Official Report 350KB pdf
Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the third meeting in 2008 of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. As always, I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices. I have a standing apology from Angela Constance, who is still on maternity leave. Once again, I welcome John Wilson, who is her substitute. Thank you, John.
High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
I welcome Keith Brown MSP and Dr Richard Simpson MSP to the committee. They have joined us for our consideration of the first current petition, PE812. The petition is by Caroline Paterson, on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines, and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.
Thank you for allowing us to speak on the issue. We will be brief because we know that you have a full agenda.
I endorse Richard Simpson's comments. We hope to enable Scotland to consider directly and extensively the scientific evidence, through a reasonably competent authority, so that we are not required simply to trust the Health Protection Agency report on the issue.
I thank both members for their contributions.
I hesitate to congratulate a doctor, because I am not one, but Richard Simpson made a hugely important scientific point that I have not heard articulated recently. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that, over time, research builds up a body of information from which, eventually, even the most blind can deduce what is totally obvious. The risk is that Governments and other organisations will wait until the evidence is totally overwhelming, when—possibly reluctantly—they are overwhelmed.
I endorse those comments, and those of Dr Simpson. There are uncertainties. This has been a grey area and until fairly recently there was no proof of detrimental impact. As work goes on, it is likely that there will be more evidence of harm. At this stage, the precautionary principle should apply. It is incumbent on Government to consider up-to-date information before it makes decisions.
Keith Brown mentioned that other countries have set minimum distances between new buildings and high-voltage transmission lines. It would be interesting to know whether their approach is precautionary or based on an appreciation of a growing body of evidence.
Examples come from the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, various American states, including Tennessee, and Lower Saxony in Germany. In Sweden, a cost benefit analysis was done, in which consideration was given to potential child deaths from leukaemia but not to the cost of non-fatal illnesses. That analysis concluded that there should be an avoidance distance of up to 100m from the highest-loaded lines. The approach in Sweden is about money. In other areas the precautionary principle, to which Nigel Don referred, has been adopted instead of the procrastination principle, whereby we wait until there is overwhelming evidence.
I presume that those countries have identified enough evidence to enable them to decide that they need to take precautionary regulatory measures.
The problem is that the number of people who are close to lines is small and conditions are rare—unlike the situation in relation to smoking, which used to be almost universal in this country. Therefore, getting evidence is difficult. However, the amalgamation of evidence during the past three or four years has certainly shifted my view. Five years ago I would have said that there was only anecdotal evidence. There is now probably sufficient evidence to justify the application of the precautionary principle, to save lives. Nigel Don's point should be reinforced. The evidence about leukaemia is almost clear; the evidence about Alzheimer's disease is getting clearer; and there is a list of other neurological conditions, many of which are very rare, which might be related to transmission lines—in which case, the cost of the lines that we put up would be very high.
I am aware of how the issue raised in the petition was regarded in the past. When planning applications were being made for mobile telephone masts and so on there was little response from local authorities or national Government, who just said that according to professional advice such structures produced no harmful emissions. However, the recent report suggests that there is a possibility of damage to public health from such structures. How seriously is the Westminster Government taking the report?
I think that the report of the cross-party inquiry into childhood leukaemia and ELF EMF is being taken seriously, but nothing has happened yet. The report was produced in July 2007 but still sits with Dawn Primarolo, the Minister of State for Public Health in Westminster, whose response is awaited. The issue was certainly taken seriously—I think that Michael Connarty was one of the main people involved in the inquiry. Of course, given pressing concerns about the proposed new Beauly to Denny transmission line, we need a response quickly. I understand that the report was well received in the medical community.
Telephone masts are a separate issue, to which careful consideration was given by the Stewart independent expert group on mobile phones.
The argument is quite topical at the moment because of the proposed Beauly to Denny high-voltage transmission line. I have seen various reports on that issue that suggest that there are no harmful effects. Something must have changed drastically if we now have a report that says that there is a possibility of damage to public health. The local authorities or planning departments are not obliged to respond to that report at present. When they make a decision on a planning application, will they have to consider the report that Dr Simpson mentioned?
The report was eventually received into the inquiry's evidence, but not at the crucial point. Much of the evidence that came to the inquiry early on was of the type that you suggested—that the lines had no harmful effects. As a result of assiduous attempts by the protesters and objectors, more evidence was taken in and put on the record, but it was not heard during the inquiry.
I detect a consensus among committee members that we should respond constructively to the petition. Obviously, broader decisions will have been made on the relevant areas at the Government and planning levels. Today's debate is about the precautionary principle, which we are edging towards. How do members want to respond? I know that guidelines are out for consideration at the moment. I am looking for members' views about how we can respond and take on board the submissions from the petitioner and parliamentarians.
Perhaps we could write to the Executive to ask for some clarification of the advice on the precautionary principle. In terms of telecommunications masts, as has already been shown, local authorities can use the precautionary principle; I remember sitting through the previous Transport and the Environment Committee's debates on the subject some years ago. However, we have a new element now and perhaps the Government should be asked if it is prepared to give clear advice on the use of the precautionary principle, and what its approach would be to accepting guidance from relevant organisations, such as the National Grid, the Health Protection Agency—[Interruption.]
I remind folk of our general expectations in relation to mobile phones. A nearby mast obviously has a communication for someone in the public gallery.
Could we bring it to the Government's attention—if it does not already know—that more up-to-date research might be available and that that might be taken into consideration?
Obviously, we would like to know if the Government is looking at engaging with the research. As our two guest parliamentarians have said, our dilemma is that the body of research will be fairly narrow, given the proximity of populations to pylons, unlike the evidence in the passive smoking debate, which related to members of the public, on a social night out or in another enclosed public space, encountering smoke. This situation is a bit more difficult. Perhaps we should draw attention to that, but the fundamental issue is about encouraging a debate around erring on the side of caution.
We should take on board Richard Simpson's point, which Nigel Don backed, that we should canvass what research has been done in other countries. That is important. Cases are comparatively rare and we need a critical mass of evidence, so we should look for the evidence as soon as possible rather than waiting for it to accrete over a number of years. The Government should consider what research has been done elsewhere in the world as a matter of urgency to get that critical mass of evidence.
We are fairly consensual on the issues. Are we happy to accept the recommendations and try to progress some of the issues in the petition?
I thank the petitioner and the parliamentarians who have taken time to support the petition.
National Planning Policy Guideline 19 (PE1048)
PE1048, by Kitty Bell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to alter national planning policy guideline 19 to correct an anomaly contained in paragraph 21.4 and ensure that the precautionary approach also applies to pre-school children and all children at play, thereby giving them the same protection from telecommunication masts as that given to their older brothers and sisters while at school.
The Government has clearly committed to review NPPG 19, but the timescale is of concern to the petitioner. She is obviously happy that the Government is going to review it, but she says that a review has been promised for at least two years and, so far, no date has been given. We should not let the matter go but should press the Government on when it will begin the review.
Gil Paterson has made himself available this afternoon. Do you wish to add some comments on the petition?
It is apt that it follows the committee's discussion on the previous petition, which seeks a precautionary approach. The precautionary principle is used when it comes to placing mobile phone masts near schools. The petitioner seeks the same protection for children when they are at play in designated areas—such designation is a critical factor. It seems from research that the greatest potential for damage is among younger children and, although we protect children at school, we do not protect their younger siblings when they are at play.
Are there any other comments? We are trying to find ways to get solutions.
I endorse Gil Paterson's suggestion. However, pro tem, surely all councils could be reminded that they are at liberty to address the anomaly themselves and take into account the health concerns for small children when applications for phone masts are made.
Okay. I accept that.
As someone who was a councillor only a year ago, I merely observe that, with regard to Robin Harper's suggestion, any such decisions made by the council were overruled by the reporter. My council quite routinely turned down mast applications for all sorts of apparently good reasons, only for our decisions to be then quite routinely overturned by the reporter. Some guidance from the Government will be required before the world can change.
Nanette Milne has made the very strong suggestion, amplified by Robin Harper, that we should not let this matter go. We could simply say that the on-going review should take some of these issues into account, which would allow us to close the petition. However, I feel that members are reluctant to do that until the Government clarifies its timescale for the review and tells us whether the review itself will genuinely assess what the petitioner has described as "an anomaly". We can send a strong message to the Government that the petition will remain open, because we feel that the issue remains unresolved and, indeed, are concerned about the timescale for dealing with it. Kids could well have gone through nursery before anyone bothers to address the anomaly.
