Official Report 259KB pdf
Independent Midwifery Services (PE1052)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of current petitions. PE1052, by Jayne Heron, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the services of independent midwives and to ensure that such services continue to be available to pregnant women in Scotland. The petition has been before us on at least two occasions. Do members have any issues to raise or address?
There seems to have been a bit of arguing to and fro between various organisations. Has a meeting happened yet between the Government and the petitioner, as we requested?
Not as far as we are aware.
In that case, would it be appropriate to wait until such time as that has happened? We have an indication that a meeting will be held, but we cannot make progress until we know the outcome of that meeting.
Do members accept that recommendation and agree to ask the clerks to pursue the issue and find out whether a meeting has been arranged?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Prison Population (Catholics) (PE1073)
PE1073, by Tom Minogue, calls on the Parliament to investigate and establish the reasons for the apparently disproportionate number of Catholics in Scottish prisons. The petition has been before us several times. Do members have any comments?
I am informed that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said that the Government does not intend to do further research on the subject. However, perhaps the committee might consider asking academics who work in the area whether further research should be undertaken on what seems, on the face of it, to be a disproportionate number of Catholics and Muslims in the prison population and, if so, what the scope of that research should be. Such academics might include Professor Andrew Coyle and Professor Gill McIvor.
I concur with Bill Butler. At Justice Committee meetings, we have heard interesting evidence from academics on sentencing issues, which are not totally unrelated to the petition. People out there might have something useful to tell us. Such a request might also excite academics who do not know about the subject. If we as a society do not know anything about the situation, we probably should do. The academics might well be the people to examine the subject for us.
As is obvious, we face the summer recess. We can ask the clerks to discuss with SPICe the scoping of research and to come back to us. If we want to, we can make the decision in principle over the internet and then explore the options.
Local Museums (PE1083)
PE1083, by John Arthur, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to support the creation of local museums, such as the proposed Leith museum. Several individuals—particularly Malcolm Chisholm, as the constituency member—have taken a keen interest in the issue. I have managed to get it out of my clerk that he is a Leither, so he has had to make an informal declaration of interest.
I hope that members will keep the petition open. Since the committee discussed the petition briefly about six months ago, quite a lot of progress has been made. Robin Harper, who I am sure will speak in a moment, and I were at a well-attended meeting in Leith recently at which detailed plans for the development of a Leith museum were presented. As members know from previous discussions, the hope is that the museum will be located in the Leith customs house. That building is owned by National Museums Scotland, which has a clear connection with public authorities and the Government.
This is a sort of chicken-and-egg situation. To get funding, the museum must be accredited by the Scottish Museums Council. However, the Leith museum is still just an idea. Therefore, it cannot be accredited, so it cannot get funding from the SMC. Actors will know about a similar problem with getting Equity cards: they cannot get an Equity card unless they have a job, and they cannot get a job unless they have an Equity card.
The suggestion is to keep the petition open and to explore those issues. Is the committee comfortable with that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
PE1098 and PE1223 both relate to school bus safety. PE1098 is by Lynn Merrifield on behalf of Kingseat community council and calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make provision for every school bus to be installed with three-point seat belts. PE1223 is by Ron Beaty and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to take action, whether through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation, to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses—to be used only when school children are on the bus or when necessary—and to make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.
We should certainly keep them open. I notice that the road safety framework was announced yesterday, and a number of the measures within it are very encouraging for both the petitioners. I saw that Mr Beaty was quoted in the local press this morning, saying that he is particularly pleased about the new signage that is being proposed for school buses, which was a major concern of his. It would be premature to close the petitions.
The suggestion is to keep the two petitions open and to explore the areas that Nanette Milne has identified. Are we happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Stewart Committee Report (PE1106)
PE1106, by Jamie Webster, calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review those aspects of the Stewart committee's report, "Keeping Offenders out of Court: Further Alternatives to Prosecution", that relate to the rights of victims of crime to obtain information on the handling of cases.
I do not think that we have been left with any option. We know what the question is; we know that it is being worked on; and until we get the answer, we will simply have to wait. I am sure that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is not being dilatory for the sake of it.
Thank you very much.
Blood Donation (PE1135)
PE1135, from Rob McDowall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review existing guidelines and risk assessment procedures to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood. Do members have any suggestions about how we should deal with the petition?
