Public Petitions Committee, 17 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Official Report 199KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Social Inclusion Policies (Bus Services) (PE642)

Petition PE642, which has been submitted by Christine Grahame, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that local authorities, when developing policies of social inclusion of the elderly, ensure the provision of an adequate bus service to essential lifeline services in the areas for which they are responsible.

Members will see that I have brought my thick yellow file with me—it is known as the bus file. PE642 is not really my petition, of course; I speak on behalf of the petitioners for convenience.

The population of the Scottish Borders has the largest proportion of elderly people in Scotland. They are living longer and want to remain active for longer, as we all do. Since privatisation and the deregulation of rural bus services, provision has diminished, and rural provision in particular. Rural routes are not as competitive as routes in urban areas.

The petition is affectionately known as the Meigle Street petition. The petitioners won a small victory and managed, through political pressure, to achieve a partial reinstatement of their route. In the Meigle Street case, many elderly people were living on a steep incline above Galashiels. They could see Galashiels but they could not get there, although the health centre, the post office, the supermarket and even the cinema were all in the town. If the bus route had gone, elderly people would have been excluded from those places. However, the reprieve for the route is only temporary.

The problem affects other places in the Borders, such as Maxton and Springwood, which have a substantial elderly population—indeed, Springwood is what is known as a retirement village. To be specific, 30 to 40 elderly people have almost no bus service to take them to essential services in Kelso or Galashiels. The town service in Peebles, which supports a large elderly population, is running at the moment only because the common good fund is being plundered to subsidise the service so that it does not run out of funds. Again, the loss of that service would deprive elderly people of access to health centres, post offices and other amenities that we take for granted.

The problem exists across the whole area, even in Penicuik. Ladywood loses its bus service in the evening, between 6 and 7 o'clock. I suppose that elderly people are supposed to go home and crochet or cuddle up to a hot-water bottle. They are not supposed to have any kind of social life. I refer to the Borders, but the problem exists in all rural areas.

I accept that the fault lies in part with the council, which took a policy view not to subsidise town services. I know that that is not within the committee's remit. The council is conducting a reappraisal of bus provision in the Scottish Borders but it is not consulting the people. It is just using a consultant, who will report sometime in late October. The committee might wish to address that issue.

I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time. However, I would like to say that the issue is not just the provision of bus services but the quality of the buses. The bus fleet is elderly. Of the 53 buses in the fleet—in the Borders, the buses mostly belong to FirstGroup—about 24 are between 15 and 22 years old. One is more likely to see an oil-stained motor mechanic driving the First buses than to see a driver doing so. The buses are not reliable and they are not fit for purpose. Double-deckers go into housing areas and along narrow rural roads even though they are not at all suitable for those journeys.

The petitioners and I appreciate that there are restrictions on what the committee can do, but the petition asks the Parliament to ensure that when local authorities develop social inclusion policies—policies of which the Parliament and the Executive should be proud—they ensure that the provision of an adequate bus service is covered. Local authorities should have the duty and the funding to ensure that such a basic service is provided. Perhaps the reregulation of bus services, particularly in rural areas, should be considered. As one old person put it to me, "What's the point of a bus pass, Miss Grahame, if there isnae a bus?"

Thank you. Do members have comments or questions that they would like to put to Christine Grahame?

This is a general issue. We know that the Local Government and Transport Committee is considering other petitions about rural bus services. It seems a long time ago, but if I remember rightly, there is within the legislation an ability to be more forceful about what buses are put on and where, which is a form of reregulation. I cannot quite remember but I think that that was called contracting.

The case is straightforward. We should ask the Local Government and Transport Committee to consider the petition along with the others that it is examining in the wider picture of rural bus services.

I have a question about the temporary bus service that Christine mentioned. Do you or the petitioners know when that service will be taken off?

The problem for the service is that it has to prove a commercial case. It is run by another local bus company but it has to prove itself. The problem is that such routes will never be commercially viable.

