Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Official Report 382KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

Item 2 is consideration of six current petitions. We will take the first two petitions together; they are on school bus safety. PE1098 is by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, and PE1223 is by Ron Beaty. I welcome Mr Beaty, who I understand is in the gallery.

Members have a note by the clerk—paper 3 refers—and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

The saga continues. I note the letter from the Department for Transport and what leaps out at me is that this

“is unlikely to be a short process, perhaps taking up to 12 months to complete.”

This does not strike me as the most complicated matter for Governments to resolve between them. It worries me that we may be looking at another 12 months of protracted wrangling between legal teams from Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport. Beyond the suggestion in the clerk’s note, I want to find out exactly what is so complicated that resolving the process will require another 12 months of to-ing and fro-ing. We should write to Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport to ask that question, because frankly this is getting beyond a joke.

I agree with Mark McDonald; he makes a good point.

The letter that I got from Mike Penning MP, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, stated:

“Of course, if the powers are devolved, you will be able to take the matter further than I intend to do—regarding the size of the signage, anyway”.

Mike Penning has been positive and he understands that the issue would sit better as a responsibility of the Scottish Government, rather than at Westminster.

I do not think that anyone doubts that the political will is there, but it seems that there are issues behind the scenes that are holding this up. Essentially, it seems that the legal teams are dragging their heels. I do not question the politicians’ desire to get the matter resolved; the problem appears to be the process.

I am not sure where the stumbling block is, but I am concerned that although Transport Scotland’s response indicates that signage is reserved to the UK Government—we know that—there are no plans to devolve it to the Scottish Government. After all that has happened in the past couple of years, I am intrigued as to why, as far as Transport Scotland is concerned, there are no plans to do that. Like Mark McDonald, I want to find out what is behind that.

It has been suggested that a meeting could be held with local authority representatives and other stakeholders to discuss what could be done on school safety ahead of the matter being devolved. If we are to have such a meeting—I think that it is a good idea—I would want the petitioners to be included as attendees. Mr Beaty, who has been a regular attender at the committee’s meetings, would have a significant input to make.

I echo Nanette Milne’s point: the area should be devolved and it would be good if we could clearly send that message. However, I do not think that we should wait for that to happen for the issue to be resolved. Mark McDonald is correct in saying that, if the political will is there, the legal heads should be forced to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible.

I express my disappointment, too. The committee heard evidence on 26 October 2010 from the UK and Scottish Government ministers during the previous parliamentary session. At that time, the clear indication was that the issue could be resolved in a matter of months and that it was just a case of the two teams from the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland getting together to work out what powers would need to devolved to the Scottish Government. However, the issue has been dragging on.

Mike Penning’s letter is worrying in a number of respects, not least in the suggestion that, as Mark McDonald indicated, it could take up to 12 months for the matter to be resolved. We are 18 months down the road from the meeting at which we were told that that could be done in a matter of months.

I seek the committee’s leave to request clarification from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government minister on the comment that is made about Transport Scotland in Mike Penning’s letter. The second paragraph states:

“I also indicated that I understood Transport Scotland was discussing options with Scottish ministers before providing further clarity on this point.”

It would be useful to find out why there has been such a delay in Transport Scotland advising the minister.

We took evidence in a follow-up session with the Minister for Housing and Transport on 28 June 2011—almost a year ago—and were assured that matters were moving apace. Clearly, that is not the case, which is disappointing. Therefore—as well as writing to the Department for Transport—we should write to Transport Scotland and to the Scottish Government minister to ask what is happening, what powers should be transferred to the Scottish Government and why there has been such a delay.

The petitioners, Lynn Merrifield and Ron Beaty, have explained exactly what they are looking for and what powers to change legislation they want to be transferred to the Scottish Government. If the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland do not by now understand the petitioners’ message or what powers they want the Scottish Government to have, we might be at a bit of a loss to convince those bodies in future.

