Official Report 301KB pdf
Sleep Apnoea (PE953)
Item 2 is current petitions. The petitions that we will discuss were lodged and discussed either before the election or since the current committee was established.
I understand that SIGN 73, which covers the matter, is to be updated. If that is the case, we can close the petition and let the matter take its course.
I cannot remember exactly, but the issue was raised with me a considerable time ago by a constituent. I think that it was put to me at that time that there is significant variation between health boards in the way in which the condition is dealt with. I wonder whether we should contact COSLA and ask whether the health boards are implementing the guidelines.
The third paragraph in the response from the Government says:
That is not an unreasonable suggestion. The fact that the guidelines have been updated addresses one of the issues in the petition, but there is also the issue of the allocation of resources to the different health boards. We can write to the Scottish Government and health boards about the support that boards are given. That will, hopefully, resolve some of the issues that have been raised in the petition. Is that agreed?
Thank you for your patience.
Plagiocephaly (PE960)
PE960, from Ms Claire McCready, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that cranial abnormalities and deformities of babies are properly recognised and treated by evaluating babies at birth and at six weeks; that appropriate advice is available to parents, including repositioning advice; and that cranial remoulding therapy is available free of charge from the NHS. Members have copies of the written submission relating to the petition. Do members have any suggestions on how the committee should deal with the petition?
It is worth recognising that the petition has achieved quite a lot, in that the Government has accepted the need for further research. Arrangements have also been made to ensure that parents are more aware of the condition, and health care professionals are being advised of the need to check for the condition, which was a key request of the petition. There would, therefore, be an attraction in closing the petition. However, it might be worth keeping the petition open until we know what research has been undertaken and it has been completed.
That is a reasonable suggestion. Are we all okay with that? We have had a look at the papers and we recognise that progress is being made in some ways, but we want to get the full picture. Does the committee accept that recommendation from Claire Baker?
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (PE965)
The next petition is PE965, which is from Dean Widd, on behalf of Parent Project UK Muscular Dystrophy (Scotland). The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that sufficient funding and resources are in place to combat problems and to ensure that the care requirements of those with particular types of dystrophy are met. Members have copies of the written submission relating to the petition. Do members have any suggestions on how the committee should respond to the petition?
Again, several initiatives have been undertaken in response to the petition; nevertheless, it would be helpful to know where we are at. We could ask the Government to update us on how it is taking forward some of the initiatives that have been started.
Are members happy with that recommendation?
Swimming Pools (Investment) (PE966)<br />Community Sports Facilities (PE1041)
The next two petitions, PE966 and PE1041, are grouped together. PE966, by Robert A Lambert, on behalf of Glenrothes Community Action Group, is about the lack of investment in swimming pools in Scotland; the petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to address the report that was published in 2000 by sportscotland on investment in and maintenance of swimming pools throughout the country. PE1041, by Les Trotter, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take the necessary steps to ensure that the facilities and pitches that are used by all community-based sports clubs are of a standard that befits a leading European nation. Members have copies of the written submissions relating to the petitions in front of them. Are there any comments?
On looking through the papers, I noticed that the representative from Fife Leisure Action Group still seems to be quite frustrated by the process. I have some sympathy; it seems as though local government and the Scottish Government recognise that the need for sporting facilities is a priority, but funding pressures limit any progress, certainly at local government level. I also have sympathy with the position in which local authorities have found themselves in recent years in having to make quite difficult choices about the policy areas in which they prioritise funding. Sport and leisure facilities have been squeezed during that period.
Would it be worth while referring the two petitions to the Health and Sport Committee for consideration?
Can we refer both petitions? Can we keep them live by writing to the Government?
If the committee has identified issues that it would like to pursue, it can carry on considering the petitions. However, once the committee receives further responses, it might be in a position to refer the petitions formally. I am not aware of the timetable for the Health and Sport Committee's inquiry, which could be under way by the time that any responses came back to us. I can ask the Health and Sport Committee clerks about the timetable.
It might also be helpful to pursue with the Health and Sport Committee clerks the remit of that committee's inquiry and to get a bit more detail about what it will be considering.
This is a big issue, in which I have an interest because of my portfolio responsibilities. In a sense, the answer is partnership; that may be a cliché, but it is true. It is about getting in resources at national and local level, and using incentives and encouragement. One of the petitioners' issues is massive and would require major investment; the other issue concerns local partnerships through sports development.