I thank Gil Paterson for attending the meeting.
Electricity Transmission Lines (Underground Cabling) (PE1087)
PE1087, from Nancy Gardner, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the use of underground and, where appropriate, undersea cabling for new electricity transmission lines such as the proposed line between Beauly and Denny. The committee agreed to seek responses to the issues raised in the petition from a variety of organisations.
There has been a very heated debate on and protracted inquiry into not only the Beauly to Denny issue but other transmission lines. The proposal to put lines underground has been debated at length, but the argument against it is, of course, cost. Some transmission and generating companies have suggested that the ultimate answer is a subsea cable. I do not know about that, but I know that a tremendous campaign against the erection of that transmission line has sprung up all the way from Ullapool down to Denny. If we wait until the results of the inquiry are known, it might be too late.
Given that a publicly funded inquiry is on-going, we should suspend any further consideration of the petition until after it has reported, consider its findings and take the petition from there.
I am minded to take that course.
I agree that we should keep the petition open but suspend any further consideration of it until after the inquiry report has been published. In response to John Farquhar Munro, I say that transporting electricity is just as important as transporting goods by lorry and the cost per mile of burying an electricity cable is a fraction of that of building a motorway.
I think that the M74 is a very good motorway; it will certainly benefit my constituents. I had to get that in, Robin.
Dementia Treatment (PE886)
PE886, by James McKillop on behalf of the Scottish Dementia Working Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland to ensure the continued availability on prescription of a whole range of medications for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. Do members have any views on the petition?
I thank members for their time on that.
Animal Carcases (PE1004)
PE1004, by David Adam, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the environmental impact of animal gasification plants and to urge the Government to ensure that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has sufficient powers and resources to deal with the environmental problems that are associated with the burning and rendering of animal carcases. Do members have any views on how we should deal with the petition?
Can I have a wee minute to read the late letter that we have received?
Sorry, I meant to say that we have received a letter from SEPA that addresses some of the issues that the petitioner raised and contests some of the points that he made. The letter clarifies what has been done and the issues on which there might be disagreement.
SEPA seems to be in control of the situation. It is keeping a watching brief on the issue.
Do members have any other views? The issue is technical but, to be fair to the petitioner, the petition has been in the system for a while now. We would like to see some sort of response for the petitioner's benefit. We could continue to work with SEPA by asking for further updates from it and from the Government on the conclusion of the reviews that have been initiated.
Can we hang fire until we see the enforcement policy, which is currently being revised? We can then ask the Government for its views to see whether the policy addresses the petitioner's concerns.
Rhoda Grant has helpfully suggested that we might want to see how the reviewed policy fits in before we take action. We can note the petition at the moment and not close it until that further information is available. Is that agreed?
I thank members for their patience on that.
Mesothelioma (Prescribing) (PE1006)
PE1006, by Bob Dickie on behalf of Clydebank Asbestos Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that the current prescribing arrangements for mesothelioma sufferers under which Alimta is made available are continued. Obviously, members have also debated the issue in the chamber. Are there any strong views on how we should respond to the petition?
As I recall, the recent NICE guidelines recommend that Alimta can be used. Perhaps we should ask what impact that will have on the use of the drug. We can put that question to the Government.
We can ask the health department and NICE about the criteria for the provision of Alimta and whether the drug will continue to be made available. Is that agreed?
I thank members for their patience on that. We will pursue that issue.
Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)
PE1089, by Morag Parnell on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to investigate any links between exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and the workplace and the rising incidences of cancer and other chronic illnesses. It probably looks a wee bit worrying that many petitions would make us terrified to work outside, but the issue is obviously still relevant. Do members have any comments?
I am approaching the petition as someone who spent a while in the chemical industry, and I must confess that it occurred to me early in my career that it would be an extremely good idea to move around. It is obvious to anyone who knows any chemistry that there is an awful lot of stuff that can do people damage, and it is a good idea to minimise exposure to it. That is a sensible way of tackling life.
As the parliamentary representative of the constituency that covers Dixon's Blazes and the former Parkhead Forge site, I probably should be more worried than any other elected member present. We should take on board in principle what the petitioner has said and ask for an overview from whoever has responsibility in the Government for examining the long-term impact on health of hazardous materials and work environments.
Reading the Government's response, I found it interesting that it disputes as a matter of fact the rising incidence of cancer and other chronic illnesses. I was also interested by its conclusion, which I suspect is right, about whether the Scottish Government is best placed to consider studies in a complicated area and whether the work should perhaps be done at supranational level by organisations such as the World Health Organization and the European Union. I presume that Scotland's situation is not unique—I would have thought that this was a broad issue—but I do not know how to progress the matter to an international level.
Nanette Milne's point is a rehearsal of what Robin Harper said earlier: little bits of evidence can be lost and we need to gather as much evidence together, from wherever it comes, to build up an opinion on where we are going. That does not alter the fact that evidence builds up over time and that we need to get much better at recognising where it leads us.
Are we clear on what we want to do? As members said, we should raise the issue with agencies that have responsibility for occupational health. There must also be at Westminster ministers and parts of Government departments with responsibility for occupational health issues. That combination of action will, in a sense, give the clerks a chance to distil the contributions that we have had and to find out whom it is best to approach.
I have just one other thought, which I have mentioned in relation to other topics. The academic world is alive to such issues. I do not know where they are, but there is bound to be somebody who is thinking about the issue, and they may not be talking to the Government.
Are we agreed on the course of action?
Cancer Treatment (Cetuximab) (PE1108)
PE1108, by Tina McGeever on behalf of Mike Gray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the provision on the NHS of cancer treatment drugs to ensure equity across NHS boards on the appropriateness, effectiveness and availability of such treatments.
Yes. It was good to hear that Mike Gray's treatment is now being funded and that the payments that he has already made are being repaid.
That last point—the fact that a person who has one drug paid for privately means that they must pay for all the other drugs that they receive as part of same treatment—caused a great deal of concern.
The case flags up a number of issues.
It is a pity that the policy committee cannot find the time in its schedule to deal with the issues that the petition raises. There might well be compelling reasons why that is the case—the Health and Sport Committee probably has a series of issues to explore. I have not looked into the detail of those circumstances.
I have one point. The petition highlighted the decisions that health boards make about the administration of drugs and about which drugs they are prepared to administer. It might be useful to find out about other drugs that are not being used here but which are on the market and are being used elsewhere, perhaps in England and Wales. The difficulty that we face is that the individual concerned—the petition was lodged on their behalf—received a drug after an exceptional circumstances committee review. However, other people out there may have been denied drug treatments. As we discussed earlier, there may be evidence from other parts of the world that those drugs are beneficial and would have the desired effect on the individuals.
The issue is horrendously complicated, although I fully back the idea that we should discuss it. However, we should not raise people's hopes that there could be an ultimate answer—a prescription for prescribing. The best that we could do would be a description of the boundaries, within which other people will always have to be free to take decisions.
Do members agree in principle that we want to explore the issue? We will send an interim letter to the health department and perhaps all the health boards, saying what has come before the committee. We are looking to do some short-term interrogative work on some of the issues, based on the discussion that we had when we discussed the petition previously. We will get the clerks to come back to us with a timeline for that work.
Are we clear that the Health and Sport Committee will not be able to do that work? It would be far better placed to do it, if that was possible.
I have received a letter from the Health and Sport Committee, which states that it has asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to prepare a briefing on the process by which drugs are made available through the NHS and to share that briefing with our committee. The Health and Sport Committee will take up some elements of the matter in its inquiry on health inequalities, but it cannot consider the particular issue because of time constraints. Rhoda Grant, who is also a member of the Health and Sport Committee, has been asked to be a reporter to that committee on our considerations. The interplay can come through utilising Rhoda Grant's role of serving on two committees.
On a point of clarification, when I used the word "we" in talking about taking decisions, I meant the Parliament rather than the committee.
We can perhaps do some of the work. Rhoda Grant may want to add to that.
The Health and Sport Committee is carrying out an inquiry into health inequalities and I have asked it to bear the petition in mind in doing so. However, that is some way off. If we did some work, we could then report back to the Health and Sport Committee. A short inquiry by this committee might air some of the problems and deal with them before the Health and Sport Committee inquiry begins.
Do members agree that that liaison is okay? If so, we will put together a wee plan.