In an attempt to be helpful, I should point out that I think that the legislation that Linda Fabiani mentioned is the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Quality partnerships give local authorities powers over bus transport, particularly evening, weekend and rural services. I am glad that Christine Grahame acknowledged that a lot of these matters are the responsibility of local government, and I assume that appropriate representations have been made in that quarter.

Yes.

I agree with Linda Fabiani. We should refer the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee. I understand that there are a number of petitions that all have a similar underlying theme, although they relate to different routes. It would be helpful if that committee would take the petitions collectively and consider the principle rather than the specific routes.

As Jackie Baillie suggests, the problem affects the whole country, not just the Borders. I know that there is a significant problem in my area, the west Highlands, because I receive complaints about it daily.

If we make representations to the Local Government and Transport Committee, we should mention another issue concerning the transport of the elderly within our communities—the provision of the Scottish Executive's concessionary fares scheme. In the Highlands, the bus companies almost refuse to take people who use the scheme. The system seems to be that they load the bus with fare-paying and booked passengers. The poor individuals with concessionary fare vouchers are left to the end. In many cases, such people are prevented from getting on the bus, which is not how the Scottish Executive intended the scheme to operate. If we pass on the petition, we should say something about that.

I agree with Linda Fabiani that the problem exists throughout Scotland, not only in rural areas, but in urban ones. In my constituency, the number 14 bus service was cut, although it was reinstated following pressure as a result of the bus quality partnership agreement. The petitioners should not give up hope, because the issue is well worth pursuing. The general problem should be referred to the Local Government and Transport Committee.

The recommendation is that the petition should be sent to the Local Government and Transport Committee. The issue that John Farquhar Munro raised does not relate specifically to the petition, but I am a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, so I know that it wants to consider such issues as part of its consideration of other related petitions that are before it. We will add this petition to the list.

Given the problems with bus services being cut, might the committee consider writing to the Scottish Borders Council to ask why it will not consult the people? There is a consultant, but people, too, should be consulted when a bus service is being developed—whether or not all their remarks are taken on board—to find out what the problems are on the ground.

I am concerned that we do not have the authority to take that action.

Perhaps the committee could ask the council rhetorically whether it has consulted the people.

As you have raised the issue on the record, the Local Government and Transport Committee will have to consider the matter when it considers the petition. A memo about our discussion and the points that have been raised will be sent to the Local Government and Transport Committee. It is for that committee, not us, to decide what to do with the petition and whether to accept your request.

Are members happy to send the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ambulatory Oxygen and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PE648)

Petition PE648 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the national health service in Scotland provides truly portable oxygen and pulmonary rehabilitation classes throughout the country. Andrew Powrie-Smith is here to speak on behalf of the British Lung Foundation Scotland.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak. I also thank the convener for receiving the petition—the petitioners thought that their views and questions were taken seriously.

The aspect of the petition on which I will concentrate is that of ambulatory oxygen, which is used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. As the Executive is making a decision on that issue, some points must be raised. COPD is responsible for around 3,000 deaths in Scotland each year and is 20 times more common than asthma. The prognosis from diagnosis is worse than that for cancer. For example, in Glasgow 63 per cent of people who are diagnosed with COPD will be dead within 5 years. The problem is huge.

Following a parliamentary question, the Executive indicated that it would provide ambulatory oxygen by the end of the summer. That has been revised to October. As members can see, a cylinder of ambulatory oxygen is of reasonably small proportions. The old cylinders, or the ones that are currently available, are the enormous black ones, which are four times the weight of the cylinder that I have with me, which was a struggle to bring up from the Grassmarket. The old ones were huge.

Our concern is that the Executive is planning to provide cylinders of ambulatory oxygen without a device that is called a conserver. A conserver releases oxygen only when a patient breathes in, which means that only a half or a third of the amount of oxygen that would be used without the conserver is used. That is a problem because, for us, the point of ambulatory oxygen is to give people the freedom to get out of the house rather than to keep them in, tied to a plastic tube. Ambulatory oxygen is about inclusion—it is about getting a big sector of the community back into society.

