Official Report 301KB pdf
School Buses (Seat Belts) (PE1098)
Good afternoon everyone. I call to order the 10th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2007. Please ensure that all mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched off. We have a standing apology from Angela Constance; I welcome John Wilson, who is still substituting for her.
First, I thank the committee for taking the time to consider my petition. I am a mother of two children—my son is six and my daughter is two. When my son started primary school last August, I became concerned about home-to-school transport. When my son started nursery, he was provided with a minibus to take him to his nursery, which was also at the primary school. The minibus had three-point seat belts and our local council requested that there was adult supervision of the children on the bus. That was fine; the parents set up a rota and we escorted the children. Six weeks after leaving nursery, after the summer break, our kids got to primary 1. They were then provided with a double-decker bus that had no seat belts and no adult supervision and they were just expected to get on the bus and go off to school. The lack of safety measures greatly concerns me and other parents. If there were an accident, how injured would those very small children be?
Helen Eadie is the constituency member. Is there anything that you wish to add in relation to the petition?
I am pleased to support the petition and the important work that Lynn Merrifield and all the other parents involved have done. Over the years when I was involved in local government, the issue came up a great many times—it has not arisen only recently. It has been raised by many parents, not just in Fife but throughout Scotland. I am sure that, as the work of Lynn and her friends and colleagues becomes more widely known, the website that they are setting up will help to gather more support for their work. Last summer, Lynn organised a public meeting to which quite a number of parents came. Given what it is like trying to get people to come along to public meetings these days, that is a measure of the support for the proposal.
Members of the committee may now ask questions to get further details.
I would like to reiterate what Helen Eadie said about this being a problem throughout Scotland. I have been made aware of the situation in rural Aberdeenshire, where double-decker buses are used to transport children to schools from villages. There is a concern about the arrangements up there, particularly in winter conditions. I have worked on the matter myself.
Unfortunately, I do not have the information to hand. The only figure that I have to guide you is that, if a yellow bus is doing just one school trip in the day and one in the afternoon, the cost is about £225 per day. It is significantly higher than some alternative options. We need to consider how we can reduce that cost and utilise the buses between school opening and closing hours, so that they help to pay for themselves. I know that local councils have the problem of cost—that is what it comes down to. However, the buses are fantastic. I wish that you could have seen it when we came here to deliver the petition to Frank McAveety. The yellow buses are designed with safety in mind.
I absolutely agree. Perhaps we could investigate the matter. I know that the yellow buses are recommended as the ideal form of school transport.
Yes.
You mentioned that Moray Council specifies in its contracts that seat belts should be provided. You have obviously spoken to your local council about the issue. Is cost the only reason why it will not include a requirement for seat belts in its tender documents?
No. Fife Council has said that it does not specify the provision of seat belts because the buses operate in an urban area where journeys are shorter and speed limits are lower, so the chances of an accident are greatly reduced. That is why it has not pushed to place an obligation on the operators to provide seat belts, according to a report that was published on 16 March last year. I cannot see why it would not want to do that.
I cannot see a disincentive, apart from cost. It is good that the journeys might be shorter and the chances of an accident lower, but that does not mean to say that there will be no accidents. I can only imagine that such a condition is not included in contracts because the benefit has been balanced against the cost.
Yes. Dealing with the council has been difficult. I apologise for being so blunt, but sometimes I would be better to speak to the wall. All that I get is, "We're not breaking the law," and, "There's nothing wrong with the buses." We are not questioning the buses' roadworthiness; our concern is their safety. The issue comes down to cost—the council says that the present arrangement offers best value.
Do you have any idea of what the cost difference would be? You have looked at the cost of using a yellow bus, but have you looked at the cost of hiring a bus that had seat belts?
I have but, unfortunately, I do not have the information with me. I could certainly provide you with it.
That would be useful.
That is no problem—I will get it to you.
You mentioned that your children go to nursery at the same school but use a different mode of transport—a bus that has seat belts.
Yes.
Who provides that mode of transport?
Fife Council.
Fife Council provides both services?
Yes.
Has the lack of seat belts on the primary school bus led to parents—especially of small children—not sending their children to school on the bus but taking them in cars instead?
Yes, it certainly has. A number of parents in our village will not put their children on the bus purely because of the lack of safety. Each day, three different modes of transport go to and come back from the same school. A double-decker bus takes the primary school children, a minibus takes the nursery school children and a taxi takes two disabled children, one of whom is in a wheelchair. I find that frustrating, because yellow buses are geared up to take all those different groups. If we had a yellow bus, a single mode of transport could take the kids to the same place, thereby knocking out the need for a taxi and a minibus.
There is also the issue at the other end, where the school is complaining about the number of cars that are turning up. The school has got the police involved, who give people parking tickets. Much of the problem would be alleviated if all the pupils went on the bus.
