Official Report 252KB pdf
NHS (Provision of Wheelchairs and Specialist Seating Services) (PE798)
Welcome to the first meeting in 2005 of the Public Petitions Committee. As ever, we have a busy schedule. We have received apologies from John Farquhar Munro, but I have had no other indications of apologies.
On behalf of everyone who has supported the petition, we want to state that we are delighted with the response of the Minister for Health and Community Care and the actions that he has planned since the submission of the petition and his meeting with Margo Macdonald. We have been kept fully informed of the plans that are being made by officials and appreciate that.
I commend you for the four-page paper that you have submitted, which is, appropriately, headed, "What the petition requests". It clearly outlines the case, but I have a couple of questions arising from it that I would like to ask.
The primary reason for the length of waiting lists is the lack of clinicians available to do assessments. There are two main reasons for that. One is the usual problem with resources; the other is the national shortage of suitably trained and qualified staff to carry out this type of work. Wheelchair services are not really covered in the basic training programmes of any of the professionals involved—who tend to be occupational therapists, physiotherapists and rehabilitation engineers. Training for specialised staff tends to be in-service training and the pool of people with the required expertise is not big.
That is interesting. I take your point about in-service training, which is the immediate need; however, in the longer term, I presume that you will need more, properly qualified staff coming through the training system in the various professions. Are such staff not coming through just now because of a lack of resources in health boards, or is it because the profession is not, for whatever reason, seen as attractive?
Largely, it is because of a lack of resources. The services have never been overstaffed. I have been in this business for 24 years now and I cannot recollect there ever being a surplus. One factor in the equation is certainly resources to employ people.
But why are people not coming through—people with the relevant experience to assess those who are waiting?
Staff retention is a bit of a problem. There seem to be two responses to working in wheelchair services, which can be a very stressful occupation for a variety of reasons—such as the lack of resources and the fact that you are dealing with people whose lives are inherently stressful. Those who stay in the service tend to do so for a long time. As I say, I have been in the service for 24 years; Catherine Mathieson has also been in the service for a good many years. It is typical of the people who provide these services that they remain in them; they are, in general, highly committed. New recruits, however, regard a move to wheelchair services as a major step. They regard it as an isolated specialty. Wheelchair services are outside mainstream therapy activity and are not really a route to career progression.
You asked about waiting times. Many people who use wheelchairs also use special seating. In the various centres in Scotland, we often make bespoke seating for such people. However, resources are such that technicians to build the equipment are scarce. That all adds to people's waiting times.
My final point relates to what your paper terms "Deficiencies in equipment provision". For some years, my late father was in a wheelchair. When looking for somewhere for him to live, we found that doors in a lot of modern housing did not accommodate certain wheelchairs—although they did accommodate some. To what extent is that a continuing problem? If it is a continuing problem, do you intend to discuss it with the House Builders Federation—or whatever the appropriate national body is—to ensure that the needs of wheelchair users are taken into account when plans for houses are drawn up?
It is not only house builders but school builders and any other builders. I do not think that enough discussion of these problems takes place at the initial stages. As far as I am aware, housing associations are much more au fait with matters such as the required widths of doorways and corridors. I work in children's services, but I go into the homes of many families who live in specialised housing. The housing associations are certainly taking advice. We are sometimes asked for advice, but that does not happen often enough. The social work department usually makes—or at least funds—adaptations to housing. We work closely with colleagues in the social work department when equipment is provided. There is dialogue, but there needs to be more dialogue in the initial stages.
I welcome the petition, which echoes a constituent's recent experience. Although the situations are not quite the same, I suspect that the root causes are identical. My constituent is a wheelchair user whose condition deteriorated so that their wheelchair was no longer appropriate. It was weeks, if not months, before they were seen to and I suspect that the difficulties that you highlight were at the source of the problem.
The services have been involved in discussions and a meeting was held last week to try to co-ordinate the responses from the various Scottish services.