The cylinder that I have with me lasts two and a half hours without a conserver. Most of the socioeconomic group that is affected uses the bus or other forms of public transport. Someone who waits 20 minutes for the bus and has a half-hour bus journey can see their family for 20 minutes before they start panicking about getting back home quickly. We believe that giving people 20 minutes of time to get out does not amount to giving them portable oxygen.

Providing conservers would save money in the long run. They cost only a couple of hundred quid and, if they reduce by a half or a third the amount of oxygen that is used, they will make savings. We want the conserver to be included on the drug tariff as part of the system.

Liquid oxygen is another option. It sits on a belt-pack that is even smaller than a cylinder of ambulatory oxygen and it lasts six to eight hours. We have been told that its use is not possible for health and safety reasons. As Ireland, the United States, Spain and France have all managed to overcome those health and safety issues, we hope that we can overcome them as well.

Thanks very much. Do members wish to ask questions?

I want to ask Mr Powrie-Smith about the conserver, which he said costs about £200. I take it that the conserver is reusable.

It is like a kind of regulator that sits on top of the cylinder; it is really just a complicated valve. It is a permanent feature.

The Executive has said that it will wait for 18 months after the introduction of ambulatory oxygen to see what the take-up is. If it lasts only two hours, I can tell members what the take-up will be. Why would anyone use it if it would mean they were hardly able to leave their house? The conserver is just a one-off buy that plonks on the top of the cylinder—forgive my technical language—and remains there permanently.

The cost is £200 per person. How long, roughly, would a cylinder with a conserver last, with regular use?

That depends on the flow. A cylinder with a conserver would last between two and three times longer than a cylinder without a conserver—from five hours up to seven hours.

That could mean being able to get out for a day or a half day. How long would the conserver last? How many times could it be used?

I do not know. It is a permanent piece of equipment. I could find that out and get back to the committee.

It would not have to be renewed monthly or on a similarly frequent basis?

No.

I noticed that you have written to the Minister for Health and Community Care. Was the response to which you referred the one you received from the minister?

The response to which I referred, which was given the day after we handed in the petition about ambulatory oxygen, was the minister's reply to a parliamentary question by Robert Brown. The decision was that ambulatory oxygen would be provided by the end of the summer. Since then, we have been speaking to the civil servants who are responsible for working out what kind of provision is necessary. It was from those discussions that our concerns emerged.

You mentioned France and some other countries. Do they issue conservers widely?

I mentioned those countries in relation to liquid oxygen, which is the optimum system. A person who used that system would have a reservoir cylinder in their home and a small belt-pack that could last six to eight hours. We have been told that that system is not being considered on health and safety grounds.

Although there are problems with transporting liquid oxygen, other countries seem to have got round them. There are always reasons for not doing something—can we not work out a way of doing something?

Will you tell us a bit more about the experience in other countries where ambulatory oxygen cylinders have been introduced? Has there been any research into that matter?

In Europe, provision tends to be based on the liquid oxygen system, which is the ultimate system for the patient. We have examined what is happening in a number of other countries and discovered that there have been problems with delivering liquid oxygen because of health and safety issues. Moreover, there have been problems with transporting liquid oxygen up stairwells. In the systems that have worked abroad, people refill cylinders at pharmacies and take them home, which solves any delivery problems. That system is used in Spain and Ireland.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the petition, because I know someone who suffered from pulmonary disease and could not get out at all. Although that person might have wanted to make visits, they needed a taxi to do so and taxi drivers were sometimes not so keen to take the huge equipment that needed to be brought along.

Mike Watson has already touched on a few of the questions that I was going to ask about the conserver. However, I have two other questions. First, the Executive said that it would be ready to supply cylinders through the NHS in July, but it has now moved that date to October. Do you have a date in October for when cylinders will be available? Secondly, did the British Medical Association or the Executive decree that the use of liquid oxygen was unsafe? If not, who did so?