I have been informed that the Health Protection Agency in England is carrying out work on the exclusion of donors because of high-risk behaviour. As a result, I suggest that we suspend consideration of the petition until that work is completed.
It might also be helpful to ask whether we are any further forward in examining good practice in and new medical evidence from France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and other European countries that have lifted these bans. We will suspend consideration of the petition as we await the outcome of the HPA's research and find out what is happening in Europe.
Fire Service Boards (PE1147)
PE1147, from Mrs Annmargaret Watson on behalf of the fire reforms action group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review current legislation on local authority representation on fire service joint boards. We have discussed the petition in substantial detail; representations have been made to the Government; and the Minister for Community Safety has responded that the issues have been identified. I think that we have done as much as we possibly can and the minister's response makes quite clear his role in this matter and the role played, quite rightly, by local authorities with regard to joint boards. Although the petition's message is clear, I do not think that we can add anything more and, as a result, I recommend that we close the petition.
Indeed. I also point out that, in a letter that she has sent to the committee, the petitioner reluctantly agrees that there is really no other option.
So we will close our consideration of the petition.
Community Prisons (PE1150)
PE1150, from David Wemyss on behalf of Aberdeen prison visiting committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to consider whether large prisons remote from prisoners' families offer the best way of rehabilitating offenders or whether, as an alternative, localised community prisons should be supported much more strongly to maintain genuinely easy access to family links and other community virtues.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak, convener. The committee's work on the petition has helped to flush out some of the issues, and I certainly think that an interesting analogy can be drawn with its work on the petition on the Aberdeen forensic science laboratory, which, partly as a result of the parliamentary scrutiny to which the proposal has been subjected—for which the committee should receive a lot of thanks—ministers have put off the decision to close.
I agree with Lewis Macdonald that the issues raised in the petition require further discussion. Indeed, given that Craiginches prison is still open, that the plans for HMP Grampian at Peterhead have not been progressed to any great extent, and that major questions remain about the detail of the proposal, I think that we have an important window of opportunity in which to discuss the matter. As ministers have been unable to answer the key question of how the proposal links into what is meant to be an overall strategy of community-facing prisons—a strategy that does not seem to have been followed in Aberdeen and the north east—I feel that there are very strong grounds for the committee to keep the petition open or to do whatever it decides to ensure that the issues remain under discussion.
I agree that we should keep the petition open. I was very struck by the comment made last week by the outgoing chief inspector of prisons, Andrew McLellan, who was quoted in our local press as saying that
I greet that suggestion with fear and alarm. I was 6ft 8in when we began this discussion; look at the size I am now.
The other suggestion that was made locally was that, if we can secure time in the chamber, the committee should initiate a parliamentary debate on the petition to air all the issues—which is what, as Lewis Macdonald said, we did with the petition on the forensic science laboratory. I am interested in hearing what my fellow committee members think of that proposal.
As the deputy convener of the Justice Committee, I have to say that Nanette Milne is absolutely right in thinking that we are full up at the moment. Seriously, though, I do not know whether referring the petition to the Justice Committee would serve any purpose.
I fully support that. Are we talking about a subject debate or a debate on a motion that is lodged on the committee's behalf?
I ask Fergus Cochrane to explain the situation. Any request for a debate, as has been suggested, would have to go to the Conveners Group, to which we have already suggested a debate. The question is how we manage the committee's intention practically.
An e-mail was sent in which bids were sought from committees for committee time in the chamber in September and at Christmas, so a bid has been made for a Public Petitions Committee debate on the committee's inquiry report. The Conveners Group and subsequently the Parliamentary Bureau have still to consider committees' bids. If the committee wants to bid for a debate on the petition, we will feed that in, too.
What is the terminology for such a debate?
The debate could be on a motion, which I suspect would go along the lines of the petition. For a committee debate, the motion would be in the convener's name.
Does anyone who has not contributed want to comment?
I support Nanette Milne's suggestion, which is a good idea. It is important to try to have the debate early, so I suggest that we go for it in September rather than later.