I am not sure whether a process has been formally set up, but we would certainly welcome the opportunity to have an input and add our information to discussions on interim measures.
I welcome the petition, too. Do you have any idea how the service in Scotland compares with those in other parts of Europe or Britain? Are we significantly behind in the quality of the wheelchair service that we provide for patients? Are there examples of best practice in Europe towards which we should be aiming?
Because the model of health service provision in Europe is significantly different, it is difficult to make comparisons. If we consider users' end experiences of most United Kingdom services, I suspect that the equipment tends to cost less, but that the clinical input is significantly higher than might be the case in other European countries.
It would be important to include in the forthcoming review an idea of what is happening in other parts of Europe with regard to wheelchair services. Comparisons always help. Our initial request is for minimum standards from which all our services in Scotland can work and, if we can see what is happening elsewhere, we might be more able to get to that point.
We are joined by Margo Macdonald. Margo, do you have any comments to make or questions to ask that would help our deliberations?
A couple of points arise from the evidence, but first, I thank the committee for the opportunity to join the witnesses from the wheelchair services.
I am not sure that that would help awfully much. It is important to get clinicians in as quickly as possible and the training is always on the job, so we would not expect someone to come in with experience. The sooner that we get clinicians in, the sooner they will be trained up and become effective. Much of the administrative work that we do depends on our clinical knowledge, so it is not something that can be handed over terribly easily to someone else.
What would your priority be?
We need resources to be able to employ people as quickly as we can in order to bring the waiting lists down, as well as resources to meet the requirement for equipment that the employment of those extra people will inevitably engender.
It might be appropriate to have a rapid review of the national stock of wheelchairs that are currently available to services. The quality of that stock is exceptionally poor and has been for the past 50 years, so a lot of time is being spent on repair and refurbishment to try to keep that poor-quality stock going. A rapid look at what could be available would help us to find a much more streamlined way through the service.
Do members have anything to ask, or will we consider what to do with the petition?
I have one point to make before the committee comes to a decision. To date, the minister's response has been positive. Nobody wants to diminish that in any way, not even after having heard about the difficulties that exist. However, people who are listening to the proceedings are aware of two previous reviews that have taken place, after which there has been no discernible improvement in service. That is why I support the petitioners' request that the petition be kept open until they know definitely that this time it will be third time lucky and that improvement will happen.
My starter at a conclusion is that we should keep the petition open, because it will be some time before the review runs its course. Notwithstanding the minister's welcome commitment to progressing matters, I am in favour of sending the petition to the Executive for comment and drawing out some of the points that have been made about inclusion in dialogue, not only about the review, but about some of the interim measures. If I picked it up accurately, it would be feasible for a small amount of capital to make immediate inroads, so I would like to send the petition to the Executive with those comments and to keep it open.
That is my view entirely.
I am happy to concur. For the minister's consideration, could we include a review of the design of wheelchairs? I am not sure whether that is part of what the witnesses have asked for. Many elderly people—my mother included—spend much time in their wheelchairs, which were not designed for constant daily use. By and large, the population is living longer, so that is very much an issue. If possible, that should be considered.
I do not know whether what I will say is entirely relevant to the petition—I am careful not to leave myself open to the accusation of not sticking to the petition, for which I always pull up members—but a point was made about the design of buildings. When I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, we looked into that. We discovered that architectural colleges do not require students to learn to design buildings that can accommodate wheelchairs. I wonder whether that situation has improved. We could write to the appropriate minister to check whether any improvement has been made and to find out whether plans are being made to ensure that architectural colleges teach people to take into account wheelchair users when they design buildings.
You had better watch it—you will be accused of joined-up thinking.
As long as I am accused of that, that will be no big deal, but the members will be the first to pull me up by saying, "That's not really in the petition, Michael. You're always telling us to stick to the petition."
It would be interesting to ask the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland for its view on the convener's point.