As far as the date is concerned, all we have been told is that the cylinders will be available on prescription through general practitioners in October. We do not have any specific dates at the moment.

We were made aware of health and safety concerns by the team of civil servants that investigated the provision of ambulatory oxygen. They have been consulting with the manufacturers.

Did those civil servants consult the BMA, the hospitals or anyone else?

I am afraid that I do not know, but I can certainly find out.

I have a very quick question. Assuming that the system comes with the conserver—which is what you want—do you have any idea of the number of people in Scotland who would benefit from this measure?

More than 3,000 people in Scotland receive long-term oxygen therapy. As they are the most severe cases, their homes will be equipped with a machine called a concentrator, which produces oxygen from the air and feeds it to a line from which they breathe. Those people are gasping for breath by the time they reach their front door and they need a lightweight system that will allow them to leave their homes. Carrying a heavy cylinder around does not work and leaves people trapped in their homes.

I welcome the fact that you have brought this petition to the committee. From local representations in Ayrshire, I know how strong your case is.

From my understanding of the situation, the provision of ambulatory oxygen could mean huge cost savings for the health service. As a result, I recommend that we write to the Scottish Executive and seek further information on how it will implement the system for making ambulatory oxygen cylinders available on the NHS. We should also find out whether any such system is expected to meet not just the basic clinical requirements of people with respiratory diseases, but their social inclusion needs.

We should ask the Executive about its position with regard to accessibility of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and whether it is satisfied that current provision throughout Scotland is adequate. Perhaps we should also ask the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network whether it has plans to include information on pulmonary rehabilitation programmes for the treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Those are strong recommendations.

I agree entirely with those recommendations, but would like to add one. Given that a decision is about to be made about the £200 conserver, which would make a huge difference to people's quality of life, that should be the headline item in our letter to the Executive.

Given what we have heard this morning, we should take on board the information about the decision that was based on health and safety grounds. I suggest that, along with the other points that we have made, we ask the Executive who made that decision, where the information came from and whether the matter is being reconsidered.

I was going to suggest that we ask how the civil servants came to their conclusion.

Do we agree to the recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Legal System (Complaints) (PE636)

We have no more petitioners this morning, but we still have a number of petitions to consider. We agreed earlier to consider petition PE636 from Krystyna Ost, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the alleged unfair bias exercised by the parties to whom complaints relating to the legal system in Scotland are made.

The petition is prompted by the petitioner's experiences whereby a complaint against a member of the legal profession was not upheld by the Law Society of Scotland. Subsequent attempts to redress the situation through correspondence with the legal services ombudsman, the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Minister for Justice and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at Westminster have all failed. The petitioner has provided copies of letters to those individuals by way of explaining how she proceeded. Having explored all those avenues, the petitioner has brought the matter to the committee. I am interested to hear members' comments.

Given that the Law Society of Scotland has recently announced a new process for handling complaints and that the regulation of the legal profession has been the subject of an extensive inquiry by the Justice 1 Committee, which is unlikely to conduct a further inquiry, perhaps we should draw a line under the petition and take no further action.

Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

We shall write to the petitioner with that information.

---

Waste Water Treatment (Control of Odours) (PE645)

Petition PE645 in the name of Mrs Norma Rutherford calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a range of steps to ensure the control of offensive and noxious odours from waste water treatment works.

The petition is prompted by the petitioner's experience of the Kirkcaldy waste water treatment works, which she claims has had a detrimental effect on the community's health and quality of life since it began operating in September 2001. She also claims that the original plan stated clearly that there would be no odour emissions from what is said to be a state-of-the-art plant. Scottish Water is now unable to eliminate the problem, despite trying a number of measures such as chemicals, peat and shell beds and sealing off buildings.

l have had exactly the same experience with the new waste water treatment works at Ardoch in Dumbarton in my constituency, so I sympathise entirely with what the petitioner is calling for. I understand that the Environment and Rural Development Committee has considered a similar petition and I wonder whether we should send this petition to that port of call with the strongest push for having that committee's view on the issue quickly, which we would welcome.