We have a key recommendation, which we will explore. We want to keep the petition open and to explore the practical option, which I ask the clerk to manage. The only caveat is about the role of the Conveners Group and appropriate timetabling. We can come back to the committee after the recess about the exact phrasing or terminology of a request. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
Public and Voluntary Sector Services (Cuts) (PE1158)
PE1158 is by Kevin Hutchens, on behalf of Aberdeen Trades Union Council. The members who represent that region or Aberdeen city are free to stay for the discussion.
We always proceed with caution. Your suggestion of referring the petition to the relevant committee is sensible. Several issues are on-going in Aberdeen. The Accounts Commission has made its report, but the structural changes in Aberdeen City Council continue. Moreover, a number of inspectorate examinations of not only education but children's services are still being carried out. If the relevant committee—in this case, the Local Government and Communities Committee—can discuss those issues in that context, that, I hope, will satisfy the petitioners. It certainly makes sense to me.
When we refer it to the Local Government and Communities Committee, we can highlight the broad areas of discussion.
Perhaps the clerks can clarify this for me, but what exactly are we referring to the Local Government and Communities Committee? As far as I understand it, we were asking that committee to look at the issue of remunerating staff who deliver services; however, this petition deals with the much wider issue of the funding available to voluntary organisations to deliver services. I think that we need to clarify which services we mean. After all, the Local Government and Communities Committee might think that it is carrying out some focused work on the earlier petition, which was about ensuring that people in the voluntary sector are paid the same as those in local government for delivering the same services; however, what I have heard suggests that the brief for the piece of work that we are asking that committee to take on could get wider and wider.
Following on from John Wilson's comments and having considered the terms of reference, I wonder whether the petition should be referred to the Finance Committee rather than the Local Government and Communities Committee. After all, it is not about procurement but about the funding that is available. It is a fair, but very different question and, as I say, it probably has more to do with the Finance Committee.
Fergus Cochrane thought that he had managed to pass on the petition, but he has been found out. I ask him to respond to John Wilson's question on what I think is an important nuance and Nigel Don's question whether the petition should be referred to the Finance Committee rather than the Local Government and Communities Committee. I point out, however, that we do not know whether the Finance Committee has any room to deal with the matter.
The committee previously referred PE1231 to the Local Government and Communities Committee. At the time, there was a discussion of the wider issues raised in the petition but, as I said at the time, a petition can be referred to only one committee. When I referred the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee, I flagged up its existence to the Finance Committee and the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, but it is obviously up to the Local Government and Communities Committee to decide whether it wants to seek the views of the Finance Committee or indeed any other committee.
Although the petitions are not the same, there are enough similarities for us to refer this petition initially to the Local Government and Communities Committee. However, it would be up to that committee to say, for example, "Wait a minute—we'd like to hear from the Finance Committee and/or the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee about this." On that basis, I think that referring the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee is still within the bounds of logic.
We need to find some way through this complex issue.
Dare I say that there is another alternative?
A third way, you might say.
Indeed. We could suspend consideration of the petition until the Local Government and Communities Committee reports its findings and we are able to determine whether its work covers what needs to be covered.
The key issue is that the strong view from everybody in the committee is that we should not close the petition, so let us agree to that and consider options. I invite other committee members to contribute and I invite Lewis Macdonald to speak if he has a helpful suggestion.
I tend to the view that Bill Butler is right to say that the petition could usefully go to the Local Government and Communities Committee for consideration in the first instance. The petition is about not just central Government funding of local government, but the relationship between councils and the voluntary sector. The petition concerns a complex of relationships. I think that I am right in saying that such issues are arising in many places, so it is perhaps best that the petition is considered as part of a wider inquiry, if the Local Government and Communities Committee intends to do that for PE1231.
I hoped that that contribution would be really helpful.
I thought that it was really helpful that Lewis Macdonald agreed with me.
From where I am sitting, however, I have now heard three suggestions.
To achieve some harmony about Aberdeen, I am happy to go with Lewis Macdonald's suggestion. If members want to approach the issue from the local authority's point of view, that is fine. In that case, we should refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee. Whether to examine the petition is up to that committee, but we can just say, "Here's another one that widens the boundaries slightly."
From looking at people's reactions in the room, I think that the petition will receive a robust examination at that committee.
Befriending Services (PE1167)
PE1167, by Christine McNally on behalf of Clydesdale Befriending Group and other supporting organisations, relates to the impact of services for adults with learning disabilities on the "The same as you?" strategy and asks us to ensure that adequate funding is provided to support befriending opportunities and promote social inclusion.