I am conscious that we have many items on the agenda. We will take a five-minute break and then consider the next petition. We will do our best to get through as many as possible.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
I reconvene the meeting and thank members for their patience. The next petition is PE1105, for which I welcome Gil Paterson MSP, who is working for his money this afternoon. The petition is by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to guarantee the retention of continuing care provision for patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care, such as that provided at the 30-bed unit at the hospice, and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care at hospices in the context of Health Department letter HDL(2003)18 are fair and reasonable.
Thanks for putting up with me the second time round, convener. Several issues arise. First, what Greater Glasgow Health Board had in mind for St Margaret's way back in 2003 is unclear. St Margaret's is right to dispute hotly that any consultation took place. I have seen no concrete evidence that consultation took place and I concur with the strong language in the response from St Margaret's.
There is an impasse between the board of St Margaret's and the health board, and we cannot resolve the matter ourselves. Perhaps we should seek ministerial involvement. I hesitate to say that we need to knock some heads together, but perhaps we need to get the two boards to sit down together and have a meaningful discussion. We live in an age when public consultation is considered to be an essential prerequisite to any change. If matters have not been dealt with properly, they need to be looked into. I suggest that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing asking whether she can intervene.
I agree. I have concerns about the way in which hospices depend on fundraising, which is one of the issues relating to the catchment area of St Margaret's. The service should be provided; it should not be left to people to fundraise for it. Can we flag that up, and find out whether there is a long-term plan to ensure equity of access for people, regardless of where they live and what their hospice catchment area is?
From what I have read, issues around the hospice are being contested at length. I have read a lot of reports about difficult issues over the years, but in this case St Margaret's and the health board perceive the process of events markedly differently. The health board's chief executive has indicated that he is willing to have further discussions. Part of the debate is about what is up for discussion in negotiating terms. It would be helpful to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to try to pull everything together to get some clarity. I am sure that issues will be contested at the other end, regarding the use of the other hospital in west Glasgow and the retention of facilities. There are no angels in this debate. However, we need to find ways for people to get round the table to sort matters out.
Do any of our witnesses wish to add anything?
Gil, do you have any final comments?
Your suggested approach is reasonable and sound.
As the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I always seek to find healing words—except when Kenny Gibson is up, but there we are. This is an important issue, and although we cannot easily resolve it, we need to explore the background and the options that are available.
Urban Regeneration (PE911)
PE911, by Paul Nolan on behalf of Craigmillar community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the Scottish Executive's support for market-led urban regeneration projects and the operation of privatised urban regeneration companies. The petition has been before the committee at various times. Are there any strong views on how we should deal with it?
I am not sure that we can take it any further. Work is being taken forward by the Government. I wonder whether we should let this one go.
I take the view that there are appropriate mechanisms in the circumstances. In some cases, we would want market-led regeneration; in others, it might be more public sector led. Decisions on that are best made at local level and through the relevant agencies. We are keen to ensure that those mechanisms are accountable and allow scrutiny and democratic input from elected members at council level and, potentially, parliamentary level. With that caveat, and given that there are mechanisms to address the issues in the petition, we should close it.
Play Strategy (PE913)
PE913, by Debbie Scott on behalf of To Play or Not to Play, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt a play strategy that recognises the right of all children in Scotland to a safe, accessible and challenging play environment.
It is important for us to keep the pressure on, to ensure that a play strategy is part of the early years strategy. We should therefore request that the Government reports to us on the place that a play strategy will be given in the early years strategy.
That is probably the view of the committee.
I fully agree. We need to put pressure on the Scottish Executive. Play is a soft target. Highland Council has had a play development officer, but the post is being axed because of budget cuts. It is important that such important posts are protected and developed and that we ensure that a play strategy is at the front of policy making.
I agree. The issues of active Scotland and active citizenship are part of broader issues about tackling poor health. We should write to the Government for a further response, particularly on its early years strategy and the central role of play in the development of activity in Scotland.
NHS Dental Services (PE920)<br />NHS Dentistry (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE922)
NHS Dental Services (PE1018)
We will consider the next petitions as a group. We are aware of today's ministerial announcement on funding for dental students to continue their studies. PE920, PE922 and PE1018 all concern the resources that are available for the provision of national health service dentistry. PE920 is by Helen Smith; PE922 is by Peter Thomson and is about models of development, particularly for dentistry provision in remote and rural areas of Scotland; and PE1018 is by Keith Green, on behalf of the Kinross group of the save NHS dentistry campaign, and urges the Government to restore NHS dental services throughout Scotland. Dentistry featured at First Minister's question time recently in a very gentle exchange, and in a debate in Parliament.
The Government is taking some action to enable more people to access NHS dentistry. My area—Grampian—has been particularly badly served with NHS dentists in recent years. I am not yet convinced that the issue of retaining dentists in the NHS has been resolved. However, moves have been made, with the outreach centre in Aberdeen and an increase in the number of salaried dentists. Action is being taken. By all accounts, things are getting a bit better in my area, but it is early days for judging the situation. We should ask for a progress report, every six months or every year, to see how things are going. As I said, I am not convinced that we have resolved the retention issue.
I think that committee members share that view. We will accept that recommendation and seek a report from the Government on the three areas that are raised by the petitioners and on the short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies for tackling the situation. The core issue is the retention of dentists in the NHS. We are haemorrhaging dentists who are available for the public.
Hospital Patients (Spiritual Care) (PE923)
PE923, by Ben Conway, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to promote pastoral and spiritual care in hospitals to ensure that the physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs of patients are properly addressed. Are there any recommendations on the petition? I understand that there has been an NHS national standards recommendation on chaplaincy services and support in NHS hospitals and care institutions from the different faiths. We could ask the petitioners about the review of existing guidance and close the petition, or we could seek further information on what the Government is doing to encourage or facilitate such services.
It is a straight choice. Things are clearly going in the petitioners' direction. We either say that the objective of the petition has been achieved or we ask for a review, to see whether matters are going further. My instinct is to close the petition. We could keep it open and await further developments, but I am not sure that we are here to do that.
That is fine, as long as we say that the petitioner may be consulted on the review of the existing guidance. Are we happy to do that?
We accept that recommendation from Nigel Don.
Supporting People Funding (PE932)
PE932, by Stella Macdonald on behalf of the Citizen's Rights Action Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the supporting people funding arrangements to ensure that vulnerable adults receive the responsive services that are required to keep them healthy.
since the petition was submitted, which was a wee while ago now, the situation around supporting people funding has changed considerably. There has been a move from having a ring-fenced budget—with concerns about insufficient investment—to having a mainstream budget within the local authority settlement.
So we should refer the petition to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and say, "This issue has come in front of the Public Petitions Committee. Maybe it is appropriate to address it." Are there any other views on the petition?
Sorry, what was the last sentence?
I said that we should raise the matter with the finance secretary. From John Swinney's position, the debate has been about removing ring-fenced budgets and making the money part of the wider budget allocations. At the same time, there are single outcome agreements with local authorities to consider. CRAG's worry is whether the resources that were allocated to vulnerable adults previously will be available under the new system. We all have different views on the matter, as shown by what we said in Parliament during the budget debate, but it is only right and proper that the petitioners are allowed to engage with the process without necessarily sharing our political affiliations or perspectives.
My principal concern is whether the advocacy arrangements for vulnerable adults are robust enough for us to be content that their conditions will be protected under the new arrangements or whether the situation, as well as the single outcome agreements, need to be reviewed.
We are in a limbo period and are taking issues on trust, despite our political views one way or the other. The timescale will reveal the rights or wrongs of any decision. The Government has committed to engaging with stakeholders so, given that PE932 is significant, it might be appropriate to ask the Government to engage with the petitioner and the representations that the petitioner has made on behalf of CRAG, which seeks reassurance about supporting people funding. If it is okay with members, I think that that is the best course of action. We can consider the outcome of that action when determining whether to pursue the matter further.
A90 Deceleration Lane (PE1020)
PE1020, by Councillor Paul J Melling on behalf of his constituents in Aberdeenshire, calls on the Parliament to consider issues relating to the construction of a deceleration lane for vehicles accessing the Bruntland Road junction off the A90 in Portlethen South.
Just to say that it is interesting that the draft study found a case for improving how you get on and off the A90 at that point. A deceleration lane is not viewed as a priority, which is a concern for me as a North East member. Obviously, we want our road improvements to be as far up the priority list as possible. However, we cannot do anything until the study is finalised later this year. Once the study and its recommendations are available, we should ask for a response from Transport Scotland on the action that it will take.
Do we accept that recommendation?