The letter from the UK Government suggests that the delay is at the Transport Scotland end. We need some form of satisfaction, through a response from Transport Scotland. I am minded to suggest that, if we do not get a satisfactory response, the committee should have Transport Scotland back in front of us on the petition. Mr Beaty gives up a huge amount of his time to come to committee meetings, only to find that there has been pretty much zero progress. That is not acceptable, given the amount of time that he is devoting to the issue and the amount of time that the committee is taking to try to get some form of resolution to the issue.

On one level, there is almost a disrespect to the committee, because it is not as though Transport Scotland is in any doubt about the strength of our view. Therefore, Mark McDonald makes a reasonable point.

I want to return to Nanette Milne’s suggestion that, notwithstanding the delay, we should have an event that involves local authorities. The clerk has suggested that it might be sensible to seek to have an event in the chamber so that we can invite several local authorities. I am sure that the Conveners Group would be interested in a bid for such an event. Do members agree that we should pursue that?

Members indicated agreement.

It is clear that we want to continue the petition and indicate our strength of feeling to Transport Scotland on the issue. Obviously, we will also refer the issue to the other agencies that members have mentioned. Do members have any other suggestions for action?

If we are inviting stakeholders to an event in the chamber, will that include Transport Scotland?

We should perhaps discuss that later, but it is certainly a possibility.

We should bear it in mind.

Do members agree to continue the petition in the ways that I have set out?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Ron Beaty for coming along again today and for his patience.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

The third current petition is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. I welcome Gil Paterson MSP, who has been a regular attender on this subject. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 4, and the submissions. I invite Gil Paterson to make a short submission to the committee.

Thanks very much, convener. I sometimes feel as though I am an honorary member of the committee. You have been patient, although I would say that your patience has paid off. You have been extremely helpful in assisting with some of the issues for St Margaret’s.

I should cut to the chase. Members probably know that discussions have been taking place, but the issue of baseline funding has still not been dealt with. In effect, St Margaret’s does not receive its fair share, compared with other hospices, for specialist palliative care. For instance, funding per bed at St Margaret’s is the lowest for any hospice, at £38,000, with the nearest to that being £54,000 per bed and the highest or furthest away figure being £130,000 per bed. That significant disparity is the crux of the argument. It is about fairness in the way in which St Margaret’s is treated.

I do not simply ask the committee to continue the petition; I ask you to take positive action by writing to the Government and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to ascertain why the funding stream for St Margaret’s is so low. Yet again, I seek assistance from the committee in finding answers to the problem.

I know that the committee might be of the opinion that this is a local matter, but although it concerns a local hospice, it is a national issue because it relates to the way in which the funding is divvied up. If nothing else, the committee could be productive by ensuring that we are provided with the answer to the fundamental question, which, despite everything that has happened, we still do not have the answer to: why is there such an enormous disparity in the funding, which impacts on St Margaret’s?

15:00

Thank you again for coming along and for making those remarks. I invite members to raise any issues that they would like to raise.

The fact that St Margaret’s receives £38,000 per bed whereas another hospice receives £130,000 per bed certainly raises questions that it is reasonable for the committee to seek answers to. In the long term, the petition might be one that needs to be referred to the Health and Sport Committee, but I do not think that it would be unreasonable to ask the questions that the local member has suggested.

Do other members have comments? On the generality, we need to take account of the fact that we have considered the petition on 15 occasions. I am sympathetic towards Gil Paterson’s comments, but we must eventually decide whether we have resolved the issues or whether we feel that further action is necessary. Gil Paterson has made a recommendation. What are members’ views on his suggested course of action?

There would be some merit in asking the questions that the local member has recommended that we ask. It would be useful to continue the petition to get answers to those questions. As Joe FitzPatrick indicated, there is a clear disparity in the funding arrangements that seem to be in place for different hospices. As Nanette Milne will be aware, the committee has discussed St Margaret’s many times. We should make one more attempt to get the answer to the underlying question: why is there such a disparity between the payment per bed for St Margaret’s and the payment per bed not only for other hospices throughout Scotland, but for other hospices that come under the jurisdiction of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board? We could certainly ask the Scottish Government and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board that question.