We should continue the petition and write to ask the Scottish Government the following questions. What is its timetable for its research project to evaluate how 10 years of "The same as you?" has improved the lives of those with a learning disability and their families? Will the Government consult the petitioner on that? Will that research consider the impact of befriending services on people with learning disabilities and whether the Scottish Government should support and fund those services? "The same as you?" recommended the use of befriending services, but such services have not been implemented. Why not, and when will they be implemented? Quite a lot of questions need serious answers.
Are we happy with those suggested questions?
Members indicated agreement.
Social Rented Housing (Standards) (PE1189)
PE1189 is by Anne Lear, on behalf of Govanhill Housing Association. I declare a potential interest as the constituency member for Govanhill. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the responsibilities of private landlords, the level of social housing that is below tolerable standard, the impact that slum living conditions have on the health and wellbeing of residents and the wider community, and whether such conditions should merit housing renewal area status and additional Scottish Government funding.
I know that things have moved on a wee bit, because the Government has said that it will work with Govanhill Housing Association, and reviews are taking place.
There is a lot in what Anne McLaughlin says. The overall effectiveness of landlord registration will be reviewed in 2010, and the Scottish Government has said that it is willing to explore options with the petitioners and the local council on the extra support that it can provide. However, before we ask for another petition to be lodged, we should remember that a report that was commissioned by the housing association has still to find its way to the committee. Given that, and the fact that there are obviously complexities in and around the situation, to say the least—I think that 51 nationalities are involved in the area and the organisation—we should keep the petition open until we appraise that report. Once we have considered the report, we can return to Anne McLaughlin's suggestion. I would be loth to close the petition now, given that the committee has still to see that report.
Obviously, I have a particular interest in the petition. There are three fundamental issues. The petition is specifically about the role of landlords and the challenges that the community faces as a result of lots of movement and population shifts in it. There is a much better joined-up partnership at the local level than there was at this time last year—that is the result of the efforts of local organisations and the fact that the committee has had the petition in front of it—but there are still outstanding issues.
Members indicated agreement.
A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)
PE1236, by Jill Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade-separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk. Mike Rumbles, who is the constituency member, probably has his wee tent parked there to try to address the issue over the next period. I understand that he wants to speak to the petition.
Thank you very much indeed, convener. Jill Campbell is with us, as well.
I welcome Jill to the meeting. I am sure that Mike will raise the issues of concern.
The committee has received a letter from Transport Scotland. It is quite an astonishing letter—I have never seen one like it. There is absolutely no dispute about the statistics, which were obtained by Jill Campbell from Grampian Police through a freedom of information request; Transport Scotland included them in its letter.
Mike Rumbles makes a number of telling points. We should write to Transport Scotland to ask whether the safety measures put in place since 2005 are suitable to cope with the steadily increasing volume of traffic at the junction.
Like Mike Rumbles, I know this road reasonably well. On the map in Transport Scotland's letter, there are quite a few dots on a stretch of road, between the northern junction and the central junction, that ought not to represent a significant hazard. Can you enlighten us?
The 50mph zone is at the southern end and not the northern end. I would therefore guess that the problem is caused by traffic slowing down or not adjusting to the difference in the speed limit.
I entirely understand that point, and I am right with you. I was just trying to work out why accidents were happening away from the junctions. However, if people are changing speed because of the 50mph sign—the consequence of a previous intervention—that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for why there have been accidents.
That is what I assume has happened.
When we write to the Government for further information, could we ask about traffic flows on the road, for which I am sure there will be statistics? Laurencekirk has grown and is still growing, but I would have to defer to the local member on the areas east and west of Laurencekirk. They may have grown too, so the total volume of traffic in the area may have risen over the past few years. Growth has probably been significant, and I imagine that the projections are for further growth. We would have to ask the local councils to advise us on that.
I agree with everything that Mike Rumbles has said about this junction. I crossed it fairly recently and I can see exactly what local people are talking about. I will ask Mike Rumbles a question, if I may, before making a suggestion. Do you think that it would make any difference if the length of the road that is subject to the 50mph speed limit were to be increased, to include all three junctions, at least as an interim measure?