Do members agree to do that?
The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 made huge progress on design for disabled access and users. That related to new build, but I imagine that it is also relevant to adapting existing buildings.
Can I make a suggestion? That is only because I am taking the lead from the convener. Architects should be encouraged to think holistically. We know that more people are living to a greater age and that more people will need to be able to move about their home in a wheelchair or to use special seating. As we have heard, the subject is or has been seen as something of a cul-de-sac specialty in the health service. It might be a good idea to alert somebody on the Health Committee to the lack of training or focus for occupational therapists, physiotherapists, nursing staff and so on. People might be aware of the idea if we pick it up.
As Jackie Baillie has recommended sending the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for information, there is no harm in sending it to the Health Committee for the same reason. That will make that committee aware of our discussion, which it can bear in mind in any discussions that it has.
Such as discussions about training.
Are members happy to pursue that action?
We will let the petitioners know what responses we receive from the relevant people. I thank the petitioners for bringing their petition to the committee.
National Heritage Committee (Cramond) (PE801)
Our next petition is PE801 from Ronald Guild, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to establish a permanent national heritage committee and to ensure the protection of the environment of the Cramond area, including the islands, and the proper investigation and preservation of the natural, man-made and cultural elements of the site, together with the establishment of an appropriate museum. I welcome Ronald Guild, who is here to make a brief statement in support of his petition. We look forward to hearing your comments before we enter into a debate on the subject.
Thank you, sir.
Mr Guild, I ask you to stick to the specific issue that is raised in your petition, which concerns Cramond. We cannot drift off into wider concerns.
My petition asks the Executive to establish a permanent committee covering the natural, built and cultural aspects of the Scottish national heritage and requests that the Executive should re-engage with the urgent problems at Cramond. My petition has two parts to it, sir.
I understand that, but we do not have time to consider all the sites that you have concerns about. You have highlighted the Cramond issue, so please now stick to your general concerns about Scottish national heritage.
I am saying that Scottish national heritage needs not only to be established and researched, but explained as well.
I understand that, but you will have the opportunity to provide further examples when members ask questions.
Okay.
Thank you. Do members have any questions for Mr Guild?
As a member of the former Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I remember that it spent a considerable amount of time on the issue of Cramond as a result of your first petition. A report was published and, as you mentioned, a management group was set up. I am disappointed to hear that that approach has not had the desired effect.
Of course bodies such as Historic Scotland can play a vital role. However, the new education centre for Edinburgh Castle, for example, is completely inadequate. The organisation missed the bus; it could have taken over Cannonball House, which was used as an education centre, but—abracadabra—that building was sold off to the Edinburgh Military Tattoo. I do not know whether members have visited the education centre in the castle, but it is a non-starter in trying to deal with a class of secondary school pupils.
But what role could Historic Scotland or SNH play in relation to Cramond?
They are both involved. However, given the consultant's remit, we have reached the stage at which the current state of affairs is inadequate. Although those two great bodies exist, neither of them is solely responsible for the matter and the whole thing has gone down the Swannee.
Are they involved in the management group?
Yes, but they do not control it. My petition is based not on theory, but on the current situation at Cramond.
Developing Jackie Baillie's point, I wonder whether the failure lies with the City of Edinburgh Council and the management group and whether creating a new parliamentary committee is really the answer. After all, as you said, we already have plenty of committees. What would a national heritage committee achieve that Historic Scotland and SNH are not already achieving? Another committee would simply be added to the list.
I believe that the Parliament exists to have oversight of our national affairs. Those other bodies are subordinate to the Parliament and I find it inconceivable that no parliamentary mechanism or arrangement is capable of looking at the faults of such bodies, its relationship to them and their relationship to the Westminster Parliament.
I wonder whether there might be some confusion between the Parliament and the Executive. The phraseology is important. Are you asking for the establishment of a parliamentary committee or for the Scottish Executive to set up a committee that would have authority over Historic Scotland and SNH? Although the Scottish Parliament can investigate issues with which those bodies are engaged, it has no authority over them.
