Public Petitions Committee, 18 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Official Report 258KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

The first of our current petitions is PE504, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to stop convicted murderers or members of their families profiting from the crimes and selling accounts of them for publication.

At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Home Office. A response has now been received and circulated. Do members have any views on that response?

I am somewhat dismayed by the Home Office's response and its unwillingness to do anything. Its letter is not particularly helpful. I presume that Mr and Mrs Watson have contacted their member of Parliament about this matter. I wonder whether he or she could put more pressure on the Home Office. We should contact the Executive to ask for its views on the Home Office response and whether it would like to address the matter, as the Home Office has apparently suggested.

Are members happy with that suggestion?

There is nothing that I like about the Home Office letter. I do not like even the salutation, which reads, "Dear Michael McMahon."

Nothing at all, Charlie? Did the letter have no redeeming features? I know what you mean. We will take up the matter with the Scottish Executive and ask its view.

---

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

Petition PE808, which is by Lilian Lawson on behalf of the Scottish Council on Deafness, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to establish a specialist in-patient mental health unit for deafblind people and to provide resources such as training for mainstream psychiatric services in the community, so that they are more accessible to deaf and deafblind people.

At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. A response has now been received and circulated to the committee. The committee has also received correspondence from the British Society for Mental Health and Deafness. What are members' views? Mary McDevitt and Shaurna Dickson from Deaf Action's communication support unit have joined us; they will provide British Sign Language interpretations.

Should we invite the views of the petitioners on the responses?

That would be a good starting point.

It would be a good starting point, given that the petitioners have been waiting for responses for a while. RNID Scotland's response says:

"the proposal aims to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing people have access to specialist mental health care in their own country and seeks to establish a Scotland-wide Crisis Intervention Service…based in the Greater Glasgow area."

Can we get an update on that? It would be interesting to know who RNID Scotland contacted, because I do not think that it contacted the petitioners. I would like to see where this is going.

I agree with the suggestion that we seek the petitioners' views. I acknowledge the minister's response and his recognition that there is a problem. The shortage of psychiatrists throughout Scotland is a huge problem that is faced by all our NHS boards. I would be interested to hear the petitioners' views in due course.

Sandra White referred to the petitioners waiting for a response. We discussed the petition on 20 June and got some initial responses. We also had a letter from the Executive that touched on the point that John Scott made. If the committee asks the petitioners to comment on all the correspondence that it has received and discussed up till now, we could view all the responses in the light of the petitioners' opinions on their contents at a future meeting. We will keep the petition open and continue dialogue with the petitioners until we hear their views on the matter. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Sub-post Office Closures (PE764)

Petition PE764 is by Margaret Tait, on behalf of the Stoneybank Tenants and Residents Association, Musselburgh. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to request the Post Office to consider sympathetically the needs and requirements of disabled and elderly persons who, in urban areas in Scotland, would be expected to walk substantial distances, sometimes more than two miles, as a result of possible closure of certain sub-post offices.

At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and the Post Office. Responses have since been received and circulated. Do members have comments on those responses?

Sadly, neither the Post Office nor the Executive is prepared to help. We have exhausted all the avenues that are open to us to investigate the matter, so we will probably just have to close the petition.

John Scott is probably right. Sub-post office closures are regrettable, but they are not primarily the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. I have a great deal of sympathy with the petition, because I had a similar experience as a councillor only a year ago. Qualitative factors such as the number of frail elderly people and people with disabilities who relied on the urban sub-post office that was being closed in my ward were not taken into consideration. When I went to Postwatch, it simply pointed out, rather crassly, that there are fewer sub-post offices in rural areas. However, because urban areas are more densely populated, a higher proportion of post office users may suffer from mobility difficulties.

However, that is a qualitative factor that does not feature in the criteria for closure, either on the part of the Post Office or, sadly, on the part of Postwatch, which is supposed to keep the Post Office under scrutiny.