In your opening remarks, you briefly mentioned the enforcement of the use of seat belts on school buses. Do you have anything more to say about that or about behaviour on school buses?
People have asked how we could police the wearing of seat belts and ensure that pupils put them on. Most of our buses these days have CCTV on them. Rather than working individually, everyone—from transport and education to parents and pupils—needs to work together as a team. In Moray, the parents have signed a charter, under which they will enforce the wearing of seat belts by their children. Children need to be educated in how to travel safely.
How many children are we talking about?
In the village I am from, Kingseat, there are 33 primary school children and approximately eight nursery children. Two primary school children go in a taxi. The road that our bus takes is winding and small. With a double-decker bus, the chances of an accident are high—the road is fairly accident ridden as it is. From a parent's point of view, the possibility of 33 children from a little village being injured or wiped out in one hit does not bear thinking about.
I was under the impression that all buses or coaches that were built after a particular date had to be fitted at source with either a lap belt or a fixed three-point safety belt. Is that not the case?
That certainly is the case. However, local councils can get round that by using buses that are classed as public service buses, which are not required to have seat belts. That is the loophole that we want closed. Using public service buses helps the council to get lower quotes, because a 37 per cent fuel tax rebate can be claimed for such buses, but not for private journeys.
Your documentation states clearly that if a seat belt is fitted, it must be worn. That is a lax ruling, is it not? If a belt is not fitted, people do not need to bother, but if it is there, they must wear it.
That is right.
It seems a bit stupid.
I agree.
Then again, you make the point that local authorities are probably looking at their budgets. You made a point about best value being the lowest price. That seems odd if we consider the cost of an injury to a child on a bus. That is where the cost comes in.
That is right, but my argument is that we cannot put a cost on a child's life or an injury to a child. I realise that councils have financial problems and that cost implications are involved, but when it comes down to a person's life or an injury to them, no value can be put on that.
You make an important point about educating children to use seat belts. As an aside, I used to run school buses and I have seen parents come on to a bus, put their child on a seat and put the belt on, but then 50yd down the road, the bairn is out of the seat. There must be a degree of education.
That requires teamwork from everyone who is involved—parents, pupils, schools, education authorities and transport companies must work together. It is not the drivers' responsibility to ensure that children wear their seat belts. As a parent, I feel that education is everyone's responsibility, so that we can tackle the problem. Once we have got it in children's heads that they must wear a seat belt, they know. My son knows—he gets in the car, sits down and then panics and says, "Don't turn on the engine until my belt is on." It could be exactly the same on a bus, but we need to educate children to get to that point.
Your petition has a lot of merit.
I thought that the petitioners would get sympathy from the committee—we have a former bus driver and a former bus conductor, so they are in with a good shout. I know that his eminence is here, I sometimes paid on the buses, but not always.
It is like a brick wall. I called the education authority on Friday in response to the news that police officers are travelling on secondary school buses—which I could not believe. I think that it is horrendous that we have police officers on school buses, and I wanted the authority's views on that. A gentleman from the council returned my call yesterday. When I asked whether he was aware of the petition, he said, "Yes, there's a lady from Kingseat going over to Parliament." I told him that that was me, and he said, "Oh yes, I've been briefed about that." I thought that that was good, as I am getting about and everyone is getting to know about me, but the response seems negative. It is almost as if people do not want to do anything because they are happy with how things are. It is almost like a fight—but I am up for that.
You mentioned adult supervision on buses. Have you had any thoughts about how that could be provided? I have had experiences of school buses. Plans fell flat simply because parents were expected to provide the adult supervision and not enough were willing to do it. Have you any thoughts about that?
That is a difficult question. We have asked our school whether we can supervise our bus, as it would make us feel more comfortable. Its response was that it did not want parents to do that because, if there were any issues with someone else's child, a parent could be perceived as being biased against that child and in favour of their own child. I can understand that.
I certainly thought that it was a difficult issue—that is why I asked about it.
Very much so. Also, if someone goes on a bus to provide supervision, someone else could ask, "Are you Disclosure Scotland checked? Can you work with children? We don't know your background." That is a tricky question that needs a lot of thought and work.
What is the road accident record of the strip of road to the school?
Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me. However, I have lived in the village for nine years, and I know that there is an accident on that road, whether it is minor or major, at least every month. It is a windy road. People speed down it and there are accidents all the time.
The petition has raised a number of issues. When we received it a few weeks back, it was a surprise that there was a difference between nursery and primary school children in the use of seat belts on buses. It is not solely the problem of Fife Council—the petition probably throws up a complication for other authorities.
Could we ask the Scottish Government for its comments and find out whether it would be willing to put something in the concordat to ensure that local authorities insist on buses with seat belts?
I would like to find out a bit more about the yellow school buses.