Although parliamentarians might have no authority over those bodies, they can still, as a first step, have meaningful discussions about such matters. For example, you do not boss the health service, but this morning you had a meaningful discussion about wheelchairs. I like to think that a similar discussion could take place about Scotland's national heritage. The committee would deal with a specific area and could therefore build up the expertise that is definitely required. One problem with the committee that set up the management group was that, through no fault of its own, it had too much to do—it was busy with education, culture and sport, including Rangers' football ground, apart from anything else—and had too wide a field to consider.
As a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, I agree with Mr Guild that there is a wide field to be covered. I recall having ministerial responsibility in a previous life for the area in question, tourism, culture, sport and Gaelic. The Executive was prevailed on to establish a separate minister, and the Parliament was prevailed on to establish a separate committee, for each area. Your representations therefore complete the full circle with respect to the duties that are involved in that ministerial post.
I would like to propose a second line. Instead of there necessarily being a completely separate committee, heritage could be joined with culture rather than enterprise.
In the Enterprise and Culture Committee, the broad umbrella of culture covers heritage—no separate committee considers heritage issues. Culture includes all aspects of our cultural heritage. Historic Scotland comes within that remit, although Scottish Natural Heritage comes within the remit of the Environment and Rural Development Committee. I return to a point that you made earlier. Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland are executive agencies, so they are part of the Executive—part of Government, if you like—in Scotland. Culture covers heritage.
I get the sense that we understand why the petitioner wants to raise such an important issue, but our experience tells us that setting up a permanent committee in the Parliament to consider such a specific issue would be unfeasible. However, I think that we can take forward the other element of the petition, which relates to concerns over Cramond. Perhaps we can concentrate on what we can do about that element. Do members have any suggestions to make?
I would like to hear what Historic Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council have to say about the issues relating to Cramond that Mr Guild has raised. Obviously, he knows a great deal about the detail of the matter, which we do not. We should seek responses from those organisations on the issues that Mr Guild has raised with the committee.
Do members agree to that proposal?
Should we ask SNH for its views?
Yes. We could ask SNH, Historic Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council. We will contact them, find out their views and reconsider the matter when we receive responses.
I would like to add one thing. I read in yesterday's edition of The Times that Colonel Gaddafi is busy developing his temples to attract tourists and I read in the Edinburgh Evening News of 30 December that the Tron kirk's prayers are to be answered by its being turned into a nightclub. So, there we are—there are two different approaches.
Thank you very much.
Health Professionals (Regulation) (PE802)
Petition PE802, from Mark Russell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to express its deep concern that, despite the fact that health is a devolved matter, regulation of health professionals is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Mark Russell is here to make a brief statement in support of his petition and is joined by Jacqui Baggaley.
Good morning. I start by saying something that most of you already know: life is all about choices. One of the first important choices that we make is what our job will be when we leave school. Some 25 years ago, my choice of career was podiatry—or chiropody as it was called then. I trained about a mile and a half away from this building, at the other end of Holyrood park, at the Edinburgh foot clinic and school of chiropody in Newington. After three years of full-time study I graduated with a diploma in podiatric medicine, which allowed me entry on to the state register. That meant that I was allowed to wreak havoc in the national health service, in a manner of speaking.
Mr Russell, you have run well over your three minutes. I have given you a bit of leeway, so will you please conclude?
I am almost finished; this is my concluding paragraph.
Good morning, Mr Russell. Have you any evidence that standards in Scotland are falling?
Clinical standards?
Yes.
You can assume that clinical standards will fall because no mechanisms exist to inspect the premises or competency of people who have been allowed on to the register. To get on to the register, there is self-declaration; in other words, there are no hurdles to overcome and no examinations to be taken.
Are your concerns shared by regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council?