I agree with that analysis of Postwatch, which is the relevant consumer body. None of us has had particularly good experiences of Postwatch. I know that this is not related directly to the petition, but ought we to spend the public money on Postwatch that we do? I have spoken to many parliamentarians, not one of whom has had a good word to say about Postwatch. Perhaps petitioners might want to lodge a petition about Postwatch.

I have recent experience of the closure of Hamilton main post office. To be honest, I found Postwatch to be as much a cheerleader for the decision to close as it was a conduit through which the public could be consulted on the decision. I find the usefulness of Postwatch questionable. I concurred with MP colleagues who criticised Postwatch strongly at the time of the closure.

A lot of money could be saved.

If Postwatch does not serve a purpose on behalf of communities, I wonder why it receives public funds to do its job. However, we have to say that no further progress can be made on the petition.

The closure of post offices is a problem all over the country, not just in urban areas but in rural areas; we hear about it every week. Last week, we debated six post office closures in the Borders. Postwatch and the governing agencies of Post Office Ltd are not prepared to listen. I read in the committee papers about the extensive consultation with the public over some months, which resulted in 145 closures. What is the point of such consultation? Closures are happening everywhere. We have tried and tried to save post offices in rural and urban Scotland, yet we are not winning the argument.

I agree with you entirely, John. Do we agree to close the petition because we can make no further progress?

Members indicated agreement.

With regret, yes.

---

Drinking Water (Chloramine Treatment) (PE842)

Petition PE842, which is by Mrs F C Bowman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the use of chloramine disinfectant in the treatment of drinking water.

At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive; Scottish Water; the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland; the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health; Friends of the Earth; and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Responses have been received and circulated to members. The committee has also received further correspondence from the petitioner and from John Thurso MP, which has also been circulated.

We are joined this morning by Jamie Stone. Do you wish to make a contribution to the debate before we consider the petition further?

Very briefly, yes. I extend my thanks to committee members for allowing me to join you—it is appreciated. I understand that Mrs Bowman has not been well recently, which is why she and her husband are not with us today.

For some time now, it has been brought to my attention that there is a strong feeling among residents in the area—in north Sutherland—that the quality of the drinking water is not all that it should be. Complaints have been made about its strong taste and people have said that it might not be doing the animals any good. Others have made representations to Scottish Water and to ministers. Within the present set-up of the law and rules, it appears that the water is acceptable. However, one is left with a group of constituents who find the water unacceptable.

I am at something of a loss as to where the matter should go now and I will be interested to hear members' views and suggestions. However, I conclude my remarks by saying that this has been and continues to be a local problem.

We probably want to contact the petitioners to get their views on the responses. You said that your constituents could not be here because of ill health—will that prevent them from responding?

Contacting them for their views would be very civil and I do not think that ill health will stand in the way of their making a response. That would be a positive move and very much in keeping with the ideals of this Parliament—to which we all subscribe—of being open and interactive with people who have concerns.

Do we agree to write first to the petitioners to get their views on the responses that have been received?

From the responses that we have received, everyone seems to agree that the water is fine, with the exception of Friends of the Earth, which raises specific points and makes dangerous suggestions about the water. It would be reasonable to ask the minister for his views on the Friends of the Earth response.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Singing Tuition (PE860)

Petition PE860, which is by Marilyn de Blieck, on behalf of Ayrshire Voices, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop a coherent national policy in relation to the teaching of singing and, in particular, to ensure adequate provision of vocal tuition for young people throughout Scotland.

At its meeting on 6 June 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Arts Council; the youth music initiative reference group; the Voice of Chief Officers for Cultural, Community and Leisure Services—VOCAL; the Heads of Instrumental and Teaching Services—HITS; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education; the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the Scottish Executive; East Ayrshire Council; North Ayrshire Council; and South Ayrshire Council.

Having felled a forest, we have had some responses to our letters. Do members wish to make any points?

The responses have been hugely positive. The petition has served to focus awareness and attention on the matter. I think that we should invite the petitioner's views on whether anything else should be done.