A76 (Safety Strategy) (PE1067)
PE1067, by Councillor Andrew S Wood and Councillor Gill Dykes on behalf of ward 8, Dumfries and Galloway, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the need for immediate action on upgrading and implementing a safety strategy for the A76, increasing the size and clarity of signage, removing blind areas, taking out bad corners and erecting average speed cameras where speed must be controlled.
Bingo Industry (PE1040)
PE1040, by Mike Lowe on behalf of the members of Premier Bingo clubs in Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath and Edinburgh, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to recognise that bingo clubs have been hit by the implications of the legislation on smoking in enclosed spaces and a system of taxation relating to the bingo industry. We have tried to assist, but I do not think that we can take the petition any further. Do members have any strong views on how to deal with the petition?
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the Bingo Association to address some of the issues. That is the best place to deal with the concerns that the petitioner has raised because some of his concerns are not really within our remit. There were social arguments, but the issues are properly dealt with by that department, rather than here.
That is appropriate. We considered the petition at the start of the new parliamentary session. It is one of those crossover petitions that raise mainly reserved issues, although the social implications are perhaps of concern and relate to devolved legislation. However, the core of the debate is about the tax system for the bingo industry and diversification in employment in the sector. If members agree, we will close the petition, although we can receive updates if required from the DCMS down south on the progress of discussions with the Bingo Association at Scotland and UK level.
Hairdressing Training (Funding) (PE1045)
The next petition is by Tom Miller on behalf of the Indigo Group. It calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the concerns of employers and work-based training providers in the hairdressing industry following a change in policy by Scottish Enterprise in relation to its skillseekers programme, which has resulted in a reduction in the number of young people who can be funded for hairdressing training in Scotland. The issue is fairly straightforward. Are there any strong views on how we should pursue the matter?
Could we write to the Scottish Government for an update on the phasing-out of skillseekers and for information on how increasing the number of modern apprenticeships will affect hairdressing training? We should find out about the crossover.
Yes, we should write to the Government on that. We should also write to Scottish Enterprise because, as it is not providing the funding, we should find out whether it has carried out a market assessment of the demand for staff in the hairdressing sector. The impression that I get from many of our constituencies is that hairdressing is a fairly popular but sometimes costly business.
You are right, convener, that it is costly, particularly for young people who take on traineeships, given the working conditions that apply to trainees. As Scottish Enterprise is reviewing funding levels for particular categories of modern apprenticeship, it might be useful to ask it to identify which ones it intends to promote as part of that programme. From the paperwork that we have, I see that almost a fifth of all skillseekers funding went into hairdressing, which begs the question how much funding was going into the areas in which, time and again, we have identified skills shortages—I am thinking particularly about the building trades. We must ask Scottish Enterprise whether, as part of the review, it will consider targeting particular sectors for modern apprenticeships and, if so, how those targets will fit with the overall consensus that seems to exist on how we make progress on improving skills in Scotland.
Those were positive comments. We will pull them together in the inquiries that we make to Scottish Enterprise and the appropriate minister in the Government.
A further point is that the petitioner identified a difference in the way in which Highlands and Islands Enterprise will administer modern apprenticeships. Given that there are two organisations, it might be useful to find out from Highlands and Islands Enterprise how it intends to apply modern apprenticeships.
That is a fair call. Do members accept those recommendations?
Coastal and Marine National Park Process (PE1047)
We now come to PE1047, which is from Mark Carter on behalf of the Hebridean Partnership. It calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the failure of the existing coastal and marine national park and marine environmental protection process, and to examine the extent to which such failure is due to pressure from those individuals and industries that have an affiliated or commercial interest in the sector.
No—it just gives me the opportunity to have a breather, convener. I suggest, as you were going to, that we combine this petition with PE1081, because they seem to be pretty much together. We are awaiting the Government marine bill—there cannot be much point in talking about these petitions before it gets here.
I agree with that recommendation. Once we have seen the marine bill, we might be able to suggest people to give evidence on the bill on issues that are raised in the petitions. We could keep that in mind.
That would be helpful. Do members accept the recommendation?
Maritime Organisations (PE1081)
Our next petition is PE1081, by Ronald Guild, who calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to seek a UK-wide reappraisal of all Government, local authority and non-governmental organisation maritime and maritime airspace responsibilities, and organisations, taking into account European Union and International Maritime Organisation contexts.
Unadopted Open Spaces (Maintenance) (PE1049)
The next petition is PE1049, by Karen Shirron, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take responsibility for the maintenance of unadopted open spaces such as footpaths, lanes, kerbs, car parks, and roads where responsibility for the maintenance of such spaces was previously a matter for a Government agency. In Heathryfold in west Aberdeen, Scottish Homes had that responsibility. Nearly all of us will have to declare an interest in this issue at some stage, because it affects virtually every residential development that has taken place in the past 20 years. It is an issue that almost every elected member has dealt with over the years, and the petition has been before the committee before.
No, I would rather hear what the committee members have to say first.
Okay. What views do members have on the petition?
I wonder why unadopted roads are not adopted yet. I have such cases in Glasgow. One of the cases that I am dealing with at the moment involves a road that is closed. One part of the road is not adopted by the council. It is so filthy that nobody cares. I wonder why it has not been adopted for so long.
The petition has been in for a while. It is obvious that the protagonists are the local authority and Grampian Housing Association. We understand that Scottish planning policy 11 is being produced. I do not know whether that addresses some of the concerns. I get the feeling that Brian Adam would like to come in at this point.
We are all aware of developments, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, where private sector developers seemed to take advantage of those who were purchasing a house for the first time and, all of a sudden, found themselves responsible for hard and soft landscaping. I am ashamed to say that some of our public agencies adopted similar practices. The Scottish Special Housing Association, which became Scottish Homes and was eventually subsumed into Communities Scotland, did exactly the same throughout the country. However, the problem at Heathryfold is the scale of the development and the financial consequences for the people who have bought former public sector housing there.
The letter that we have received from Communities Scotland does not hold out much hope for the residents in the area to which Brian Adam referred, although it gives a detailed response about ministers' consideration of the matter. I would be loth to close the petition. The Government has decided to review and revise SPP11, but we should revisit the subject in the near future to find out how it is impacting on communities. Although the petition highlights the problem in one area, Bashir Ahmad has highlighted the problem in areas of Glasgow and, as Brian Adam says, many of us around the table could cite other areas of open space that public or private sector developers have failed to maintain. I suggest that we keep the petition open and ask the Government whether it is going to review the implementation of the revised SPP11 in the near future.
For the future, I agree with the suggestions that Brian Adam has made with regard to planning regulation. The letter from Communities Scotland does not hold out much hope, especially in the light of the current tight local government settlement. As we all know, Aberdeen City Council has not done too well out of that settlement.
This is not an easy issue to solve. Obviously, elected members at local and national level have always grappled with it. This committee should have a debate on finding a way to prevent it happening in future developments. The private developments in many areas that were being regenerated won prizes, but then the developers sloped off.
There is an issue about small developments in rural areas. Are we going to compel individuals in developments of two houses, five houses or whatever in rural areas to install street lights, pavements and so on? The problem tends to arise in urban developments and developments that are close to urban areas. I hope that the minister will look into the issue. Any encouragement that this committee could give in that regard would be welcome.
I do not know that estate, Brian. Where is it?
Buyer beware.
I am conscious that we have tons of things to deal with, so I want to get a wee consensus from the committee on this issue, and then we can conclude it.
I support what Brian Adam said about looking to the future. That is why I suggested that we ask the Scottish Government how it will review this situation. Plans for new developments are being adopted every day. The issue is whether planners, when they sign off plans, take proper account of the impact that the open spaces that are built into developments may have and the long-term implications for residents or tenants.
Those are constructive suggestions. We should not close the petition. Rather, we should explore the issues that have been raised. I get the strong sense that we should ask questions on two fundamental issues. The first is whether there is anything in the planning system that can deal with current assessments and planned future developments. The second is whether the Government can take an approach that finds an arrangement over a longer time that addresses the concerns of residents who are getting a punitive level of charging. A minister can make a decision on that, but in doing so they would obviously have to take into account the fact that that decision would have consequences for the rest of the country and for the rest of their budget. We can raise that issue with the Government. I take it that members are happy enough on this one.
Common Good Sites (Protection) (PE1050)
The next petition is PE1050, by Councillor Ann Watters, on behalf of Kirkcaldy Civic Society, which is asking for legislation to provide better protection for common good sites, such as Ravenscraig Park in Kirkcaldy. We have had this petition in front of us before. Do members have any strong views on it? My notes indicate that we are waiting for the Local Authority Scotland Accounts Advisory Committee and the Scottish Government to provide further responses on what to do about the common good asset register. I have the feeling that Robin Harper wants to come in on this one.