I suggest that we write to the Department for Transport—after all, it legislates on such issues—and find out whether it is preparing to introduce a change to the legislation in the near future that would address the problem.
That is the suggestion that I was going to make. I suggest that, when we write to COSLA, we ask it to be specific about best value. My understanding is that, as I was continually told previously, best value is not always the cheapest option but should be the one that provides best value for the service. There is serious concern that, if local authorities are providing services based on cost, they must ensure that safety considerations are built in.
Fife Council has been mentioned. I think that the petitioner said that Moray Council had a good way of operating, so perhaps we should contact it and ask what it is doing. I must show my ignorance: are there other road safety organisations? Who do we talk to about such things? It is probably not the Automobile Association.
There is an agency called Road Safety Scotland, which we could write to. I have another suggestion, but I will let Helen Eadie in first.
I was going to make the point about asking Moray Council to comment. Another road safety organisation is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It might be worth while contacting it. I reiterate the point that Lynn Merrifield made about comparing the legislation on the safety of animals travelling with that on the safety of children. I commend her once more for the work that she and her colleagues have done.
I have a comment about risk assessment. The record of school buses might be relatively good on accidents, but what happens if a bus with 30 or 40 children is involved in an accident? That gives us a completely different perspective on what kind of risk assessment we should use.
That is right. Prevention is better than cure. If we tackle the problem before it happens, everyone is happy.
It might also be worth drawing the petition to the attention of Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, who may well have the resources to explore some of the issues from a child safety point of view and could take a standard approach.
Yes, it has—thank you.
I hope that we can move this further forward for you.
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
The next petition is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to guarantee retention of continuing care provision for patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care as provided at the 30-bed unit at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care provision at hospices in the context of Health Department letter (2003)18 are fair and reasonable.
I thank the convener and the committee members for allowing us to present our petition of 60,000 signatures in person. I hope that you have all had an opportunity to read it. I have asked Sister Rita Dawson, who is chief executive of the hospice, and Professor Leo Martin, who is chairman of the board of the hospice, to accompany me to answer questions regarding Scotland's first ever hospice, which is open to all regardless of age, race, creed or colour.
Thank you, Marjorie. I know that that was a tough shift for you, so well done. Do the other witnesses have anything to add?
I would like to provide more background. For the past 27 years—since 1980—we have tried to negotiate a position of stability with the health board and to get a contract with it, so that we can be certain that it will continue to use our services. Over that period, we have been supported by the health board; since 1950, when St Margaret of Scotland Hospice was established, our relations with the board have been good.
Has the health board given you any understandable reason for its decision to proceed as it has, without consultation?
I wish that I could answer that positively, but I cannot. All that we have had from the health board—this has been in the media—is a statement from a spokesperson that the board will continue to support the hospice. The problem is that the board does not appear to wish to support the hospice by providing hospice beds. If that is the case, the whole ethos of the hospice, the ambience and the provision will change. If there was an explanation, I would be happy to give you it, but I do not have one.
Is the board looking to take away from the hospice the palliative care beds or the elderly care beds?
It is looking to take away the elderly care beds.
Did it give you an opportunity to tender?
No opportunity was given to tender. The health board tells us that there was a review of provision, given the demographics: the number of beds will go from 90 beds to 60, which will be provided at Blawarthill. We will lose our 30 beds at that point.
What will happen to your current residents? Is the board looking to transfer them? Has it spoken to their families? My understanding is that if you transfer elderly people out of one home into another, a lot of them do not survive the transition very well, unless it is handled sensitively and they are moved in gradually, given time to become accustomed to their new surroundings and allowed to go back home at night.
We have to contextualise this. The health board is framing the change as being about provision of elderly care. My understanding—the statistics have been provided—is that the people who come into St Margaret's ward normally stay with us for between four and six weeks. Some stay longer, but that is the average length of stay. On that basis, not a lot of notice is required. We also have longer-term residents. People come to the ward in a very poor medical condition and get better after they are received into the ward.
We have perhaps six or seven patients who were not expected to live but have been there for some time. Over the past number of years, patients have normally been with us for between four to six weeks. The problem is that we were not consulted about the patients and I do not think that our 30 beds were included in the decision making. The health board's opinion was that the beds were nursing home beds, but they are not. The geriatricians have always referred patients with complex medical and nursing needs to us because we also have the expertise of the palliative care team—one team complements the other. We get patients who would have to remain in hospital if they did not come to the hospice.
You said that the health board has not consulted you. Did it carry out any public consultation, given that it is reconfiguring services?
It did not as far as I am aware. I am sorry to sound like a lawyer—that is a terrible lawyer's answer—but that is what I am. I checked the website and the only disclosures that I could get from the health board's press releases were on the decision to save Blawarthill because there was a legitimate campaign in the area to retain that facility in some way, and the announcement that the contract had been let and that the private provider was going to build the new facility. Perhaps other things happened in the meantime, but I am not aware of them as chairman of the board and I certainly do not have any evidence to suggest that such consultation took place.
