that we pass on. That will make clear his and all our positions.
I am advised that it is better procedurally if we give the board a chance to respond before we go further. Do we agree to write to the board first for its response?
Will the committee ask the board to say whether it received correspondence from my colleagues, including Brian Fitzpatrick and Fiona McLeod? The board has made a serious suggestion in its letter. If the board did receive correspondence from my colleagues, the Parliament will have to consider what further action it will take in relation to a health board that has misinformed a committee and had information at its disposal that contradicted what it was saying.
We will ask the board whether it received correspondence from Fiona McLeod and Brian Fitzpatrick. Is there anyone else?
I have also sent correspondence about a member of the board's staff against whom I have made a formal complaint. I do not want to give the committee that information, unless it wants me to. The complaint has not been dealt with. In that correspondence, I said that my colleagues and I would not participate in the event, because mixed scoring groups were not being used. I will provide that letter if the committee wants me to, but it relates mainly to my complaint against a senior member of the board's staff. I would like that complaint to be concluded before I provide the information, but if the committee wants me to provide the letter, I will do so.
It has been suggested that we ask the board whether it has received that correspondence. We do not need to see the correspondence at this stage.
Could we also ask the board which groups and councillors allegedly agreed with its plans?
We have that information—the clerk can provide it.
I met only very angry councillors from outside Glasgow, who did not agree with the way in which the process was being handled.
Any member who wants the information can just see Steve Farrell.
Thank you.
Are the proposals agreed to?
Members indicated agreement.