Recent research has made it clear that there is a great deal of concern about where common good land is and what it is being used for, and that some common good land seems to have disappeared. I think that we need to wait until the finalised common good asset register is ready, but we should certainly keep the petition alive because it is about an important issue.
I think that that is acceptable to committee members. We will wait until we get the response from the Local Authority Scotland Accounts Advisory Committee, then we will determine how best to deal with the petition. Are we happy with Robin Harper's recommendation?
Scheduled and Listed Buildings (Management) (PE1013)
PE1013, by Niall Campbell, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review arrangements for managing scheduled and listed buildings, such as those at Rowallan old castle, to ensure that where suitable and sensitive plans for restoring such buildings by an owner allow public access, such developments are allowed to proceed.
I am a little concerned by some of the responses to Historic Scotland's review, because as I understand it the petitioner's problem lies with that organisation. I am not sure that the responses that we have received deal with that point.
I share that view. There is some unfinished business to attend to, and I would rather wait for the inquiry to report. As with other petitions that deal with contested areas, this petition highlights an interesting area of contestability that needs to be explored further.
I do not disagree with any of that. I simply want to point out that we should wait for the outcome of the public local inquiry that is about to take place.
Have we reached a consensus?
We will await the outcome of the public local inquiry and other matters.
Historic Sites (Protection) (PE1078)
PE1078, by Peter Paterson and the save Gillies hill committee, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the need for new legislation to protect historic sites from physical destruction through mineral extraction and to preserve such sites in their present condition for the community's wider amenity.
Although the council has agreed to review the Gillies hill situation, the petition raises a much wider issue about the encroachment of mineral extraction and other developments on historic and ancient sites. We should seek a further response from the Scottish Government, particularly on the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland's report, and ask what action it will take and when.
We had better get that letter in, then, because the advisory council is about to abolished.
Planning Procedures and Policies (Quarrying) (PE1094)
PE1094, by Pamela Masson on behalf of Braco and Greenloaning community council, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the effectiveness of Scottish planning policy 4, "Planning for Minerals", in relation to quarrying activity.
I am not sure that we can take the petition much further, given that Scottish planning policy 4 has been reviewed recently and the Government is not likely to review it again in the near future.
If we can save any time, it is better to save it.
One of the issues is that the concerns that the petitioners raise on mineral extraction can be addressed through the new Scottish planning policy 4. My understanding is that that is the appropriate legislative framework and appeal mechanism for people who feel that there has been an intrusion in terms of development. With that in mind, it is probably best to close the petition, knowing that that route is still available for individuals and local communities.
Wind Farm Developments (PE1095)
I have already introduced PE1095. I welcome Kenneth Gibson MSP to the committee. I ask him to say something about the petition and then we will have a shared discussion.
I thank the committee and the petitioners who have come through from Renfrewshire and Ayrshire. They want me to point out that the petition should really be said to be about protecting national and regional parks rather than protection from wind farm development because they are not against wind farms. They want to make that absolutely clear. The petition is really about protecting regional parks in particular from industrial development.
Are there any comments or observations on how to tackle the issues raised in the petition?
For quite a long time, my party has thought that the Government should give some more strategic guidance about where wind farm developments should take place. I doubt if any of us in the Parliament are against renewable energy or wind farms in particular, but it is important to consider carefully where they are situated. Areas such as the one mentioned in the petition are significant in that respect.
I support the suggestion that we should go for further responses from the Government. The issue has been a running sore for a long time, but the Government and local authorities in Scotland have not really been best prepared for the roll-out of wind energy across Scotland. There has never really been any clarity; a case-by-case approach has been taken to every wind farm development, and there is a huge queue of developments to be dealt with. We have gone far beyond the time when we need some clarity.
I might be behind the times but I get the impression from the papers that there is no Government strategic paper that tells wind farm developers where they should go—that is a phrase that might be misquoted.
If I was in government, I would not necessarily want to identify preferred areas. It might be better to give principles and guidelines that can be used to determine the best areas. When we write to the Government about the petition, we should say that we were automatically concerned because a regional park is involved, and the petitioners have claimed that the development would be inappropriate on several grounds. As parliamentarians, we can all have our individual views on that, but there is an issue about getting clarity from the Government about the process and what is expected. That should be the driving force behind our inquiry on behalf of the petitioners. I am sure that that is what Nigel Don meant.
Let me take a few seconds to clarify that I would like a map of Scotland that showed not necessarily where wind farms should be located—it would not say "Wind farms can go there"—but the areas where wind farms would be unlikely to be okay because of an obvious reason, such as that they would be sited in a national or regional park. It could also show areas where wind farms would be a fairly marginal issue and where it was not obvious that anybody would object to them.
I do not want to cause division in the Scottish National Party group, but I encourage John Wilson to give his view.
I would take a cautious approach. If the Government sent out the message that it was okay to site wind farms in particular locations, where would it stand if, as part of the planning or public inquiry process, it had to report and decide on an objection to a proposed wind farm? We would be better to call on wind farm developers to identify suitable areas—as they do at present—and require applications to go through the planning process. Following the recent controversy over a planning application not a million miles away from here, I would hate to think that the Government would be seen to give the green light to wind farm developments in the face of local objections.
With those healing words, I think that we are achieving consensus.
The local plan could possibly identify sites with potential for wind farm developments. We should not say that renewables developments should never be located in national or regional parks, as that would go against the ethos of such parks. Indeed, microgeneration developments should be encouraged in areas where we are trying to look after the environment. The issue could clearly be dealt with in the local plan, on which local people are consulted. We need to bring people together in consensus rather than having things imposed by Government.
I should say that the proposed developments in the Clyde Muirshiel regional park are already contrary to the structure plan.
I think that there is a strong view that we need to seek further clarity from the Government, such as a framework or guidelines for such developments. With that consideration, are members agreed that we should try to see what progress we can make with the petition?
I thank Kenneth Gibson and the petitioners for their patience.
Democratic Process (Young People) (PE1065)
Petition PE1065, by Rajiv Joshi, on behalf of Young Scot, calls on the Parliament to use the Microsoft Government leaders forum Europe to promote the use of new and emerging technologies to help participation in the democratic process.
The petition mentions only Microsoft. In many quarters, there is a strong view that Microsoft is something of an aggressive monopolist and that open source technology would be better.
I am fairly relaxed about that, but I take on board those comments. Essentially, we can separate the two issues out. The core issue for us is how we use new technologies in participation. I am not particularly anxious for a particular brand's products to be the only way in which we do that. With that commitment from the convener, are members happy to engage with that process?
Racing Pigeons (Public Health) (PE1068)
PE1068, by John Ferguson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate the public health risks associated with racing pigeons and to introduce measures to ensure that racing pigeon lofts are not situated in residential areas—that would kill half the folk songs in Glasgow—and that responsibilities be imposed on the owners for dirt, damage and public disease. The committee has previously considered the petition.
Okay. I do not want to make a big do about the matter—I had to get that gag in.
Village and Community Halls (PE1070)
PE1070, by Sandra Hogg, on behalf of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, raises issues relating to village and community halls. I think that one of the Scottish newspapers included coverage of the issue earlier this week.
Can we ask for an update?
Okay. We will look for information on the progress of discussions on village and community halls. I think that that is the only thing that we can do at the moment. Do members agree?
Primary Schools (Visiting Specialist Teachers) (PE1071)
PE1071, by Ruchelle Cullen, on behalf of Lochinver primary school parents and teachers association, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that all primary school children, particularly those in remote and rural areas, have adequate access to visiting specialist teachers of music, art and physical education. Do members have any strong views on how we should deal with the petition?
The problem is not particular to Lochinver; it is a problem in many primary schools in the Highlands, where there is a distinct lack of visiting teachers—PE, sport and music teachers and so on—in all subjects. Such teachers are non-existent. If we can do anything, including encouraging the Executive to increase the availability of visiting teachers, everybody will be happier.
I think that that is the committee's view in principle, but obviously we must consider decisions that have been and will be made. I have a partisan view, as I have been involved with the issue. The loss of cultural co-ordinators could result in major consequences for children's development. However, we will pursue such issues in the chamber and elsewhere.
The issues that the petition raises are hugely disappointing in light of the fact that the year of Highland culture has just finished. It was hoped that one of the legacies of that year would be that children and young people would receive free music tuition, but it seems that that will not be borne out.
