Official Report 236KB pdf
“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (PE743, PE822 and PE881)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of current petitions. We have grouped three petitions—PE743, PE822 and PE881—as they all raise issues about the implementation of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities", in which commitments were made on services for people with learning disabilities.
Given that we have a new Government in its first budget process, is it worth asking for an update on the action that it is taking to address the petitioners' concerns and what funding might be available?
I am reluctant to close the petitions because the service area and the needs of the clients that we are talking about are complex and always challenging, so we should be vigilant all the time. I know how difficult it has been to get somewhere. To achieve the commitments of "The same as you?" requires all the different agencies such as housing providers, local authority providers, or voluntary sector providers to have combined resources and staff to deal with problems.
Speech and Language Therapy <br />(Agenda for Change) (PE768)
The next petition, by Susan Bannatyne and Nicola Orr, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the proposed agenda for change legislation for speech and language therapy services and service users in the NHS. Again, members have the papers and written submissions.
There is the suggestion that we could draw the petition to the attention of the Scottish Government for consideration in the "Better Health, Better Care" discussion and the forthcoming health and well-being action plan.
I presume that that is not incompatible with closing the petition.
To put it bluntly, I would have thought that speech and language therapy would be an on-going issue in the health and well-being sector at ministerial and civil servant level, given that it is a core issue for discussions with health boards and social work departments. Current information seems to indicate that there are no recruitment and retention problems, so I would be happy to recommend closure. If the petitioners are still unhappy, or there are future problems, they have the right to bring something forward again. I recommend closure at this stage. Does the committee approve?
Maternity Services (Rural Areas) (PE898)
PE898, by Mrs Lynne Simpson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the provision of maternity services in rural communities to ensure that quality and access to services are retained locally. Papers have been submitted to us. Are there any views?
I suppose that I should declare an interest of sorts in that I was involved with the Aboyne group when it was lobbying us intensively. To my knowledge, it is as we have been told; the birth units are either up and running or are about to be. I understand that the health boards will monitor the situation carefully. I am not sure, therefore, that the committee can do anything further at this time, but obviously we will note the units' progress with interest.
Are there any other views in the committee? There has been a shift from where we were when the petitioners would have been most concerned. Can we therefore recommend closure of the petition in light of the new and retained maternity service provision in the north?
Victim Notification Scheme (PE899)
PE899, by Hazel Reid, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the operation of the victim notification scheme to ensure that victims of serious violent and sexual crimes are given the right to receive information about the release from prison of an offender who has committed a crime against them, regardless of the length of sentence that was imposed.
It is important that we obtain clarity on the future of the victim notification scheme. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, when and how it will take forward an extension of the scheme. It would be helpful to obtain the Government's ideas on how that should be implemented.
Do members agree to approve that recommendation and to continue our consideration of the petition?
Urban Regeneration (PE911)
PE911 was lodged by Paul Nolan on behalf of Craigmillar community council. It calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the implications of the Government's support for market-led urban regeneration projects and the operation of privatised urban regeneration companies; in particular, it asks us to consider the mechanisms through which communities can influence such companies and hold them to account. Members have the written submissions in front of them. How should we proceed?
Given that the petition has been around for almost two years, it is incumbent on us to write to the new Government to find out how it plans to make progress on housing regeneration and other aspects of community regeneration. In the light of the statements that have been made by the cabinet secretary and other ministers, we should find out whether the Government will have the same attitude as the previous Executive on such matters.
I am keen that we do that, given that two of Scotland's major regeneration projects sit in my area. It would be helpful to get clarity, although I would be surprised if there was not a fair amount of consistency of approach. We will write to the Government and await its response with interest.
Play Strategy (PE913)
PE913 was submitted by Debbie Scott on behalf of To Play or Not to Play. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to adopt a play strategy that recognises the right of all children in Scotland to a safe, accessible and challenging play environment.
We should keep open our consideration of the petition because it deals with an on-going issue. For a large number of reasons that I will not go into just now, I strongly believe that the petition should be kept open for discussion.
I know that the Government has issued a consultation on national planning policy guideline 11, which is on play areas and open spaces. Those issues are relevant to the petition, so I think that we should keep it open and ask for the Government's view on it.
I noted that quite a few of the letters that we got back from organisations were a bit uncomfortable about the play strategy being closely tied into the early years strategy. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether that is indeed the approach that it plans to adopt and what the thinking behind it is. Perhaps we could also tease out from which part of the strategic spending review the funding for the play strategy will come. More detail on that would be helpful.
The issue is relevant in the context of the debate about Glasgow's successful bid for the Commonwealth games, which is about not just the benefits that the city of Glasgow will obtain, but the wider subject of activity, exercise and engagement. If we do not have open spaces or supported play provision, it will be more difficult to engage in such activities. Housing is still an important issue in Scotland and the housing lobby remains powerful. Let us keep the petition on board, as it deals with an issue that we will want to return to.
Bingo Industry (PE1040)
PE1040 was submitted by Mike Lowe—who was one of the petitioners we heard from early in the new session of Parliament—on behalf of members of Premier bingo clubs in Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath and Edinburgh. We have received correspondence on the impact on the industry of recent changes and its concern about aspects of the legislative and financial framework under which it claims that it operates. Do members have views on the petition?
The response from the Treasury was a bit abrupt, but I sympathised with its suggestion that tax was not at the root of the problems that the bingo industry is experiencing. When the industry gave evidence to us, it discussed other issues, such as the smoking ban and an ageing clientele. The follow-up letter that John Swinney sent to the Treasury tries fairly to tease out the thinking behind the tax situation in which bingo halls find themselves and to draw out more information about where they sit within the gambling industry, in comparison with casinos, bookmakers and gaming machines. It is fair enough for us to wait for a response from the Treasury to the cabinet secretary's second letter, which will give us more justification for the current tax situation of bingo halls.
That is a helpful suggestion.
Have we received responses from the local authorities to which we wrote: Fife Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council?
No. Are members happy with Claire Baker's suggestion?
I want to correct something that I said earlier about PE1089. I did not want to give the impression that I do not think that it is essential that we carry out research into the individual chemicals concerned—clearly, there is a great deal of alarm about them. The organisation that I quoted was not WWF, but Greenpeace. I should have remembered, because it took a bagful of dust from my house.
As long as it was not magic dust, you will not get the polis coming to your door. Perhaps I know too much about that—I had better watch myself. I have been watching too many American gangster movies.
Previous
New Petitions