Forgive me, but as I represent an area a long way from the scene of the crime, I am genuinely confused about where we are in the process. You say that a contract has been let to refurbish a hospital that already exists. I want to establish to what extent the decisions that you are reasonably complaining about are reversible. What options do the perpetrators now have to correct things?
Let us hope that the decisions are reversible. My understanding is that the site of the existing Blawarthill hospital is to be redeveloped and that on it some form of public-private initiative facility will be put in place, which will be used by the NHS to provide 60 beds for care of frail elderly people.
St Margaret's already provides such care. Why did the NHS not say to St Margaret's, can you take another 30 beds when the new hospital is being built? If the health board is providing funding for a new hospital to be opened, it will knock down a really old one on the site. The health board says that there is a need to provide care for people with drug abuse and alcohol abuse problems and with mental health impairment. Can those people not go to Blawarthill and let the frail elderly stay where the expertise is?
I live within about 300yd of a hospice, so you are preaching to the converted—I agree with you. That is perhaps why in my previous question I used some pejorative terms, which I should not have used. I still want to know what options are open to those who are making decisions. We cannot reverse things that are irreversible, to state the obvious. I am looking for clues as to what we can try to do, whom we can try to influence and what we can try to achieve.
I invite Des McNulty, the constituency member, to speak, because he has been involved with the campaign and the campaigners on the issue. I know that Nigel Don has asked some questions, but Des McNulty can perhaps clarify a couple of issues.
Before I respond to a couple of the points that have been raised, it is worth pointing out that Marjorie and others have collected more than 60,000 signatures for the petition, which is at the back of the committee room—I do not know whether Denis would like to show members the physical proof.
Is Denis your young, lovely assistant this afternoon? Did he not use to be in Equity?
Denis is the provost of West Dunbartonshire Council. We have strong cross-party support from not only that council but from people in East Dunbartonshire and in Glasgow, which the hospice also serves.
I take your point about funding. I do not want to argue with it—in fact, I am not sure that it is arguable. I go back to the point about where we are with the reconfiguration. Are you happy that, broadly, the number of beds can be made to add up so that we have the right provision at St Margaret's and at Blawarthill? Is that broadly a trade that could be commended?
There are two options. I suspect that the health board is trying to reduce by too much the provision of continuing care beds in the north side of greater Glasgow. However, it will review the balance of care numbers, so it is feasible that another 30 beds might be required. If so, that would allow St Margaret's to continue, and the health board could continue with its plans for Blawarthill, if that was the best option.
Is the timescale for the development at Blawarthill months, years or many years?
An advert was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union to take the matter forward. I do not think that any building work is going on, but it might be due to take place relatively shortly. The health board will need to do some demolition and rebuilding on the site. I do not know where we are with the plans for that or the timescale, but there will be an opportunity before the facility is commissioned to make the adjustments that I have suggested.
At the beginning of your presentation, you said that there was a scoping exercise in which the health board considered future needs, but what is happening now does not tally with that. It seems that, in a sense, the board is robbing Peter to rob Paul. Is that the case?
I certainly agree with the second point. I do not think that it would be a big disruption to change the architecture, and the health board could be asked to consider that; the design should be under review anyway. The board should not build on the basis of a report that is two or three years old. When it finalises the design, it will have an extra three years' worth of information on which to base its decision.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on the petition. I am here to make it clear to the committee that this is truly a cross-party campaign and that anybody who understands the situation at St Margaret and is willing and able to participate and assist in the campaign is welcome to do so.
On the basis of the evidence that we have heard so far, St Margaret must be commended for the service it provides, but I have concerns about the comparators that St Margaret provides for other hospices throughout Scotland. In their supporting evidence, the petitioners comment on other hospice providers, on disagreements between St Margaret and them and on how St Margaret makes like-for-like comparisons with other hospices.
Disagreement is a strong word. It is not St Margaret's intention to make negative comparisons of the other hospices. In certain hospices, there is an understanding, to do with individuality and control, that 50 per cent is adequate. In our hospice, we have looked at the figures over the past 57 years, but we have been prejudiced against because we have been good value for money. We have delivered to the health board at a low cost base over the years, which has meant that the 50 per cent HDL on funding is prejudiced against us. Our historic cost is lower, so we have been funded lower and, because of that, we do not get enough to allow us to do what we would like to do within the hospice.