I agree. The situation does not affect just the Highlands; it applies throughout Scotland. Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council have in recent years made significant cuts in visiting teachers.
The figures that we have show that, for instance, there were just five more music teachers in 2006 than there were in 2004. That is not in the spirit of the previous Administration's promise to increase music teaching in primary schools.
I ask that we agree to write to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee not only about specialist cultural teachers, but about the common commitment to provide pupils with two hours of PE a week. Is that committee tracking or observing the situation or doing serious work to interrogate the issues, which would be useful? We should draw that committee's attention to the petition.
I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union and as a former music teacher. I accept whole-heartedly and acknowledge genuinely the relevance of PE and art specialists, but I observe that music is slightly different. Forgive me if this seems like special pleading—it is. Children can do art without having a specialist art teacher, although I recognise the value of such teachers, and children can run around and do physical activity without a specialist PE teacher, although I recognise the importance and contribution of such teachers. However, by and large, music does not happen unless a specialist musician is present. That is just the way it is.
Exactly—that is why I am still stuck at four chords and cannot get a suspended ninth. I might ask Robin Harper and Nigel Don to give me additional tuition on guitar chords, after which I really will kill the party.
John Wheatley College (PE1072)
I declare an interest: John Wheatley College serves a substantial part of my constituency and, until the recent development of the college's new building, which is in Paul Martin's parliamentary seat—the old building was in my constituency—I had a sublet from the college. In case anybody wishes to make inquiries, that was always declared. I now pay much more in the private sector and I am disappointed that that option is no longer available, but there we go.
When we considered the petition previously, we recognised that there was a consequence of the legislation that was if not unforeseen at least unintentional. That emerged from a ruling by OSCR when John Wheatley College took part in a sample review when OSCR was established.
In that correspondence with the Scottish Government, should we ask that colleges be retained on the charities register until the consultation and legislation have gone through? All charities were initially put on to the register, and the review is a rolling process. It would go against the spirit of the 2005 act if colleges were taken off the register pending a change in legislation. We could perhaps ask for a derogation for colleges until the Government has carried out the consultation and introduced legislation. Other colleges will face the same problem.
Paul Martin is present for another petition, but I am conscious that he has a material interest as the constituency member.
Thank you, convener. Claire Baker and Rhoda Grant have covered the issues well, so I will be brief.
I share members' view that the college has found itself in a difficult position through no fault of its own. We should be taking measures to ensure that both ministers and the charity regulator operate with a fair amount of equanimity towards the college because it will not be the only college affected. It was drawn in by its own endeavours because it wanted to demonstrate the good work that it was doing, and it then found itself on the wrong side of a ruling.
If the college comes off the register, it will no longer be a charity and will lose out because of that. Given that until the rolling programme is fully carried out there will be a lot of organisations on the register that do not fulfil the criteria, we could ask OSCR to put the colleges to the back of the process.
Okay. We will write a pretty strong letter, urging that the review process be carried out expeditiously because there will be an impact on the college's ability to get resources in, particularly through the role that it can play in developments—I obviously have a partisan view—in the whole of the east of the city and beyond. The college can play a critical role in attracting other funding through its charitable status, which makes it attractive. If it did not have that charitable status, the college would be disadvantaged, when it could be doing much more in terms of the wider employability issues that exist throughout Scotland, but which are a particular problem in that part of Scotland and which we need to resolve.
I understand that a two-year period is allowed by OSCR and that John Wheatley College has not yet been removed from the list, so there might be enough time for the Government to find a solution before we need to ask it to retain—
Right, but we do not want to be the last-minute shop when the Government has not got the solution together and the college faces uncertainty. The college has annual budgets, so the quicker that everybody gets round the table to sort the problem, the better. We will send a strong letter, saying that we want the matter to be resolved. I would hate to have to bring a petition to the Parliament, along with Paul Martin, in my capacity as a constituency MSP. Is my suggestion agreed?
Registered Social Landlords (PE1075)
PE1075, by David Emslie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the administration and operation of registered social landlords, such as Grampian Housing Association, to investigate the role of Communities Scotland as the regulatory and inspection body and for such registered social landlords to be brought within the remit of Audit Scotland. We have received the relevant documentation and papers on the petition. I invite Nigel Don to comment.
Members will have read the papers. I draw their attention to page 5 of the last letter from the petitioner. At the bottom of that page they will see my name together with the name of a member of my staff. The letter makes allegations about a member of my staff that it is plainly for that member of staff to deal with. It suggests that I have been briefed badly—a suggestion that I refute. I think that the advice that I have been given by my staff has been balanced and objective. The comments that the petitioner makes about the member of my staff are, at the very least, derogatory and possibly defamatory and actionable. In order to minimise the mischief, I simply do not want to say any more about the petition other than to repudiate any accusations that are addressed to me. The suggestion that I am in any way biased about the issue needs simply to be repudiated.
Thank you. That is helpful. We will excuse Mr Don from the discussion of the petition.
The petition refers directly to Audit Scotland. As we are writing to the Government to seek clarification on which regulatory body it will establish to monitor registered social landlords, it might be worth inquiring whether the Government intends to involve Audit Scotland, so that we can be clearer in our minds about how the matter will proceed. As you said, convener, time and tide have moved on in relation to the Government's stance on Communities Scotland. I hope that, if we come up with a form of regulation that suits the petitioner—or satisfies them, as it might not suit them—we will be seen to have made progress on the case.
Do members accept the recommendations that have been made and agree to pursue the petition in that way?
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Appeal Tribunal) (PE1076)
PE1076, by D W R Whittet, calls on the Parliament to set up an appeal tribunal to review final decisions by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. We have received several submissions, which members have had a chance to look through. The clerks also received further submissions that have been available on request for members to examine. Concerns have been raised about the ombudsman's role. We have the papers before us. Do members have any strong views on how we should tackle the issue?
The Government has given an initial response to the Crerar report and has committed to considering as a priority an effective, streamlined and standardised complaints system for all public services. We should await the outcome of that process and see what action the Scottish Government takes following its response to the Crerar report. We have received many letters on the issue—I and other members have received some and we have heard from the clerk how many other letters there have been. Given that, would it be appropriate to send to the Government the comments from the petitioner and the other people who have been in touch with us, so that it can take them into account as part of its consideration of the Crerar report?
To reinforce that, I am happy to wait until we get the Government's full response to the Crerar report before we consider the petition again.
We will accept those recommendations. However, my one worry is about sending someone else the volume of correspondence that we have received. We could send a representative sample of the concerns.
We should certainly include the petitioner's concerns.
I accept that. We could provide that sample as core evidence to the Government, along with a summary of the key points that have been raised. Consistent points are made in all the correspondence, so it would not be rocket science to do that. Are members happy with the recommendation that we await the Government's full response on the Crerar report before our final consideration of the petition?
Education Maintenance Allowance (PE1079)
PE1079, by Laura Long, calls on the Parliament to review the eligibility conditions for the education maintenance allowance programme to take account of the number of children in households who are between 16 and 19 and in full-time education. From memory, I think that there was something on the EMA in the budget—there was either a change or a discontinuation of the pilots, although I might be wrong about that. My trusted clerk has just surreptitiously passed me a note, which states that the eligibility for the young students bursary is being overhauled to include for the first time students who are under 25 with a child over three. However, that is about the young students bursary, which is not the same as the EMA.
We should ask whether the Government will consult with student representatives.
I am happy to do that. We will continue the petition and seek further clarification on a range of issues related to EMA: status, eligibility criteria and its continuation.
Perhaps we can impress upon the Government the petitioner's wish that other children in the household in that age group be taken into account. The fact that they are not being taken into account goes against the spirit of the allowance. Claire Baker has reminded me that the Government says in its response that it is not looking to review the matter at the moment. Given that there have been some changes, we could ask it to look at that issue again.
I am happy to accept that. Is that agreed?
Edinburgh South Suburban Railway (PE1080)
I know that some members are here to speak on this petition and I am glad that they have had the patience to sit through the rest of the petitions. It is a bit like a train—you have to wait a long time for it to come along.
I am here for the next one.
You have just got in early. As a Labour politician, he is getting his retaliation in first, Mike. Mike Pringle is one of the members whose constituency is affected by the potential development. Robin Harper also represents the area.