I think that that would make a difference, as an interim measure. The reason why it is not being done is that Transport Scotland is reluctant to reduce the speed limit to 50mph over a very long stretch of a major trunk route. That is why it agreed to do so only around the one junction; it will not do it for the longer distance.
I still think that the suggestion might come from the committee—we could ask Transport Scotland if it will do it.
It would help.
It might focus Transport Scotland on the three junctions, instead of just the one.
There was a 50mph limit on the same road, down by Montrose. I might be going back a decade or more, but there was a 50mph limit for a significant period. I am sorry—it was around Forfar.
Transport Scotland's objection is that the A90 is the major dual carriageway—
Yes, but that was just further down the same road—further south, by Forfar, there used to be an extended stretch, passing through at least two junctions, where the speed limit was reduced to 50mph. Whether that worked or not is another matter, but that was done.
The case has been clearly made, and I think that the petition should be continued. There are a number of questions that we need to ask. I have travelled along that road many times. Having what is essentially a high-speed road with three junctions in relatively close proximity is a very poor idea. That is clear from the figures.
Members have made a series of suggestions. Does Mike Rumbles have any final comments?
Members might not be aware of this, but the Aberdeenshire local plan indicates that the area is a growth corridor. Lots of housing is about to be approved for Laurencekirk. Expansion has already taken place, and the railway station has just opened, which is great news. Laurencekirk is a vibrant, growing community, and there is therefore an awful lot more traffic.
Committee members have made a series of suggestions. We wish to pursue some, if not all, of the matters that you have raised, Mike; I hope that that will be of satisfaction not just to you, but to the petitioners. Members have also identified a couple of additional areas that we wish to explore. I hope that we can take some measures to get responses to those other questions. The petition will return to the committee in due course. Thank you for your time.
Middle East (PE1238)
PE1238, from Deryck Beaumont, on behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urge the UK Government to expel the Israeli ambassador from the UK until Israel shows that it is prepared to accept that it is not above international law. We have had communication back from the Scottish Government in relation to the petition, and I invite comments from members.
The Scottish Government is absolutely correct in its view that expelling the Israeli ambassador from the UK would not serve the prospects of a long-term peace in the Middle East. I want that to be stated on the record. The petition is mistaken. Like many members, I certainly support United Nations resolution 242 and the twin-state solution, but we should not, simply because of that, say that the petition has any merit in the short, medium or long term. I think that such an action would simply exacerbate the situation.
I agree absolutely with everything that Bill Butler has said. I am a member of the cross-party group on Palestine, whose aims and objectives I support.
I agree with Bill Butler and Robin Harper that we should close the petition, but not in the terms that have been expressed by Bill Butler. He might have a disagreement with the petitioner, but the right of the petitioner to submit the petition and have it dealt with is correct. The debate has been allowed to take place.
I agree with John Wilson. The petitioner, the Scottish Government and—I think—the committee all want the same end; the issue is how to get there, and the Government does not believe that the measure that the petitioner proposes is the solution. I agree with that, and Bill Butler has said that he agrees with that. However, John Wilson is right that we should always encourage people to submit petitions, whether or not we agree with them.
Heaven forfend that I, as a member of the Public Petitions Committee, should discourage people from submitting petitions. I will make myself very clear. I think that the petitioner had every right to submit the petition. The long-term aim for a two-state solution is correct, but what the petitioner is proposing will not advance that one iota. It is as well to be frank and to say that, which is what I have done.
Okay, that is loud and clear. I recommend that we close the petition.
Members indicated agreement.
Same-sex Marriage (PE1239)
PE1239, from Nick Henderson, on behalf of the LGBT Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to allow two persons of the same sex to register a civil marriage and a religious marriage if the relevant religious body consents. Shirley-Anne Somerville is here to discuss the petition, which has been in front of the committee previously.
I draw the committee's attention to a sentence in Nick Henderson's most recent submission that sums the matter up. He says:
Are there any comments or observations on the petition?
There are some difficulties with the petition. No one is saying that it will be easy, but perhaps some further investigation will prove fruitful. I do not think that this committee should take the petition forward. I suggest that we refer it to the Equal Opportunities Committee to explore the issues that still have to be explored.
As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I will not comment on whether we give it the work.