While I acknowledge your comments, I am trying to analyse what is in front of us in relation to the hospice service throughout Scotland. As I said earlier, I would like to think that, as a modern and caring Scotland, we provide the resources that are required to deliver all the services that are needed. My concern, and that of Des McNulty and others, is the health board's decision, without any consultation, potentially to reduce the number of beds that can be provided by the hospice and depriving it of vital resources that allow it to deliver a service. That opens up a wider debate about what health boards are doing in relation to care—in this instance the care that is being provided by a very good hospice that is being undermined by decisions that are outwith its control and that are being made without any consultation. We need to ask the health board for answers to our concerns, which are—as I hope the committee agrees—why there was no consultation, why certain decisions have been made and how we should take the matter forward.
If there are no further questions from members, I invite His Eminence Cardinal Keith O'Brien to make some concluding comments, before we identify the next stage for the petition.
I thank the convener and committee members for considering the petition. It was signed by 60,000 old people. That is bus loads. Young people were singing carols from about 10 o'clock this morning—they were here at about 11 o'clock. I might be accused of speaking from the heart rather than the mind, but the intellectual arguments have already been handed on by some of our group. Others have spoken from the heart of course, especially Marjorie McCance, who has first-hand experience of the hospice because of her mother. When I say that I am speaking from the heart, I am thinking of the individuals who, over the past 57 years, have prepared for eternity in St Margaret's, and of those who are doing so at present.
Thank you very much. I apologise for the noise, which came from outside the committee room.
Over the past few years, we have been trying to get the health board to give us a decision on its thinking and planning. Finally, earlier this year, Sister Rita and I heard of the decision at a meeting with the board's then chairman and chief executive. We thought that the meeting was to discuss a capital contribution to our new build—which we hoped the board would make—but, instead, we were told that the board had decided to close 30 beds and that we should prepare to accommodate a change in need. That was the first we heard of the decision. It was presented to us as a fait accompli.
I think that we have had a good opportunity to discuss the petition. Indeed, this is probably the longest we have ever spent with individual petitioners. That is not a criticism—I understand why we have done so; it has allowed Marjorie McCance to explain the reality of what is needed and to make clear the emotional commitment that family members and other individuals in the same situation have made.
We have to write to Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to find out why it has reached its decision and where it might go from here. As it might be interesting to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's views on the matter, we should also write to the Scottish Government.
I agree with those two suggestions, but when we write to the health board we should ask about the process that it follows on such matters. My understanding is that when health boards change provision, they have to carry out a consultation. I do not think that we can interfere with individual health board decisions, but we can find out whether the various processes have been properly followed, whether the health board carried out a consultation and whom it consulted. We should also raise with the Scottish Government how hospices are funded and provided for, as it seems that some are able to fundraise while others are not.
I keep demonstrating my ignorance of this subject—forgive me, but I am not in this business—but I take it that all sorts of organisations know something about palliative care. Indeed, the petitioners in front of us might be able to suggest other organisations that we should consult on technical matters.
I think that the committee should do its utmost for this project.
Do members have any other suggestions?
Perhaps we should also write to NHS Quality Improvement Scotland not just on palliative care but on the fact that, as I understand the petition, elderly care is being removed from the hospice with the suggestion that it care instead for people with addiction problems. I am not sure how that fits in with the operation of an organisation that provides palliative care or indeed with quality standards in Scotland.
It might also be useful to seek the views of those who provide hospice care. When I attended last Friday's event for St Andrew's Hospice in Lanarkshire, I was struck by the fact that the demand for care exceeds the number of beds available. We need a better picture of current hospice provision, but to get a full picture of what is going on we should also be aware that demand for care exceeds provision. As a result, we need to find out whether hospices feel that demand for their services is greater. I know that there is a quick turnaround in hospices, but is Scotland adequately covered by such services or do we need more provision?
I agree with all the points that have been made so far. I share Nigel Don's sense of urgency and believe that we need to ask for prompt replies to our inquiries, especially whether the health board has acted within the rules and regulations governing health boards' relationships with outside bodies. If it has operated within the rules, there is an urgent need for a review of the relationship between health boards and charitable and private providers. The relationship does not seem to have worked properly in this case.
Okay. We have a fair number of suggestions. Des McNulty, the local member, may have a helpful suggestion to make—as always.
I would like to be helpful. There are two issues in the petition, one of which perhaps needs to be addressed more urgently than the other. Hospice funding requires a systematic investigation and is a matter to refer to the Health and Sport Committee, if members agree to do so. That committee is the body that is best equipped to consider that issue in the appropriate depth and detail.
I will take comments from members and then allow Marjorie McCance to respond.
It is said in English, which I learned here, that all is well that ends well; so, we must do something to ensure dignity, respect and care for people at the end. Anything that we can do, we should do.
I am looking for positive ways forward on this. Am I right in thinking that, if Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has made a decision, the only way to change that—without going to the law courts, which are no use to man nor beast on any timescale—is to get the cabinet secretary to instruct? Is that a fair interpretation of the practical world in which we live?