I can perhaps help. The petition was lodged last April and the petitioner came to the committee in November. It was lodged last April in the hope that the Halcrow report, which was commissioned by the City of Edinburgh Council, would be available by the time that the petitioner came to the committee. My information, as of today, from the convener of the council's transport, infrastructure and environment committee, Phil Wheeler, is that the Halcrow report is still not available. The council hopes that it will be available by the end of March—in approximately a month's time. I suggest that this committee delays any decision, as the report is a substantial piece of work and it will make a recommendation one way or the other. You could perhaps save a bit of time.
That is a positive and constructive suggestion. I never thought that I would make that comment about a Liberal Democrat, but I have just done so.
As a local MSP and a supporter of Capital Rail Action Group for as long as I can remember, I have an interest to declare. Mike Pringle's suggestion that we hold off from looking at the petition again until after the Halcrow report is published is sensible.
The clerk has indicated that there is also the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance process, which could be of material interest. Is that approach agreed?
Thanks for your patience. I know that progress is incremental, but that is often how the best change occurs in our society.
Local Museums (PE1083)
PE1083, by John Arthur, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support the creation of local museums, such as the proposed Leith museum. I welcome Malcolm Chisholm, who is the member of the Scottish Parliament covering the historic place of Leith, in the heart of Edinburghers and all that kind of stuff. Malcolm may wish to speak on behalf of the petition.
I will speak briefly, as I spoke when the committee previously discussed the petition. I hope, convener, that you will be as generous to me as you were to our colleague a minute ago.
It is that time of the afternoon, Malcolm.
As committee members know from their papers, since I was last at the committee there has been a response to its consultation. It would be fair to say that it indicates considerable support for the idea of a Leith museum. The case may also have been reinforced by the Scottish Government's recent emphasis on the teaching of Scottish history. I will not go through all the submissions, but I point out that the Scottish Museums Council, which is a key body in the sector, supports the principle. I also refer members to the City of Edinburgh Council's submission, which sums up the case succinctly. It says:
As a former Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, I am not unattracted to the proposed development. People should keep beavering away at the issue. There is the potential for a very good museum that would make a real difference. People need to be pulled together, and the committee's role should be to encourage momentum. If NMS has a building, we should raise that point with the minister, so that she can discuss the proposal with the agency with responsibility for dealing with buildings that get used for other things. The Big Lottery Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund and other organisations could be spoken to. We can chat about that. I imagine that you wish to voice your support, Robin.
Yes. I declare an interest as a local MSP and a former teacher of history and modern studies. I am a strong supporter of the proposal, and I would like us to approach the Executive for a response and to ascertain what it can do to support the proposal.
I have my own views on how best to do that, but I invite other views.
We should also approach the City of Edinburgh Council.
Absolutely.
It is an exciting project. I note from its response in relation to the waterfront visitor destination development plan that Scottish Enterprise is seeking consultation feedback pretty soon—next month, in fact. It might be interesting to hear what response it has had. Malcolm Chisholm will know more about this than I do, but I believe that Scottish Enterprise held discussions with local councils about the setting up of the waterfront project, and I presume that the Leith museum would legitimately form part of that. It would therefore be interesting to get a response from Scottish Enterprise.
I suggest that it would be useful, if we are writing to the minister with responsibility for the matter, to ask what she can do by way of an audit or review of the existing buildings, so that a discussion can open up on that. We could ask the minister to consider setting up a working group of officials from the appropriate directorates and, more important, the national agencies, along with the city council. It might be worth getting information about resources and any applications that may be made to the various sources for funding, including Europe, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Big Lottery Fund. There is a real chance to create a dynamic that might result in something positive.
The minister could be invited to respond on what further support and interest she is taking in the Scottish Museums Council, which I believe is on the point of relaunching itself under a different logo—museums galleries Scotland, if I am correct.
So, on those recommendations, we are happy to continue to give that kind of tacit and encouraging support to the petition. We will raise the fundamental issues that Malcolm Chisholm and the petitioners raised with us with the relevant Government minister and departments, through correspondence and other communication. I hope that that is helpful.
Neurosurgery (Merging of Units) (PE1084)
PE1084, by Walter Baxter, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to take immediate action to halt the merger of Scotland's four neurological units and to give proper consideration to the impact that a merger would have on people in the Aberdeen and north of Scotland areas with brain injuries or trauma, who would have to travel south for life-saving treatment.
I note that you have had some responses to the committee's correspondence, convener. The Scottish public health network, for example, highlights what appeared in the draft report that I read out to the committee when it previously considered the petition, which is that the four-unit model that is the current arrangement allows 92 per cent of the Scottish population access to a neurosurgery unit within two hours. Having only a single unit would utterly destroy that access; even a two-unit model, which was one of the other models under consideration, would destroy it.
Obviously, as a north-east MSP, I am privy to the same briefings that Brian Adam gets from the health board and so on, and it is clear to me that there is strong support for retaining the four-unit model. In Grampian, where trauma incidents are frequent—on the roads and in the North Sea, for example—it is very important to be sure that emergency cases can receive specialist attention expeditiously.
There seems to be general support for making progress on these issues. We await the results of consideration by the neuroscience implementation group. The responsible minister and the local health board will have to address the fundamental issues that arise. We should write to the minister with the new information and ask when a decision is likely to be made. We should ask about the Government's likely direction of travel. The Government might not give us an answer at the moment, but it might say that deliberations continue and that Parliament will hear a response shortly, one way or the other.
Kinship Carers (PE1085)
PE1085, by Caroline Garrett on behalf of You Are Not Alone, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to provide total recognition for kinship carers. This issue has been discussed in a members' debate in the Parliament.
I am very interested in this issue; I know many kinship carers who have concerns. Steps have been taken to ensure that, when looked-after children are placed in kinship care, their carers are entitled to the foster carer allowance, as would have happened had the children been placed with foster carers. However, a group of people who stepped in as kinship carers before the authorities were required to step in are not entitled to the foster carer allowance. We should raise that point with the minister.
It is clear that we do not know how many children are in kinship care, so perhaps the Government could be encouraged to look into that.
We should have a short-term strategy and then a medium and long-term strategy. We can do both, and we can consider kinship care and the early years. As we all know from different neighbourhoods, grandparents are often looking after kids because of other issues. That has an impact on the grandparents. Because of the age difference, the time may come when the grandparents will not be there but the children are still quite young. Those children will need support.
Car Parking (Hospitals) (PE1086)<br />Hospital Parking (Charges) (PE1091)
These petitions are being considered together because they both relate to NHS car parking charges.
The last time that the committee considered the petition, it made the good decision to call on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to give evidence before the committee. I understand that the health board considers that progress has been made to such an extent that there is no longer a requirement for it to appear before the committee. I do not believe that to be the case. A number of issues are still outstanding that require the interrogation of the chairman and chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
There are still issues that it would be worth examining. Often things end up happening in public service and we wonder when we had the debate on it. Changes are made incrementally, or decisions are made by a local authority and, before we know it, people are saying, "This is not quite what we expected." I would like to try and interrogate the issue further; I see no reason why we should not have the chief executive and the chairman before the committee. It is a big ask, and it affects other parts of Scotland as well as Glasgow but, obviously, we are talking about NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's recommendations. It is saying that there should be uniformity in charging across all hospitals, or, depending on where someone is, they will be more likely to get a more expensive levy for parking. The reality is that admission to an acute hospital is serious. I have had personal experience of that in the past few months because of my sister. Someone could end up having to pay a lot more money if they are admitted to hospital A rather than to hospital B. It is worth exploring those issues with the chief executive and chairman of the health board. Do other members of the committee think that that would be worth doing?
We coupled the two petitions, but it looks like they might be coming apart. The first petition relates to how NHS boards levy parking charges. The new guidance for boards will deal with that issue. The second petition relates to the knock-on effect of levying any charge and to the discussion that has taken place with the local community. Hopefully, the first issue is in the process of being resolved—some action is being taken on it, at least—but the second remains. Any charge will have an impact. We may need to speak to the chief executive and chairman of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde about PE1091 and what discussions have been held with local people. The first petition will be addressed by the guidance that is issued to different hospitals, taking into account their local circumstances.
Paul Martin has raised a fundamental issue. Do we want to have an opportunity to question the chief executive and chairman of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on PE1091? I have the sense that members are relatively relaxed and comfortable with that suggestion. Having accepted it, we must consider what areas of interrogation we wish to pursue. We have grouped the issues together broadly, for the sake of convenience. We need to unravel the different material interests relating to staffing, access, differences in the nature of hospitals and the different geography of the areas that service them. We already have a fair amount of information in written form, so we will invite the chief executive and chairman of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to appear before the committee. I thank Paul Martin for his patience.
