Public Petitions Committee, 14 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Official Report 254KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Mental Health Services<br />(Deaf and Deaf-blind People) (PE808)

We move to item 2, which is consideration of current petitions. We are joined for this item by Sue Mowat and Rosie Addis from Deaf Action's communication and support unit, who will provide British Sign Language interpretation services.

The first current petition is petition PE808 by Lilian Lawson, on behalf of the Scottish Council on Deafness, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop and establish a specialist in-patient mental health unit for deaf and deaf-blind people and to provide resources such as training to make mainstream psychiatric services in the community more accessible to deaf and deaf-blind people in Scotland.

At its meeting on 18 January 2006, the committee agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the responses that it has received on the petition. The petitioner's response has now been received and circulated to committee members. In addition, the committee has received correspondence from the cross-party group on mental health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the matter?

The petitioner's suggestion of establishing a

"centralised in-patient service in a suitable location"

or locations seems very reasonable and worthy of consideration. In light of that, we should seek the minister's views. Centralisation of such services is a reasonable idea.

So we will write to the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care with the views of the petitioner, the cross-party group and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Members indicated agreement.

We have to write to Lewis Macdonald, the deputy minister, but last Wednesday we had a debate in Parliament in which he replied to that question. I have a copy of his answer here, although I am sure that he will remember it. His answers to some of the questions that I put to him did not give me any hope for the future of the services that we are looking for. I note that all the responses to the petition are in favour of what Lilian Lawson and Drena O'Malley want, so I hope that the minister will take cognisance of that. He was asked questions last Wednesday and he said that there would be a review.

We will try to get a response from the minister to the points that have been made.

---

Scottish Culture<br />(Study of History, Literature and Language) (PE910)

Our next petition is by Dr Donald Smith on behalf of the Literature Forum for Scotland, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive urgently to review the study of Scottish history, literature and language at primary, secondary and tertiary levels to ensure that all citizens of Scotland have the opportunity to understand those key aspects of their own society and culture. At its meeting on 18 January 2006, the committee agreed to seek the views of Learning and Teaching Scotland, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the Educational Institute of Scotland, Universities Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council, the Minister for Education and Young People and the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Responses have now been received and circulated to members of the committee. In addition, several letters have been received from members of the public in support of the petition. Do members have any suggestions on how to proceed with it?

Shall we write to the petitioner and ask for his views on the responses that we have received?

Yes, and then we can reconsider the petition in due course.

---

Disabled Parking (PE908)<br />Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations (PE909)

The next two petitions are linked. PE908 is by Connie M Syme, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that traffic regulation orders are applied to all disabled parking bays so that they are used by registered disabled users only. PE909 is by James MacLeod on behalf of Inverclyde Council on Disability, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 to allow for speedier provision and enforcement of dropped kerbs and disabled parking bays to prevent their abuse, thus ensuring greater and easier access for disabled, elderly and other users.

At its meeting on 30 January 2006, the committee agreed to link consideration of PE908 and PE909 and agreed to write to the baywatch campaign, the Disability Rights Commission, the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Automobile Association and the Scottish Executive. Members have received those responses. Do we have any suggestions on how to proceed?

Again, convener, shall we write to the petitioners and ask for their views on the responses?

It is obviously protocol to write to the petitioners about the responses that we have received. However, I said at the time that the petitions should be separate. I am not knocking anyone, but we have received separate and different responses because one petition is about dropped kerbs and the other is about people parking in disabled parking bays. There is a lot in both petitions and, although they could be put together because they are about disability, they are quite separate. We have to write to ask the petitioners what they think. I hope that when we get their replies we can take the petitions further. There are rules and regulations that should be applied so that people can park. I agree with Helen Eadie, but I just wanted to make that point.

The petitions are linked not because they are concerned with disability but because they are about road traffic regulations. That is the connection.

Sandra White is right that the petitions raise a serious issue about road traffic legislation. The responses from the AA and COSLA are worthy of further consideration, but we should hear the views of the petitioners first. The petitions have highlighted a real problem that needs to be sorted out.

We will reconsider the issue when we hear back from the petitioners.

---

Public Libraries (PE831)

Our next current petition is PE831 from Catriona Leslie on behalf of Portree community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on public libraries to ensure appropriate provision in rural areas.

At its meeting on 21 December 2005, the committee agreed to invite the petitioner's views on the responses that we had received to her petition. Do members have any suggestions on how to take the petition further? Should we take it further at all?

It is always a matter of regret when the committee is unable to do as much for a petitioner as we might like to do by waving a magic wand to solve the problem. Given that the decision is really a matter for the local authority and given our policy of not trying to replace the role of external decision-making bodies such as local authorities, the petitioner really needs to pursue the matter further with the local authority. We have done all that we can, so we should close the petition at this point.

Do members have other views?

Do members agree with Helen Eadie that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Building (Funding) (PE832)

Our next petition is PE832 from Catriona Leslie—I thought that I was reading the wrong thing, but this is another petition from the same person—again on behalf of Portree community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate the use of public-private partnership funding to build new schools and to urge the Scottish Executive to provide adequate public sector funding for local authorities, which are better placed to meet the needs of the local community, to build new schools.