We are not entirely sure about the legal position of the decisions that the health board has taken in terms of its commitments to a pattern of care. I suspect that it might not be too late for a reconfiguration of services. As I said earlier, it is also possible that, if the health board goes back through its numbers and decides that it is scaling down continuing care too much, one option might be to allow the continuing care provision at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice to be retained.
The petition asks a couple of specific things, but I think that the core issue lies in the implications of a decision not being thought through and the substantial consequences. The debate must be about whether you and the health board can engage in a much more constructive way, looking at the numbers, at the direction of provision and at the future, so that the economics of how you survive as a charitable institution are not jeopardised in the way that the trajectory might suggest. We need to try and get the health board engaged.
I want the committee to understand that it is not just me who has been out collecting signatures; a lot of people have been involved.
Thank you very much. We have had a good opportunity to explore some of the fundamental issues that impact on St Margaret's. I know that it has been difficult for you to go through some parts of this process, Marjorie, but you have done really well—be proud of yourself. I say that to the other contributors, too. This has been a very good discussion. Let us hope that we can push the issue forward for you. Thank you for your time.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Hospital Parking (Charges) (PE1091)
I reconvene the meeting. We have just had a fairly lengthy submission, but it was required because of the issues and the emotion that the petition threw up.
The petition is clearly PE1086 in a slightly different guise. It is important that we deal with the two together.
The timing of the submission of the petitions was different. Because of the protocol for receiving petitions, we had to bring PE1091 to the committee at a different time. However, the two raise similar issues, so we should try to pull them together in future discussions of responses. Do members have any points to raise on Mary Murray's petition?
We must bear in mind the provision of parking. Sometimes, if no cost is attached, there is no disincentive for folk who are visiting somewhere other than the hospital to use the hospital car parking. The issue is more complex than one of cost. The committee must consider ways of ensuring that hospital parking is available for people who work in or visit the hospital rather than for folk who are visiting places round about. If we cracked that, issues such as parking charges would be solved easily.
I do not want to spend much time on this, because we have amplified many of the points previously. However, Paul Martin may want to clarify a few issues.
Margo MacDonald is famous for calling me Michael, but now you are doing it, convener.
I am having more and more senior moments.
I want to make several points, to amplify some of Mary Murray's concerns. The petition is different from PE1086 from Chris Paterson, because it refers to the local community experience rather than the staff experience. Chris Paterson lodged an effective and comprehensive petition that described the difficulties that staff have experienced as a result of charges. Mary Murray is concerned about the impact that the charges will have in the local community that neighbours Stobhill hospital. There is documented photographic evidence to prove that contractors already park in sites surrounding the hospital.
Do members have any other comments or observations on the suggestions that have been made?
I seek clarification. Will the points that Paul Martin has made be dealt with in the on-going review? If we took up his suggestion, would we be duplicating work that will come to the Parliament anyway, through the review?
I am not sure about the process that is involved. I imagine that the review will go to the minister and then to the Health and Sport Committee. That would be the normal procedure.
Again, I come to the issue from the perspective of my experience as a councillor in Dundee, when I inherited the same problem. People parked outside Ninewells hospital rather than pay the parking charge, so I understand the issue. We finished up by having a residents parking permit scheme, at considerable expense and about which nobody was happy.
In Aberdeen, I have experienced the problems that arise when people park in residential streets around hospitals. I know that in Dundee there was dialogue with Dundee City Council and a solution was found. There has been much dialogue between NHS Grampian and Aberdeen City Council, too. Is there such dialogue in relation to parking at Stobhill? If not, perhaps there should be.
I have had a quick glance at the response from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on PE1086. The figures support Paul Martin's assertion that pressure at Stobhill hospital is not the same as it is at other sites. The staff parking ratio is 1:1, so there is no urgent need to introduce charging.
There seems to be willingness on the part of the committee to invite the chief executive or a representative of the health board to the committee. We should agree that in principle and explore the option. The only issue is whether, when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has considered the review group's findings, the Health and Sport Committee will want to call in key players, and what the timescale for that would be. We might have to deal with that issue behind the scenes. It is a matter of protocol that we should be aware of other committees' roles. Do members agree in principle to invite the chief executive or a representative of the health board to the committee to discuss the issues that are raised in the petition?
I support that suggestion. We should invite the board's chief executive and chair. The chief executive makes recommendations, but the board takes the decision. If the chair and chief executive both come to the committee, they will not be able to blame each other for making the final decision.
John Wilson is quite correct. We should ask the newly appointed chair to give evidence on a number of issues of concern to members, to do with the interaction with the local community. The community asks why it should have to solve a problem that has been caused by its neighbour—the hospital. People have lived in harmony with Stobhill hospital for 100 years. They have been good neighbours to the hospital and have supported it throughout that time. They now feel dumped on by the fact that the health board wants to create a nice new car parking regime and, of course, charge people for it. That will have an effect on the local community.