I would not think so. Podiatry is quite a small profession, so the issue is very much within the profession.
There are seven United Kingdom statutory regulatory bodies and it would be surprising if there was a huge problem and only you had concerns about it.
I have spoken to many colleagues in the medical arena and they are very concerned about lax regulation.
I am probably heavily outnumbered on the committee this morning in my belief that this Parliament should be a normal national Parliament with all the powers of a normal national Parliament.
I think that it is to do with administrative efficiency more than anything else. During the consultation period when the HPC was being set up, it was envisaged that there would be some test of proficiency. This is the second time that this has happened to our profession. Back in the 1960s, there was a grandparenting period as well and people with minimal training were allowed on to the register. That was when we had the old Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Back then, the council set a test of competency, but this time there is no test.
Has any representation been made to the HPC about its responsibility to ensure that the people on the register are competent and have qualifications?
Many representations have been made to the HPC, but we do not seem to be getting very far.
What has been the response?
The response has been that the council interprets the legislation in that particular way.
I do not want to stray too far into constitutional issues. I get the sense—and you can correct me if I am wrong—that the nub of your petition is to do with ensuring that we have the best standards and competency. Does it really matter who regulates that? What do you feel will deliver the improvements that you seek? Irrespective of whether a person lives in Scotland, England, Wales or anywhere else, I would want that person to be treated to the same standard.
I would like a test of competency for all grandparented practitioners. There are a couple of issues where the legislation is defective and an issue of competency. There is also the issue of closure of the profession. The legislation has not been effective at closing the profession—we are to have another round of grandparenting in a few years' time and correspondence courses are still running. We can see from the newspapers that I bought today that one or two colleges undertake to graduate foot health practitioners within three to four months, on the payment of £1,000.
Some of them charge £300.
Yes. Therefore, the legislation will not close the profession or protect the public in the longer term. In three or four years, we will have the same problem and another dilution of standards. We must have effective standards. People have gone to college or university for three to four years to do an honours degree, or in my case a diploma. Anyone who practises in the health care arena should undergo a test of competency. If Jackie Baillie or her relatives sought our assistance, she would want to know that we were properly qualified and competent.
We want members to be aware that there are two ways in which to graduate as a podiatrist. One is to take a four-year honours degree at a recognised university, of which there are two in Scotland that offer those courses; the other is to take a correspondence course. One thousand hours of practical experience is required for a graduate podiatrist in a university, whereas to become what used to be an unregistrable podiatrist, the total requirement, including the correspondence side of learning, is merely 100 hours. However, there is now no difference between the two: the HPC takes in anyone.
I share Jackie Baillie's view that we all want to be 100 per cent certain that any practitioner to whom we go will give us good-quality treatment, no matter who we are. I have two questions. First, when petitioners come to the Parliament, they generally mention representations that they have made elsewhere. If you have made other representations, will you tell us about them? If you have not made them, that does not matter. Secondly, in your time as practitioners, what sort of regulatory inspections have you had?
I have a correspondence file that is about 5in thick with representations to the highest offices in the land: the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, Nigel Crisp, who is the chief executive of the NHS, and the HPC. We have also made representations through our professional body, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. However, we seem to be running up against a brick wall when it comes to the regulator.
The committee is joined by Mike Rumbles, who, as Mr Russell said, has an interest in the issue. Do you have anything to add, Mike?
Yes, but before I say anything, I will declare an interest, because I believe in openness and transparency—people need to know where we are coming from. My wife is a graduate member of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. She is an honours graduate and has a practice in Banchory. I have had the information that members have received today for many years.
I am not opposed to taking that route ultimately, but the practice of the committee has been to correspond directly with the Executive and to pursue its own investigations first. I would be keen to do that. I am also clear—although I seek the convener's guidance on this point—that the petition is specifically about constitutional matters. However, what I have heard today convinces me to support an investigation to ensure that there are appropriate standards. That has nothing to do with constitutional issues. My recommendation is that we write to the Executive to inquire whether there are concerns about a difference in standards and what it, as the provider of the NHS in Scotland, feels should be done about that. That is as far as I would go at this stage.