You would benefit from that, too.

Absolutely. I declared my interest, which was coincidental.

The same issue has been raised in my area, too.

The subject is of general interest and many people are concerned about it.

The problem is becoming more prevalent throughout Scotland. In the past, one managed to live with it, but that is no longer acceptable.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect is that the treatment plants are new. We are not dealing with worn-out equipment that needs to be replaced. The equipment has been described as state of the art; if so, that state is unacceptable.

The equipment is unacceptable because it has obviously failed in one environmental respect.

As Jackie Baillie said, the Environment and Rural Development Committee is aware of the issue, so it would do no harm to send the petition to that committee and say that it is another petition that we would like that committee to pay attention to. Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I agree with the recommendation of passing the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. As Jackie Baillie said, we should give that committee an extra push.

Does everyone agree to our sending a memo to that effect?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE646)

Petition PE646 is from Steve Ratcliffe and calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the relevance of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and to take the necessary steps to amend the legislation to give licensing authorities greater control over individuals and premises when regulations are breached.

Announcements will be made today about licensing law, so the petition is topical. It was prompted by the petitioner's concern that licensing laws do not help licensing authorities to control those who sell liquor to under-age drinkers. The petitioner is concerned that when a licence is suspended by a licensing committee, it may be taken out again for the same premises by a different named individual. He argues that a licence should be granted to the premises and a responsible individual, which would allow courts, when a regulation is breached, to suspend an individual or ultimately the premises from holding a licence. That is a worthy intention. What are the committee's views?

I agree with much of Mr Ratcliffe's proposal. My only comment is that we will debate licensing law and the Nicholson report this afternoon, but that is not a problem, because the pertinent issues that the petition raises could be discussed in the debate. The Nicholson report recommends some of Mr Ratcliffe's ideas, so we cannot take the petition forward—we will have to note it. Events have overtaken the petition. I recommend that we take no further action on it, because we will debate licensing law this afternoon and because the Nicholson report incorporates most of Mr Ratcliffe's ideas.

Mr Ratcliffe has done a lot of thinking and much work on the petition. He has encapsulated many concerns. The Executive is considering the Nicholson committee's review of licensing law, so we should pass the petition to the Executive and ask it to take on board Mr Ratcliffe's comments.

Jackie Baillie told me that she intended to suggest that, too.

We are all being consensual this morning.

That is exactly how the committee should be.

We have two recommendations. One is that we take no action, but is Sandra White happy for Linda Fabiani's suggestion to be followed?

Yes. That is not a problem. Licensing law will be dealt with this afternoon.

There is no harm in sending the petition to the Executive for its consideration.

Given Mr Ratcliffe's attention to detail, it would be astonishing if he had not made or did not intend to make a submission to the Executive on the Nicholson report. However, we could reinforce his view by passing on the petition officially.

Is everyone happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will pass on the petition.

---

Scottish Agricultural College (Restructuring) (PE653)

Petition PE653 is from Charlotte Gilfillan on behalf of students and staff of the Scottish Agricultural College. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider the issues that relate to the decision of the college's board to relocate its education and research services to Edinburgh, contrary to the Executive's policy of job dispersal from Edinburgh and to the detriment of the college's ability to provide services for rural communities throughout Scotland.

The petition outlines concerns about the SAC's plans for rationalisation, including the closure of two of its campuses, at Craibstone in Aberdeen and at Auchincruive in Ayr, and centralisation of its educational, research and development activities in Edinburgh. The petitioners argue that the proposed changes are unworkable. It is a topical petition. Do members have any views on it?

I am a bit concerned about what the petition says about the Executive's policy on dispersal of jobs. I have constituents who work for Scottish Natural Heritage and have been involved in the battle over that organisation's proposed move out of Edinburgh. I support the Scottish Executive's view that there should be relocation to rural areas, but we must also ensure that we are sensitive to personnel issues.