We can leave it at that. I know that Paul Martin commented on the difference between the petition that is in front of us today and the one that we considered a couple of weeks back. However, as there are similar broad themes, I would like to group them together, while recognising that one is more about the residential impact while the other deals more with staff and long-term hospital users. If we agree to that in principle, we will detail behind the scenes what to do in considering the review process.
I omitted to mention one other point. It would be unhelpful for the health board to take a decision on the matter prior to any committee evidence session. Having dealt with the health board, I know that it is not unusual for it to make announcements during the Christmas and new year period. It would help the committee to receive evidence before a decision is made.
We would not want a health board to behave like a Government—of whatever hue.
Advice Agencies (Annual Monitoring) (PE1096)
The next petition is PE1096, on the annual monitoring of advice agencies. The petition is by William McCormack on behalf of Dumfries Welfare Rights, and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action, either through new legislation or by enhancing the enforcement of existing legislation, to ensure that all advice agencies that are in receipt of lottery or public funding exceeding £25,000 per annum are subject to annual compulsory monitoring by specialist independent audit or peer review bodies in order to assess the standard of advice that is given to the public by the staff and volunteers in such agencies.
I come from a voluntary sector background. Although I have some sympathy for the petition, the problem for me is that a £25,000 income for a voluntary sector organisation is not a lot of money. Although auditing procedures and the monitoring of charitable and lottery funding can be welcome in regulating advice services, introducing that for organisations that are in receipt of just £25,000 or more could impose a heavy financial burden that would kill off some smaller voluntary sector advice organisations.
If the money were available, it might be better spent on training and support for small organisations than on auditing. However, I do not think that it is available.
We need to review the situation and to get an indication of what is happening throughout the advice services. We know about the main service providers—citizens advice bureaux—but a number of organisations with which I was involved provide employment rights advice independently of CABx. A range of organisations are providing advice in various areas. They include independent trade union centres and unemployed workers centres, some of which are not linked to national bodies.
It is clear that the petition raises some issues. John Wilson has made some useful suggestions. Do we agree to seek the views of organisations that he mentioned on the petition?
Public Sector Contracts (PE1097)
PE1097, which is also from William McCormack, on behalf of Dumfries Welfare Rights, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take action, either through the introduction of new legislation or by enhancing the enforcement of existing legislation, to make it an offence for any local authority or public sector body to award a contract with a value exceeding £25,000 per annum without first adopting a competitive tendering and best value-based approach.
SCVO and Citizens Advice Scotland should be asked to comment on both this and the previous petition. Citizens advice bureaux have their own funding streams, and some receive just over £25,000. What the petition proposes could restrict the funding of bureaux by local authorities. We may also want to seek the Scottish Government's view on the petition, as it funds a number of national voluntary organisations. The Government should be clear about how the public pound is being spent and about whether best practice, which need not be regulatory practice, has been adopted by most funders.
Given that, as with the previous one, the source of the petition is Dumfries and Galloway, and given that the local authority is a critical player in the grant mechanisms and in taking an overview through community planning, we should ask Dumfries and Galloway Council for its views on both petitions. Do we accept the recommendations?
Planning Applications (PE1101)
PE1101, from David Milne, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all relevant planning policies and guidance are adhered to—we clearly have an omniscient petitioner here—and to consider the circumstances under which the Scottish ministers instruct local inquiries when planning applications, such as that for a housing and golf development at Balmedie, are considered. Do members have any suggestions on how the committee should deal with the petition? I would not want the committee to be divided on it on party-political grounds, but let us see.
I have stated publicly in the north-east that I am in favour of the development, so it would not be correct for me to take part in the committee's discussion.
I respect that. Thank you.
I have stated the opposite—that I am not in favour of the development—so perhaps I should not take part in the discussion. However, the Liberal Democrats have lodged a motion to discuss the matter in the Parliament, so perhaps it would be better to delay our discussion until after that motion has been debated.
Because of the events of the past fortnight, the issue has moved way up the scrutiny agenda. That is the best euphemism that I can use at the moment without ruling myself out of the discussion. As I am not a golf fanatic and do not know the neighbourhood, the only interest that I can declare is that I am a partisan member of a particular party.
The petition is not specific to the Balmedie application; it is about the application of planning policy. I am aware of the motion that Robert Brown has lodged, but I do not think that it would prevent the committee from furthering its consideration of the petition.
I was not saying that the motion would prevent us, but we should take it into consideration.