I agree that we do not want any confusion on the matter. I do not disagree with what Jackie Baillie has said. All that I was trying to say is that the current settlement is not set in stone; the UK Government and the Scottish Executive work together to change and tweak the arrangements. That approach could work on this issue.
We must bear in mind the fact that the petition calls for the regulation of health services; I do not think that it specifies podiatry. The issue is about responsibility for regulation being transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament.
I agree that we should write to the Executive. I would also like us to write to the HPC to ask why it does not see the issue that Mr Russell and Ms Baggaley have outlined as being a problem. It seems to me that, if we stopped the average man or woman in the street, they would say, "That can't be right." I would like to know what justification there is for the fact that those individuals who are not formally qualified do not have to submit themselves to some kind of test of competency or examination.
I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I would like to clarify one matter. I know that the committee does not impose a restriction on where petitions come from, but I note that your address is in Lytham St Annes, Mr Russell. Are you still based there?
Yes. I am from Kirkcaldy and also have a Kirkcaldy address. The petition was originally lodged when I was in Kirkcaldy. I am working down south for a few months.
To go back to what Mike Rumbles said, I do not expect to argue for independence on the basis of this petition, quite honestly.
There is no harm in asking that question; it will be interesting to know the Executive's answer. Is the Executive pursuing the devolution of regulation? As Mike Rumbles said, the Executive has pursued the transfer of powers before and there is no harm in asking whether that is something that it intends to do or is considering in this case. That is a legitimate question to ask.
Thank you.
The Scottish Executive recently consulted on the proposal. Presumably it would not have done that unless it was considering updating the legislation.
We can ask for that to be clarified.
There is a difficulty with that. If the HPC does not satisfy the concerns that have been raised here, what will you do? Is the Parliament impotent in dealing with such issues?
I suggest that the matter comes back before the committee. My recollection of the record of the Public Petitions Committee is that it is not impotent, given some of the disposals that have happened because of petitions. I think that we should wait and see.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Thank you for presenting your petition to us this morning. We will let you know about the responses that we receive.
Fire Control Rooms (PE765 and PE795)
PE795, which is by Drew McFarlane Slack on behalf of Highlands and Islands fire brigade, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure the retention of the current eight fire control rooms in Scotland. The petitioner appears to be concerned about proposals to reduce the number of fire control rooms in Scotland and particularly emphasises the need to retain a control room in Inverness.
I suggest that we deal with the petitions together as that would make sense.
Do members agree to bring forward our consideration of PE765 to now, so that we can discuss the petitions together? We are joined by Maureen Macmillan, who has expressed an interest in discussing the issue. If we bring forward the discussion, she will not have to wait until later in the agenda to give her input, which would be helpful to everyone. Is that agreed?
I take the point that Mike Watson has raised. It may be that Maureen Macmillan can help us with that specific issue. Both petitions are about the retention of eight fire control centres. The specific point in PE795 relates to the outcome of retaining a control centre in Inverness. Do you have any comments to make, Maureen?
Yes. Although the Highlands and Islands fire service would prefer the retention of all the control rooms, it is aware that that ultimately may not be an option. If there was an option to keep open three control rooms, it would lobby strongly for the retention of the Inverness control room because of the particular nature of the Highlands and Islands and the knowledge that the people at the Inverness control room have of the area, which has the same boundaries as that covered by the Northern constabulary—that is, the brigade covers Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles and the Highland Council area. Expertise has been built up over a large number of years about local situations. As members will appreciate, there are lots of place names that sound similar and many place names in Gaelic. The Highlands and Islands fire service feels that disbanding the Inverness control room would cause great difficulty and great concern in the area as people would feel that their safety was compromised.