Further Education Lecturers (Pay and Conditions) (PE1088)
PE1088 relates to the pay and conditions of further education lecturers and is from Dr Robert Leslie, on behalf of the North Glasgow College branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland. The petition calls on the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into salary levels and conditions of further education lecturing staff, who are seriously disadvantaged at present compared with university lecturers and school teachers. One or two members of the committee have EIS membership. I declare formally my membership of the union. However, I have never been part of the FE sector.
I declare an interest, as a fellow of the Educational Institute of Scotland.
I am keen for us to seek the views of some colleges. We discussed one college earlier, in relation to another petition. I am aware that the pay scales that are applied within the college sector are quite divergent. I support the suggestion that we write to the Government, but it would also be worth while for us to write to colleges to find out what impact applying nationally negotiated pay awards to further education lecturers across the board would have on delivery of the services that they currently deliver.
We are in broad agreement on the petition. We will take on board the two suggestions that have been made and seek further information on the petition, so that we can consider it again in the future.
National Proof-of-age Card (PE1090)
PE1090, from John Drummond, on behalf of the Scottish Grocers Federation, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a national proof-of-age card free for all 12 to 26-year-olds. Mr Drummond has been waiting patiently in the public gallery all afternoon, but he is used to late opening—he will be here for a wee bit longer. Do members have any suggestions on how the committee should deal with the petition?
There is general support for enhancing the Young Scot entitlement card scheme, which operates on a voluntary basis. The card is widely used and quite popular, but there is perhaps scope for encouraging more young people to get such a card. I seem to remember from reading the committee papers—correct me if I am wrong—that there is support for that from the Government. I am sorry—I have read so many papers recently that I cannot remember which covers what. There is a letter from the Government among our papers, which says that it is broadly supportive.
No, I think we know the direction that you would like us to take. Are there any other comments from members?
I add the caveat that there would have to be strict controls over use of the information that would be stored on the cards and the memory capacity of the cards. One would not like the scheme to be extended into a full identity card scheme.
I recognise that.
However, such a scheme might be the introduction of identity cards by stealth. The matter came up at another committee this morning. I understand what we are trying to achieve, but if everybody under the age of 26 gets the message that they need a card in order to do the positive things that we are talking about, it is not difficult to see that, in 10 years' time, everybody under the age of 36 will have one. They may have torn up their card, but the point is that the appropriate bits of data will have been assembled.
It is unfortunate that other considerations have to be part of the debate around this, but that is inevitable when we are discussing issues to do with identification and storing information. The Scottish Grocers Federation does not see it like that—it is more concerned about the effective enforcement of legislation that we have all been party to putting on the statute book, which is hopefully about protecting young people from accessing things that they should not be accessing or, if they are accessing them, at least being able to track that and pursue an interventionist strategy to assist them. We need people to sit around the table and discuss the matter properly so that we do not end up in the kind of situation on which members have very different views, in terms of ID cards and the storing of too much information.
For the avoidance of doubt, there is no way that I would promote ID cards or compulsion. I am talking about a voluntary scheme that would be attractive to young people.
Does the committee accept those recommendations?
Care Standards (PE1092)
PE1092, from Ronald Mason, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the long-term sick, elderly and disabled receive care on the basis of need and, in particular, that such care is provided seven days a week. The petition is in front of us and we have had a chance to look at the appropriate supporting information. Do members have any views on how we should deal with it?
I assume that it has unanimous support.
I do not think that anyone can disagree with the principle that the petition articulates. The issue is about ensuring the deliverability of that. Given the existence of health and community care partnerships, the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care and other legislative frameworks, there must be frameworks against which deliverability can be measured. I do not know whether it is worth continuing with the petition in that respect, but I will take views from members.
The petitioner is talking about the provision of care on the basis of need. I am certainly aware that care is not always provided on the basis of need; I know that there are occasions—in fact, someone told me about this recently—when, unless someone qualifies for personal care, care will not be provided. We need clarification on a council's obligation to provide care. Is a council obliged only to provide personal care, which is funded through the Government as free personal care, or is it obliged to provide care that allows someone to remain independent? That was something that I was not aware of when we first considered the petition—it has just come to light through personal circumstances. I have resolved those, but I am very concerned about other people who are in similar situations and who suddenly find that care is being rationed, based on the amount and desperation of the need.
Those comments are relevant. I was on the Health Committee when it carried out an inquiry into free personal care and found that there was quite a wide variation in the availability of free care. In effect, there was rationing, because of scarce resources or whatever, and I have no reason to think that this is any different.
I am aware that there are issues concerning the assessment of need, who assesses the level of care that individuals require and whether that is constrained by the budgetary considerations of local authorities or local authority departments. Clarification is needed on the assessments that are made of the needs and support requirements of individuals, and on who makes the final decision on the level of care or support that an individual receives based on their situation.
The view from committee members seems to be that we do not want to close the petition at the moment. We will examine some of the fundamentals about what it means in practice. How do we unravel that? It is such a ball of string.
We could ask the Scottish Government what councils' statutory requirements are for care provision. The level of care that is provided currently seems to be a local decision, as some councils provide care at level X and others provide it at level Y. Should there be a uniform level of care that extends beyond personal care?
We can try to pull together the comments in the petitioner's submission and the responses from the care commission and from the Government department with responsibility for care issues. Once we have pulled together the answers that are contained in those responses, we can bring the petition back to the committee with a thought piece on how we might examine the issue further.
Could we also ask the Government for its view on whether there should be a change of the delivery model for care services? In Aberdeen on Monday, I heard about a very different model of service delivery whereby the individual is first assessed on their total needs and then allocated a budget, which is controlled by that individual. In principle, that seems an extremely sensible method although it involves a very different model of delivery. I am not particularly advocating that model—I am not saying that I am for it or agin it—but we should perhaps ask the Government for its view on the matter. That would have an impact on seven-day delivery.
It is true that the quality of care is an issue in some respects, but the petition also throws up the issue—Rhoda Grant alluded to this—that seven-day care is not available even when people think that it has been notionally agreed. There can be budget issues, staffing issues and even attitudinal issues. With all care issues, nothing is ever simple. We need to try to get to the heart of things to help to get a better understanding of how seven-day care should be provided.
Those people who take care of the sick patient in the house—home carers—are paid less than those people who are employed by the council.
An emerging issue in Bashir Ahmad's region and in my constituency is that people in ethnic minority communities, who are committed to looking after elderly parents within the family unit, are unable to get a package of care that respects their family's cultural needs in terms of language and support. I have at least two such cases on the go—if not three—that I am trying to resolve with the social work department. As well as the fundamentals of resourcing, we need to try to get a better understanding of what such care means in practice. I presume that the petitioner has submitted the petition because his experience has been that the provision is not as stated on the box.
I think that Nigel Don's comments are also relevant. Direct payments were being introduced as far back as the late 1990s, when I was a councillor. In the previous parliamentary session, it was fairly obvious to the Health Committee that the promotion and uptake of direct payments were very patchy. Much seemed to depend on the opinions of the local social work department. If people have some responsibility for acquiring the care that they have been assessed as needing, that can help when resources are scarce. That is part and parcel of the same issue. The different models of providing care should be taken into consideration as well.
The payments scheme that allowed people to buy in their own care raised a number of issues about the relationship between the person cared for and the carer whom they employed. That direct employer-employee relationship throws up a number of problems. We have a couple of organisations in Scotland that provide good support because they recognised that not everyone understood that using those grants to employ a carer involved entering into a formal relationship, under which the employer has duties and obligations to carry out various tasks in relation to the employment rights of staff and so on.
It's COSLA time.
It is that time of the day.
We will keep the petition open so that we can explore some of these complex issues and encourage others to do the same.
Nursery Schools (Closures) (PE1093)
I know that we have had a long meeting, but this is the final current petition for consideration.
The petition simply underlines the urgent need for an early years strategy. This afternoon, for example, we heard that nursery school children are not covered by regulations on mobile phone masts and that we do not know how many very young children are in kinship care. Now this petition highlights that nursery school children are excluded from provisions in relation to distance in regulations governing school closures. I would have thought that, to facilitate their being taken to nursery by their parents, young children of all ages should be covered by provisions on how close those nurseries should be to, for example, their parents' houses or places of work. As a result, we should write to the Executive, asking for a review of the issue and suggesting that existing legislation on nursery school children be consolidated.
I am sure that the committee shares that view. Do members accept that recommendation?