There will be an inquiry and I guess that we will start to take evidence in the new year. We have the budget reports to do and there is a bill to be considered, too. We are also gathering bits of information on another inquiry. There is probably time to allow the Public Petitions Committee to do some further work on the petitions before referring them on. Could we copy the petitions to the Health and Sport Committee for information?
I was about to say that. Can we inform the Health and Sport Committee about the petitions? I imagine that they would be of interest to that committee, because community clubs or voluntary groups would say that they are about encouraging a seven-year-old boy or girl to participate actively in sport whether it takes place on red blaes or black ash or in a run-down pavilion. That youngster will not have such an experience in other areas of their life—sports do not compare with other products that are available in much comfier surroundings.
I do not want to disagree with you, convener, but I wonder whether it would be competent for the committee to delegate work to you. Could you speak to the convener of the Health and Sport Committee, no doubt with help from the clerks, and work out the best practical way forward? That discussion may clearly show how to progress.
Okay. We will do that. The petitions will therefore remain live. Thank you for that help.
Leisure Facilities (PE990)
PE990, from Derek Rosie and Colin McCall, on behalf of Penicuik Community Education Association, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the provision of community leisure facilities across Scotland. The petition is not dissimilar to the previous petitions. Members have papers on the impact of the closure of leisure centres and facilities in the Penicuik area. Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?
It would be sensible to group consideration of this petition with consideration of PE966 and PE1041, if that is possible.
Okay. We could group it with the petitions on investment in infrastructure and facilities. We need to deal with the general rather than the locational issues, although that is not always the case with petitions, as local issues drive people's concerns. We will group the petitions together and explore the issues.
Jet-skis (PE978)
PE978, by Diana Cairns, on behalf of Portobello community council, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider how best to restrict the use of jet-skis in the vicinity of public beaches, particularly in residential areas. We have substantial documentation on the petition.
If that is the case, can we close the petition?
Yes. We could close it and invite the City of Edinburgh Council to consider meeting the petitioner to discuss progress on the issues that the petition raises. Do members agree?
I thank members for their patience in dealing with the petition.
Plants (Complaints) (PE984)
The next petition is PE984 by Dr Colin Watson, on behalf of Scothedge, which calls on the Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints about vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines and other plants.
The petition raises a big issue. It is a growing issue.
Yes. Do members have any views on how to deal with the matter?
I thought that it had been resolved. The petitioner originally suggested that there should be nothing above 2m, and that anything above 2m should be trimmed. However, two years down the line, nothing seems to have happened.
We should write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on when it will decide how it will address the matter or when it will introduce legislation.
That would be the best course of action. We could find out where the Government is with respect to the legislative framework—if there is to be any—and then decide how to deal with the petition.
Broken Glass (PE986)
PE986, which was submitted by Woodlands primary school, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take greater action to protect the public, domestic and non-domestic birds and animals from the dangers of broken glass, to promote the use of plastic bottles as an alternative to glass and to introduce a refundable deposit scheme aimed at reducing the levels of broken glass in public places. Members have a note on the petition. Do we want to seek any organisation's views?
The responses that we have had appear to indicate that a deposit scheme is potentially not viable. Should we ask the Government how its policies on antisocial behaviour, waste, recycling and the environment might deal with the issue that is raised in the petition? We need more information.
Okay. Are members happy with that suggestion?
Home Loss Payment (PE988)
PE988, which was submitted by Ian Macpherson on behalf of Harvieston Villas residents, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to increase the home loss payment. Members have papers on the petition. I invite views.
We could write to the Scottish Government to find out what it is doing about the matter and when it will decide whether home loss payments will be increased.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
School Clothing Grants (PE999)
PE999, which was submitted by Jim Milne on behalf of Dundee Anti-Poverty Forum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review the school clothing grant system. Members have papers on the petition. I understand that the Government is reviewing school clothing grants. If that is the case, we should close the petition. When the results of the review are announced there will be a chance to discuss the issue in the appropriate parliamentary committee and in the chamber.
The Scottish Government is aware of the petition, but we should ascertain whether the petitioner can be consulted as part of the review, given his interest in the matter.
The clerk tells me that the individual who brought the petition is a member of the working group that is involved in the review. He will not have a better chance than that to influence the outcome.
Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999 (Revocation) (PE1003)
Members will be glad that we have reached the final petition for consideration today. PE1003 was submitted by Sydney Johnson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to revoke the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999. Members have papers, which contain the straightforward suggestion that we write to the Government to seek an update on the issues that are raised in the petition. Are members happy to do that?
We have dealt very briefly with the petition, but what we have agreed is the best course of action.
Previous
New Petitions