At its meeting on 21 December 2005, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the response that we had received from the Scottish Executive. The response from the petitioner—in respect of both this petition and of petition PE831—has now been circulated. We now need to decide what to do with this petition. Do members have any suggestions?

In an earlier petition today, we heard about the problems that are associated with PPP projects. Although the petition comes from Portree community council, the subject of the petition is not a local issue but a national issue. Local authorities throughout Scotland are being forced down the PPP route—the only choice is to take it or leave it—because funding is not available unless they go down that route. The petition asks us to get the Executive to debate the use of PPP, but the Executive will be reluctant to do that. Obviously, the petitioners are ultimately looking for a change in policy to allow local authorities to fund projects in the traditional manner. Our problem is that we cannot force the Executive to debate or change the policy.

Having allowed the petition a hearing and received responses to it, we probably have no option other than to allow the petition to be closed. In doing so, we can perhaps point out to the petitioners that, as I have said at previous committee meetings, they have the ultimate sanction. If things are not to their liking, at next May's election they can choose not to vote for the people who imposed PPP.

That is democracy, Campbell.

That is how it is supposed to work.

Are we agreed that we should close the petition as nothing further can be done with it?

Members indicated agreement.

---

NHS (Provision of Wheelchairs and Specialist Seating Services) (PE798)

Our next current petition is PE798 from Margaret Scott. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to resolve the current critical problems in the provision of wheelchairs and specialist seating services within the NHS both by an immediate increase in funding and through a review, which in consultation with users will address minimum standards, the scope of equipment provided and the delivery of services.

At its meeting on 18 January 2006, the committee agreed to seek an update from the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care on the independent review of the NHS wheelchair service. The Executive has now published "Moving Forward: Review of NHS Wheelchair and Seating Services in Scotland".

Sadly, the petitioner Margaret Scott recently passed away. On behalf of the committee, I offer my condolences to Mrs Scott's family and friends. The work of the petitioner is acknowledged in the introduction to the review, which states:

"Sadly, at the final proof stage of this report, we have learned of the untimely passing of Margaret Scott, who for years has campaigned to improve the lives of children, like her daughter Fiona, by having the appropriate equipment provided timeously by the Health Service. As promulgator of the Petition to the Scottish Parliament, without Margaret's tenacity and dedication we would not have progressed this far. The baton has now been passed to us, so let us all now respond to the challenges ahead as a lasting tribute to Margaret."

Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition? I suggest that we write to the deputy minister, asking what progress has been made. Reference was made to the report earlier.

I think that we should wait and see what the final report says before deciding what further action to take.

We need to let the minister know that we are awaiting information on the review.

Is it possible to ask the deputy minister what the next steps will be? There are concerns that there has been no progress on the matter.

The minister's next step will be to respond to the review, which was published in March. We may ask about the timescale for his response, but we know what the next step is: he has to respond to the review.

I asked the question because of the use of the word "shortly". When the Executive uses the word "shortly", that can mean anything up to a year. We need to pin the Executive down a bit on what is happening.

I do not think that there would be any difficulty in asking what timescale the minister will work to.

I associate myself with your earlier comments about the work of Margaret Scott. I also compliment the officials who have been involved in the review. I know, from my personal involvement in it, that they have done a power of work and have carried out roadshows throughout Scotland. That has been a really good way of getting out there and speaking to members of the public to seek their involvement in shaping the policy that will be put before ministers.

Nevertheless, I associate myself with the concern that has been raised by other members that what we need now is a determination. All the groundwork has been done—that is excellent—and we now need a decision on how the work is going to be financed and what the money will provide. I hope that we will get that determination from ministers sooner rather than later. If we got it in the autumn, that would be good news for us to come back to.

Taking up Campbell Martin's point, I think that we should ask what timescale the minister is working to. When we have an idea of that, we can think about our response to the progress that has been made or the lack thereof. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

European Drinking Water Directive (PE929)

Our final current petition is PE929, from George Packwood, calling on the Scottish Parliament to review the implementation of European Union drinking water directive 98/83/EC in relation to the replacement of lead piping in public and private sector domestic properties to ensure that drinking water in Scotland has zero lead content.

At its meeting on 22 February 2006, the committee agreed to write to the Drinking Water Quality Regulator for Scotland, Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, COSLA, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Scottish Executive. The responses that have been received have been circulated to members along with a further submission from the petitioner. Do members have any suggestions as to how we should deal with the petition?

I think that we must write to the petitioner because of the responses that we have had—we would do that anyway—which are determined and robust in their refutal of part of his petition. They all say that there is no requirement in the EC directive for regulations to achieve zero lead content. Somebody has got their facts wrong somewhere. It would be interesting to hear the petitioner's views on the letters that we have received.

Okay. Are members agreed that we should write to the petitioner, asking for his view on the correspondence?

Members indicated agreement.