We should certainly keep the petition open, and I would prefer to keep it with the Public Petitions Committee. I would not object too strongly to our sending it to the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I think that we should move it forward a bit first. I have heard similar arguments about the civil partnership, but we need to remember that this issue is about people for whom a religious ceremony is extremely important, and to deny them the opportunity to have one is to deny them equality.
To my knowledge, it has not been done by this committee. However, I know that other committees have appointed rapporteurs.
We could dovetail this petition with the new one. Obviously, because of the parliamentary timetable, that cannot be done before the summer recess. When we have both petitions before us, we can decide whether we want to consider using a rapporteur model or whether it might be more appropriate to pass the petitions to another committee.
We have received a number of responses from religious organisations. Did we write to the Church of Scotland or receive a response from it?
I think that we have written to it, but we have not had any formal response.
There appears to be a bit of disagreement between the Scottish Government and the Equality Network. The Scottish Government says that the process of changing the law would be too complex, but the Equality Network says that that is not the case. It would be interesting to get a bit more information from both sides of that argument.
We can pursue that in correspondence and see whether that information influences what we want to do with the petition.
Will we also follow up the European Court of Human Rights case?
Yes.
Siamese Fighting Fish (PE1240)
PE1240, from Chris Law, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take measures to ban pet retailers from keeping Siamese fighting fish in small and restrictive tubs of water in their shops. We had an extensive discussion of the petition previously, which received interesting coverage.
Members indicated agreement.
G20 Summit (International Development) (PE1242)
PE1242, from Mark Buchan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to lobby the Prime Minister, as leader of the G20 host nation, to take urgent action to address extreme poverty and deprivation in Africa and to reduce the debt of African countries.
Members indicated agreement.
In closing the petition, we should again congratulate Mark on the excellent contribution that he made—we all still talk about it. Ryan McLaughlin's contribution earlier today was also good, and I am sure that we will remember how good both of them were, as well as the contributions of the two girls who were with Mark.
We should also record our appreciation of his writing to us again with his views on the responses.
Absolutely.
NHS Services (Rural Areas) (PE1243)
Our final petition today, PE1243, is from Jenna McDonald and Fiona Henderson. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider how we can ensure that funding of local hospitals in rural areas is increased to ensure that they are properly equipped and staffed so that they can treat more local people, thereby better meeting the needs of the local population and ending the need for patients to undertake long journeys for treatment.
I must confess that I am not entirely sure what we should do with the petition. However, I have a feeling that we have gone as far as we can. The issues have been well aired, and the Government understands the issues, which have been talked about elsewhere. Therefore, it might be best to close the petition.
The Public Audit Committee has done a lot of work on various aspects of the NHS. Would it be in order to ask that committee whether it is considering examining the issues that are dealt with in the petition?
The clerk is indicating that he does not think that the Public Audit Committee has anything like that in its work programme for the rest of the year. Anne, as you are a member of that committee, are you aware of what is coming up?
I do not want this in the Official Report, but I get mixed up between the two committees. I cannot remember whether it was this committee or my other committee that was talking about the issue. However, I do not think that the Public Audit Committee is considering doing work on the issue that the petition deals with.
I do not think that the Public Audit Committee plans to consider the issue, Robin. Nigel Don has suggested that we reluctantly close the petition on the basis that we are dealing with the issues through broader debates around the health service and that health boards and the Government are addressing the issues.
I do not think that we should close the petition yet, as there are a few questions that we could usefully ask the Scottish Government. For example, how is the Government ensuring that appropriately skilled staff are available in rural hospitals to provide the range of treatment that is required? Also, what support is the Government providing to allow NHS boards to provide enhanced diagnostic and community care provision? I remember the two young women asking about access to e-health initiatives. We should write to the Government to ask what measures it intends to introduce to ensure that all rural hospitals have access to the latest e-health initiatives.
We have two different recommendations.
Let us vote.
We have not yet had to divide.
My instinct is that we are asking the civil service to write one more letter that does not need to be written, but I will not force the point.
I understand, but it is a burden that the clerks are happy to take on.
I was thinking of the civil servants, not the clerks. Of course, I think of the clerks all the time.
Do we agree to write to the Government to ask the questions that Bill Butler has raised?
Members indicated agreement.
Our next meeting, which will be sooner than you anticipate, will be on 8 September. I am sure that a period of reflection during the recess will re-energise us for the future.
Meeting closed at 16:25.
Previous
New Petitions