Current Petitions
Sleep Apnoea (PE367)
The first current petition is PE367 from Eric Drummond, which is to do with services for the diagnosis and treatment of those suffering from sleep apnoea. At our meeting in May, we agreed to copy the petition to the Executive, Greater Glasgow Health Board and Lothian Health for comments on the issues that were raised. On 11 September, we agreed that Lothian Health should be asked to provide the committee with details of the results of its review of the sleep service. On 23 October, we considered a further response from Lothian Health, which explained that the review was completed in July 2001 and outlined the actions that the board was taking in pursuance of that review.
The committee felt that that appeared to be a fairly positive response but, in view of the petitioner's direct involvement in the provision of the sleep service, it agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the actions that were being taken by the board. Mr Drummond has submitted his comments, a copy of which is attached to the briefing paper. He indicated that he would like clarification of the statement made by Lothian Health that the level of service provided—particularly on waiting times—would be the same as last year.
The clerks wrote to the board requesting clarification on that point and a response has been received. Again, members will find a copy attached. The response confirms that the level of service will be the same as last year and that the waiting times for the sleep service will continue, with the possibility of some improvement. It makes it clear that—as with other hospital services—doctors have discretion to prioritise the time a patient waits on the basis of clinical need. It stresses that any further investment and subsequent developments in the service will be a matter for the Lothian health plan—an approach for prioritising NHS investment that has been agreed by the Scottish Executive and local partners. Those involved in the review of the sleep service, including trust managers and clinicians who are responsible for providing the service, agreed to that course of action. The final version of the Lothian health plan will be available from April 2002.
The board has offered an assurance that, following the review, the future of the sleep service will be examined in the context of the Lothian health plan. It is suggested that that is the appropriate forum for the board to make decisions on the provision of its services. It would not be appropriate for the Parliament to intervene in that process and it is recommended that we agree to note the petition and take no further action on it. A copy of the board's latest letter should be copied to the petitioner and to the clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee for information.
It is also suggested that we point out to the petitioner that, if he is not happy with that conclusion or with the outcome of the Lothian health plan in 2002, he is perfectly free to reopen the matter with us by means of another petition. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Advice Services (PE396)
Next is petition PE396 from Mr Nick Fletcher, which is on access to free and independent advice services for citizens of Scotland. On 2 October, we agreed to seek the comments of the Executive, City of Edinburgh Council, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to establish their views on the issues raised in the petition. We have had comprehensive answers from the Executive, City of Edinburgh Council and Citizens Advice Scotland and a less comprehensive response from COSLA. I will not read through all the details of the responses.
The responses show that bureaux in Edinburgh and elsewhere are experiencing clear difficulties, so there is a good case for investigating further the funding mechanisms for citizens advice bureaux. It is suggested that we refer petition PE396 to the Local Government Committee for further consideration. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
There seems to be an issue about funding.
Yes, there does. I think that the bureaux used to be directly funded by central Government in the 1980s. Funding was then passed to local authorities, which are beginning to feel the squeeze. That is where the funding difficulties come from. The issue must be addressed by the Local Government Committee.
Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (Social Work Services) (PE400)
The next petition is PE400 from Clare McCann, which is on behalf of the Deaf Equality and Accessibility Forum and concerns the removal of the post of specialist worker for hearing impaired people in the area served by South Lanarkshire Council. We agreed to seek the views of the Executive and South Lanarkshire Council on the issues raised in the petition.
The Executive has responded by indicating the kinds of initiatives that help those who are deaf or hard of hearing and explaining how it monitors how local authorities provide social work services to such people. It says that it has no plans to issue guidance to local authorities, but provides details of a range of initiatives that are designed to improve services.
South Lanarkshire Council has given a comprehensive response. It points out that, by including the Deaf Equality and Accessibility Forum in the consultation on the council's sense and progress agenda, it has begun to address the points raised by the petitioner. That has resulted in specific recommendations to increase the existing social work complement from two to six—one per local office—by redeploying existing personnel to assume specialist responsibilities for people with sensory impairment. Those personnel will receive specialist training as a matter of priority and will, as part of a recurring annual service improvement plan, improve services to people with a sensory impairment.
The council points out that the petition predates the improvement in service provision and that, as a result, the concerns raised by the petitioners have now been addressed. The Equal Opportunities Committee is of the view that the petition should be referred to the Local Government Committee, should the Public Petitions Committee agree that further consideration is necessary. It also requests that Gil Paterson MSP, as disability reporter, be kept informed of developments on the petition.
It would appear that South Lanarkshire Council has addressed the concerns raised in the petition. It is suggested that the committee may wish to agree to copy the responses that have been received to the petitioners and ask whether they are content with the action that has been taken by the council. It is also suggested that, in the meantime, we keep Gil Paterson advised of the action that we have agreed as a committee. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Access to the Countryside (PE415)
The last of the current petitions is from Scottish Environment LINK Access Network, the Scottish Countryside Access Network and the Scottish Sports Association and concerns the proposed legislation to provide a right of responsible access in Scotland. The petitioners are concerned that the laws should not criminalise the public when they enjoy the outdoors; should not give land managers, local authorities or the police new powers to keep people off the land; and should impose a duty on local authorities to improve countryside access opportunities and give them the necessary resources to do so. Members will remember that the petitioners' concern arose from the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which had been published by the Executive.
We agreed at our meeting on 6 November that the petition should be copied to the Executive for its comments on the points that were raised. A response has been received from the Executive and a copy is attached. The Executive response points out that the majority of the responses to the consultation on the draft bill related to access provisions. Ministers gave careful consideration to those views and the bill that was introduced to Parliament on 27 November had changed significantly from the draft bill. The response shows that the bill now contains no new criminal offences, nor powers to allow land managers, local authorities or the police to keep people off the land. In addition, the bill requires local authorities to uphold access rights and to plan for and establish systems of core paths to provide reasonable access throughout their areas.
The Executive response appears to address the petitioners' concerns. It is suggested that the committee should agree to copy the response to the petitioners to establish whether they agree. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.