I am one of the North East Scotland regional MSPs who has not expressed any view about the Balmedie application and who does not intend to, other than to hope that we can find a satisfactory solution. I suggest that the petitioner is asking for the Government to tell local representatives that they do not have discretion, which is precisely what they do have under planning law and what the Scottish ministers have to call in a planning application. Therefore, I wonder whether the petition is competent—I do not wish to be unkind—in the sense that that is not what it is about. The legislation leaves local representatives the discretion to make a judgment about whether guidelines will be adhered to or whether there are material reasons for deviating from them. That is what the statute says so, at its core, the petition is saying that we should rewrite planning law. Are we going to call on the Scottish Parliament to do that?
It is legitimate for the committee to consider the petition. We should put the circumstances of the past fortnight to the back of our minds and ignore the issues that have arisen. The committee needs to consider the matter fully and it would be useful to consult certain players in the planning framework. It may sharpen the minds of some of those organisations in relation to the recent developments in a particular area of Scotland. If the evidence that the committee receives raises a need to review or change the current planning legislation, it would be legitimate for the committee to undertake that work and recommend that that be done. We should not consider any framework or any legislation to be set in stone; we must examine it.
I agree. We must park the controversial issues and consider the petition on its own merit. We could add a load of statutory consultees for planning purposes to our list of organisations whose views we will seek. I understand that if a statutory consultee does not approve a planning application, that application can be called in. We must consider all that.
What Rhoda Grant said sparked in my mind the idea that some organisations do not have to follow the planning process. If my memory serves me correctly, several organisations that operate in Scotland do not have to apply for planning consent for developments. Consulting some of them, such as the Ministry of Defence, might be worth while.
That is a fair amount of writing for the clerks.
Well, it is the holiday period.
Fergus Cochrane's only concern is that the list of statutory consultees might be fairly extensive.
Yes.
You will see your family some time—do not worry.
Convener, as you know, I am a newcomer to the committee and to the country.
You have been about for a long time—I have seen you.
Has such a big investment—£1 billion—ever been proposed in Scotland before?
I was short by a couple of thousand, but I tried my best.
Thanks for allowing me to speak again, convener. What kind of conditions does the planning committee have to consider when it receives the application?
There are procedures in place at local government level and in the national planning guidelines. As I understand it, the application in question went through a number of stages. The Government has a role in being able to call in an application. I do not want to dwell on this, because there will be plenty of other opportunities to discuss these issues in the chamber and beyond. It is about the process and the role that people play, whether the local authority convener, the local authority overall, the chief planner or the Government minister. All we know is that the final decision on the matter will be for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to make. The local member and others cannot be seen to be involved in that process. That is the issue. I do not think that there is anyone here who does not accept that we are talking about a substantial business venture with significant economic benefits for the north-east. The concern that people have, and on which they want reassurance, is that the process has been followed. There is a lot of stuff to do on the petition.
Rural Post Offices (PE1102)
PE1102, from Councillor Bill Herd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to assess the impact that the UK Government's recent announcement on the future of the post office network, both sub-post offices and Crown post office relocation, will have on rural communities in Scotland, such as Galashiels.
The Postal Services Commission would have a legitimate interest in this.
We should also write to COSLA.
Okay. There is an opportunity for members here and representatives at Westminster to raise these issues. It is a difficult issue for everybody and it affects all our communities. Do members agree to the recommendations?
Violence against Women (PE1103)
PE1103, from Susan Moffat, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to prioritise the continuing development of strategic work on violence against women by following the three Ps approach: active prevention of violence against women and children; adequate provision of quality support services for women and children; and appropriate and effective legal protection for women and children.
When we are writing to the Scottish Government could we seek reassurance about the removal of ring fencing of funding for women's aid, children's domestic violence funding and supporting people funding? All the pots that fund women's aid are going to have their ring fence removed, which is really worrying.
As well as the organisations that you listed, convener, I suggest that we write to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
Okay.
When we write to the Scottish Government, can we ask for information on progress with the violence against women fund, which is due to run out in March 2008? We should ask the Government whether there is a future for that fund or whether it will come to a close.
Okay. [Interruption.] If anyone has a mobile phone switched on, will they please turn it off? I hope that it is not mine.
Wind Farm Developments (PE1104)
The final new petition today is PE1104, from Professor Dixie Dean, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the impact of mechanical vibrations that are transmitted down through wind turbine installations on peat, soils, invertebrates, fungi and bioaerosols, which lie at the base of the food chain, when it considers applications for onshore wind farms, and to commission research into the impact of such vibrations on such habitats and species. Members have a brief note on the issue from Professor Dean, which was circulated by the clerk.
I wonder how we can get hold of what I might describe as the science community. I have no idea where we will find the right people, but there will be departmental heads in universities who know about these things. I do not know where to find them—we cannot go looking down a hole for these folk—but I bet there is a group of people out there who know something about it.
It cannot be beyond our wit to contact perhaps two university departments and say, "Look, this has come to the Public Petitions Committee. If you have time, will you give us your views on the issues that it raises?" Do members agree with that approach?
Thank you.
Next
Current Petitions