I agree with Jackie Baillie—that is not unusual—and welcome the generally positive responses. I also take the opportunity to welcome Marilyn de Blieck to the public gallery.

The benefits of singing are now recognised and the heightened profile that the petition has given Marilyn de Blieck might help her to go back to previous funders and say, "Here is further evidence of the good job that we do." However, I am sure that she will be more than capable of giving us her views on that in due course.

The petition's proposal would help the rest of the country, but Glaswegians—as the convener knows—are genetically programmed to sing.

Give us a song.

Do members agree that we should write to the petitioner to ask for her comments and consider the petition further once we have received them?

At that stage, perhaps Charlie Gordon could be prevailed on to give us a song.

Or otherwise, as the case may be. We will write to the petitioner to get her response to the replies that we have received from the various organisations to which we wrote.

---

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

Petition PE798, which is by Margaret Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to resolve the critical problems in the provision of wheelchairs and specialist seating services in the national health service by providing an immediate increase in funding and by holding a review, in consultation with users, to address minimum standards, the scope of equipment that is provided and the delivery of services.

At its meeting on 22 June 2005, the committee agreed to invite the Disability Rights Commission and the petitioner to comment on the responses that it had received. Those comments have now been received and circulated to members. What are members' views?

The responses are positive and they represent another victory for the committee. Rather than close our consideration of the petition, perhaps we should ask the Executive to inform us of the outcome of the independent review of the NHS wheelchair service.

I agree that it is worth keeping open our consideration of the petition. We should await the outcome of the review that is in progress.

We were all pleased to get invitations to the various consultations that took place throughout Scotland. I welcome that programme of consultative meetings on an important issue.

We will ask the Executive for an update.

---

A77 (Southern Section Upgrade) (PE859)

Petition PE859, from Sheena Borthwick, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to upgrade the southern section of the A77 between Ayr and Stranraer and to include the provision of passing places every 6 miles and the development of a bypass at Maybole.

At its meeting on 6 June 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Executive, the A77 safety group, the Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Responses have been received, on which I invite members to comment.

As no other members are rushing forward to comment on the petition, which relates to my area, I will do so. I welcome the positive responses. I know the road; indeed, I have travelled on it since birth. The need for the Maybole bypass has been well defined for some time and I welcome the acknowledgement that a Scottish transport appraisal guidance assessment will be done on the proposal to build it.

Sadly, the stretch of the A77 south of Ayr is so bad that although a large amount of money has been spent on it—and we know that more is promised—it is still an incredibly dangerous road. The advent of SPECS—the speed enforcement camera system—has definitely reduced the number of accidents, but the trouble is that people are going faster than ever at the end of that stretch. The number of accidents that still occur testifies to the problems that are experienced. In addition, there has been an increase in the amount of traffic on the road, especially timber traffic. More needs to be done and I am happy to suggest that we consider inviting the Executive to provide an update on developments on the proposal for a Maybole bypass. We could also seek the petitioner's views on the responses that we have received.

Are members happy to concur?

Members indicated agreement.

---

National Bird (PE783)

Our final petition for consideration this morning is PE783, which is by James Reynolds on behalf of The Scotsman newspaper. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the establishment of the golden eagle as Scotland's national bird.

At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee agreed to approach the relevant minister to express concern about the lack of response from the Executive. A response has now been received. Do members have views on it?

We should write to the petitioner to ask for his views on the Executive's response, which I do not think much of. It says that the United Kingdom does not have an official national bird, but the petition is about the creation of an official national bird for Scotland. Although the minister's response does not contain a great deal, I would like us to find out what the petitioner thinks of it.

I am more than happy for us to do that. We will wait for a response; we might have to read it on the front page of The Scotsman, if the petitioner deems that appropriate.

I remind colleagues that our next meeting will take place in Dunfermline on 30 January. As that is a Monday, we will not have a meeting on the Wednesday of that week.

Meeting closed at 12:21.