Before we conclude our consideration, I ask Gil Paterson whether he has been in touch with the Scottish Government or Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board about these particular issues.

No, I have not.

I just wanted to check that there was no duplication.

I should let the committee know that there have been on-going negotiations. I must be fair and say that some elements of the negotiations between the hospice and the health board have been positive. I would not like the committee to think that there has been a head-to-head between the health board and the hospice. From my perspective, this is a fundamental issue. We need to know the answers, as does the hospice.

I did not want to intervene in the negotiations. The Public Petitions Committee is my forum—it is the place to which I think that I should come to seek assistance. I do not say this lightly: from the early days, the committee has definitely moved the issues relating to the hospice on in a very positive way, and I hope that it will again assist with the matter.

Thank you for that. I just wanted to get some clarity on the next steps.

Does the committee agree that we will continue the petition and that we will write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Gil Paterson very much.

---

NHS 24 (Free Calls from Mobile Phones) (PE1285)

The fourth current petition for consideration is PE1285, by Caroline Mockford, on free calls to NHS 24 from mobile phones. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 5, and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

It is clear from the Scottish Government’s response on the issue that it is still awaiting a report, which is expected to be published over the summer, on what is happening in England and Wales. I suggest that we continue the petition until after the recess. I hope that we can bring the petition back to the committee soon after the recess and deal with it, based on the outcome of the report from the Department of Health in England and Wales, and seek guidance from the Scottish Government on its views on the outcomes that are identified in the report.

Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)

The fifth current petition is PE1384, by Kim Hartley, on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, on speech and language therapy. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 6, and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

From the committee papers and the petitioner’s letter of 9 May, it is clear that the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists is quite concerned about certain aspects of the Government’s proposals, which were consulted on recently, for an allied health professionals national delivery plan. It lists particular points of concern.

I suggest that we keep the petition open and ask the Scottish Government to take the four points into account when it formulates its plan. I imagine that the speech and language therapists will be very interested in the Scottish Government’s response and will want to see the finalised plan. I suggest that we keep the petition open until we know what the finalised plan is and have seen a response to it from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.

Do we know what the Health and Sport Committee’s current work programme is? Does the plan feature in it?

It does not.

We would not want work to be duplicated but, if that is not an issue, we can leave it aside.

The Health and Sport Committee’s work programme is not yet finalised.

Are members happy with that proposed course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Pernicious Anaemia and Vitamin B12 Deficiency (Understanding and Treatment) (PE1408)

The sixth and final current petition for consideration is PE1408, by Andrea MacArthur, on the updating of the understanding and treatment of pernicious anaemia/vitaminB12 deficiency. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 7, and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.

I have already declared an interest in the petition, which is that my wife has been diagnosed as having pernicious anaemia. I used the frequency of her vitamin B12 injections as an example in the debate that the committee held in the chamber on the issue.

The Minister for Public Health corrected me in the debate. The difficulty was that medical staff at local general practitioners’ surgeries had indicated that there was guidance on how often someone could receive an injection of vitamin B12 but, from the evidence that is now before us, it is clear that there is no guidance on the matter.

The petitioner has raised a number of issues in her response to the letter that we have received from the Scottish Government. I suggest that we forward the correspondence that we have received from the petitioner to the Scottish Government and ask it to ask the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network to consider further the points that have been made.

The petitioner’s submission makes points about how often someone should receive an injection of vitamin B12 because, as she indicates, not everyone reacts in the same way and not everyone with pernicious anaemia is affected in the same way. If there is progress towards developing guidelines, it would be useful to ensure that they are flexible enough to deal with the individual patient. That would be preferable to setting out guidelines that may be good in general terms but do not impact on the health and wellbeing of individuals who may need more frequent injections of vitamin B12.

Thank you. My understanding is that the SIGN guidelines are driven through NHS Scotland rather than by ministers. That does not necessarily cut across John Wilson’s arguments, but I point that out for clarity.

Do members agree with the next steps proposed by John Wilson?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings to an end the formal part of the meeting. I ask members to stay behind to sort out a couple of housekeeping issues.

Meeting closed at 15:10.