As members have agreed to discuss the two petitions together, I will read out some information from the response that we received from the Executive to the first petition—PE765. That response states:
I reiterate the point that I made at the outset: we should refer the petitions to the Executive for inclusion in its further consideration of the issue.
I would be happy with that. Until we get an answer about what is going to happen, we should not close the petitions. We should keep them open until we get an answer one way or the other.
Is the committee happy for us to deal with the matter in that way?
Cycling (Recognition for Ian Steel) (PE797)
Our next petition is PE797, on recognition for Ian Steel, the cyclist. The petition was lodged by Neville Barrett on behalf of the British League of Racing Cyclists Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that Ian Steel receives a suitable award and public recognition.
The Executive's position is beyond churlish; the statement in the briefing paper is really strange. It is fair enough to say that the achievement should have been honoured at the time and it would have been a good thing if that had happened. However, the Executive apparently went on to say that the candidate for the honour no longer appears to be active in the area. The man is in his 70s; what does the Executive want him to do? I do not know whether it is in the gift of the Parliament or the Executive to make an award to an individual in such circumstances and I will take guidance on the matter. Is there a way for us to acknowledge what Mr Steel and his team-mates achieved all that time ago? I do not know whether sportscotland, the Parliament or the Executive should do this, but someone could approach Mr Steel to ascertain whether he would be interested in encouraging young people in Scotland to participate in cycling, given his achievements 50 years ago.
I am not unhappy with that suggestion. The man's achievements should be recognised. People have been given recognition for less. It is for the committee to decide what to do, but I think that we should ask the Executive what it can do to honour people and whether it intends to support the award of some kind of honour to Mr Steel.
We could write to the Executive in those terms.
At least that approach will enable us to find out what the Executive thinks about the matter.
Wind Farm Construction (Public Inquiry) (PE800)
PE800 calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a public inquiry into wind farm construction and in the meantime to introduce an immediate moratorium on further wind farm developments.
I have sat through most of the meeting and I am lost in admiration of how members deal with the rich tapestry of life that comes before the Public Petitions Committee. I wish the committee well in its deliberations.
I agree with Margaret Ewing. We should write to the Executive to ask what plans it has to develop a national strategic framework. We should be quite specific, because that is what the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report recommended. As yet, I am not aware that the Executive has said what it is going to do about that, so I suggest that we ask it.
We are entitled to ask the Executive that. Is everyone happy that we do that?
My understanding is that the Executive has already developed a national framework. It set out its goals for the development of renewable energy in "Securing a Renewable Future: Scotland's Renewable Energy" in March 2003. Given that the Executive has made that statement, the question is how it intends to build on it. Now that it has set out its goals and aspirations, we need to know what supporting mechanisms it will put in place.
Without wishing to contradict a fellow member of the committee too severely, those elements were outlined in 2003, but in 2004 the Enterprise and Culture Committee said in its report:
I will not get into an argument. I simply reiterate that the Executive set out its strategy in 2003 and that it is the detail that needs to be considered—I am talking about the planning guidelines.
The planning guidelines are the key issue. I have lost track of the number of wind farm applications that have been made in Moray, where two wind farms are already up and running. All members will have had similar experiences. Some members of the tourism industry think that wind farms are an advantage, while others think that it is a disadvantage. All those issues come into play in local communities.
It would be worth verifying the Executive's post-review position to find out what progress has been made on addressing the issues that Margaret Ewing has raised with the committee and the issues that are set out in the petition. I suggest that we write to the Executive and consider its response in due course. Are members agreed?
Thank you very much, convener.
Do members want to have a break or do you want to press on?
Can I have an electric blanket?
I will try to get some heat into the room. The debate is obviously not heating us up enough.
This is the second time this week that Helen Eadie and I have frozen in a committee room.
I think that I had a relapse of my cold after Monday's experience.
Next
Current Petitions