With the SAC, the reverse is happening. It appears that the policy is to bring people back into the centre of Edinburgh, which seems perverse. That is a point that we ought to make in representations to the Scottish Executive. We need to ask what is happening. I do not know what other members think, but that is one of the concerns that I would like to raise.

I agree with Helen Eadie that it is absolutely perverse that the SAC board is proposing to fly in the face of a Government policy—that of job dispersal to rural areas—that is universally agreed in this Parliament to be sensible. I believe that announcements were made in that regard yesterday, when the Minister for Environment and Rural Development issued a press release in response to a statement issued by Dr Maitland Mackie of the SAC board. The press releases all confirm that the SAC intends to promote a hub-and-satellite approach, which in the long term will probably mean the run-down of services and the eventual closure of SAC Auchincruive and SAC Craibstone.

The minister said in his press release that he welcomed the "direction of travel" that the SAC has taken. Apparently, there will be a small amount of additional educational provision at Auchincruive, but my view is that that does not go far enough. At the moment, more than 50 per cent of the SAC's students come to Auchincruive in Ayr. The enrolment numbers this year are up by 10 or 15 per cent despite all the adverse publicity. People are voting with their feet to go to Auchincruive.

The Environment and Rural Development Committee must re-examine the matter. I do not believe that we can accept the situation that the SAC has presented us with, which, as Helen Eadie and other politicians of all parties have said, flies in the face of common sense. I would be interested to hear the views of other members. If colleagues would like a copy of the minister's press release or of the SAC's press release, I am happy to provide them. There is also a letter, which Professor McKelvey sent to politicians yesterday.

I have not seen the press release that John Scott has referred to, so I do not know what else Ross Finnie has said. It would be helpful if the minister were to give some direction on the issue. It is my understanding that the Scottish Agricultural College is directly funded by the Executive; it is not funded by either of the funding councils.

It is funded by the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.

The situation is not the same as that of other institutions. If Heriot Watt University, to use my alma mater as an example, were to find itself in a similar situation, there would be a greater devolved responsibility.

Given that, as Helen Eadie has said, the same minister is involved as is the case with Scottish Natural Heritage, it is incumbent on him to draw to the college's intention—if he has not already done so—what the job dispersal programme is about and what it is trying to achieve.

I have been lobbied by constituents who work at the college on the issue of what the college's board of management is doing. I know that we received the petition in June and that the convener wrote to the college, or to the principal—I am not sure which. Have you received a reply?

The information that we got back was that the college noted the petition and would look for further information. There is no response to the petition.

We now understand from press reports that the board of management has postponed the decision.

My understanding is that there is a suggestion that the decision has been deferred.

That would be helpful, as it would give us some room for manoeuvre.

It is important that we go beyond the issue of the education and research services and consider the wider question of the future of the college and its rural base. I understand that it is driven by financial considerations but its decision seems to be a strange one. I suggest that we formally refer the petition to the Environment and Rural Development Committee.

Although the convener believes that a decision has been deferred, I do not believe that to be the case. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development's press release states:

"I am content that SAC should now press on with their intention to undertake more detailed business planning and I look forward to receiving their business plans in due course."

The press release also states:

"I would also expect them to work closely with local authorities, the Scottish Enterprise network and other organisations to find alternative uses for the Auchincruive and Craibstone campuses."

That seems to signal the end of those campuses. I am not happy with that situation. In light of the views that committee members have expressed I expect that they might not be happy with it either, given the job dispersal programme to which Mike Watson and Helen Eadie have referred.

We could add that point to the recommendation that has been made: we could send the petition to the relevant committee and ask for clarification from the Scottish Executive on the point that John Scott has raised, so that we know where we are on the decision.

Perhaps we also need clarification from the college about where it stands. Has it made the decision or will it reconsider the matter?

Is everyone happy with those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.