Official Report 249KB pdf
Out-of-hours Medical Services<br />(Rural Communities) (PE776)<br />NHS 24 Services (Rural Areas) (PE814)
NHS Services (Rural Areas) (PE826)
The first current petitions are PE776, PE814 and PE826, which all relate to NHS 24.
Mr MacPherson's letter to the committee, which was received the other week, raises some issues that are still of concern to him. Perhaps we could write to the Scottish Executive to ask it to respond to the issues that he has raised. I was in Killin last week and noticed just how difficult it would be for emergency vehicles to access some areas, so it would be useful to hear the Executive's views in that regard.
Are members happy that we do that?
I am slightly dismayed that the Scottish Ambulance Service appears not to be prepared to give out information because it would somehow inhibit our ability to have a free and frank discussion. I find that extraordinary.
We have had the Parliament's legal department examine that issue closely. The annex to the letter that the Scottish Ambulance Service sent us was marked private and confidential. The issue is whether if we allowed the information to go into the public domain under the freedom of information regime, we might inhibit a free and frank exchange. For example, the SAS might not send information to the Parliament in future because it remembered that the Public Petitions Committee did not recognise a document as being private and confidential. We have been given privileged access to information that the SAS trusts us with. Such information is excluded from the need to divulge by an exemption in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which we used in this case.
I am looking beyond that issue. Why should the Scottish Ambulance Service have made information available to us on a private and confidential basis? We are all grown-ups. This is the Scottish Parliament and we can cope with difficult information. I would have thought that it would be sensible for us to have access to the information regardless of whether the SAS thinks that the information should be private and confidential.
It wanted us to have the information but it wanted it to be restricted in some way. An element of trust is involved.
For the moment, we should simply ask the Scottish Executive to respond to the points that Mr MacPherson has raised.
The suggestion is that we write back to the Executive asking for information on the points raised by the petitioner.
Should we consider writing back to the Scottish Ambulance Service as well? We could ask whether, in the light of the foregoing discussion, it would consider releasing the information to us. Members of the committee certainly do not have access to the information; I presume that the only people who have access to it are the clerks.
No, the information was circulated to members.
That is my mistake. I beg your pardon.
The information was circulated when the petition was last considered by the committee. However, if you would like us to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service, we can do so.
If we have received the information, that is my mistake, although I note that other members were not aware that we had received it either.
Is your point that you want to ask the SAS whether it is willing to have the information released into the public domain, as I suggested, and to get its blessing to do so? If so, I think that you make a fair point.
Yes, I think that we should be able to release the information into the public domain.
Let us ask the Scottish Ambulance Service whether it is willing for us to do that. If it is not, I think that we will just have to accept that.
Okay, we will do that.
Coastal and River Erosion <br />(National Strategy) (PE878)
Our next petition, PE878, by James A Mackie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider the need for a national strategy to address the impact of coastal and river erosion in Scotland. At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and to Moray Council. Responses have been received and circulated to members.
Well, convener, what can I say? When we first considered the petition, I made the point that the petition was ahead of its time and was based on a false premise. That has been confirmed by the Scottish Executive, which has indicated that it has not had an application for funding and that substantial funding is available. Moray Council has also outlined the action that it is quite appropriately taking in respect of a flood prevention scheme in its area. I note that the council has commissioned Jacob Babtie to carry out a survey of flooding in and around the area described by Mr Mackie. I do not know whether we should send him a copy of the responses, but that is the committee's normal practice.
It would be interesting to see Mr Mackie's response to the information.
Indeed, so I think we should send it to him.
We shall send it and await his response.
National Burns Heritage Trail (PE861)<br />Robert Burns (Culture and Tourism Policies) (PE824)
Our next petitions are PE861 and PE824, on Burns heritage.
It appears to be a good outcome for the Public Petitions Committee. In fairness, I do not think that it is entirely down to us, but nonetheless it is good news and I welcome the letters from Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce and from Alloway and Doonfoot community council.
I agree with John Scott. It is definitely a good news story, because the community wins. There is just one point that I think we could pick up on in the response that Peter Watson e-mailed to Eileen Martin on 13 February. His e-mail points out that the community council is delighted with the response, except on one point that does not seem to be correct. It says:
We would have to keep the petition open to allow that in case a response came back. Are you happy that we do that?
I do not know that it is necessary.
It is just that local involvement seems—
I agree. Fair enough, we can keep the petition open until we get a response back from the minister. I have the feeling, which I cannot substantiate, that local representation has probably taken place. The area is just outside my constituency, so I am not directly involved in the matter. I think that the point might have been resolved, but it would be nice to have confirmation from the minister on that.
We could, as we have done with an earlier petition, write to the minister and make her aware of the Official Report of today's meeting but still close the petition.
That would be fine. It means that the issue is being flagged up to her. As long as she is aware of it, we have done our job.
Are members happy that we do that and close the petition?
Screening (Heart Disorders) (PE773)
Our next petition is PE773 by Wilma Gunn, on behalf of Scottish Heart at Risk Testing. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce the necessary legislation to ensure that provision is made to offer screening for cardiomyopathy and all heart disorders to all those aged 16 and over who embark on strenuous competitive sports and to all families with a history of cardiac problems.
Perhaps we should close the petition on the basis that, despite the strenuous efforts that the committee clerks have made, no response has been received. If the petitioner is not writing back and letting us know her views, I do not see what further action we can take.
Do members agree?
Health Professionals (Regulation) (PE802)
Our next petition is PE802, by Mark Russell, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to express its deep concern that, despite health being a devolved matter, the regulation of health professionals has been reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
Given that the minister has responded, saying that he does not
I wonder whether that is indeed the case, because there seems to have been a variety of responses from the different organisations that have been contacted, some of which take a different view from the minister and say that the matter is worthy of further debate. I am not sure how we would progress the matter, because the minister has already responded. We might want to pass the petition to the Health Committee to make it aware that there are other views on the matter than those of the minister.
What struck me about the responses was that everybody wants to ensure the highest possible professional standards. The debate should not be about whether that is done at Westminster or at the Scottish Parliament, but about the substance of the matter, which is how we raise those standards. Therefore, instead of focusing on whether the matter is dealt with here or there, we might be better served by passing the petition on, although I do not know to whom. The point about raising standards does not concern the Scottish ministers, so I support Helen Eadie's view that we should close the petition. I do not know whether we can send it elsewhere for information on the general point about standards.
We could send the petition to the Health Committee for information but not ask it to do anything with it. Perhaps we could send it to our colleagues at Whitehall.
I was going to suggest that. People tend to forget that they have Westminster parliamentarians. We ought to remind them that they should work with the Westminster Parliament or the Scottish Parliament as appropriate. You are right to say that we should ensure that the petition goes to our Whitehall colleagues, because we cannot deal with the concerns as part of our work.
The petition would be sent just for information.
I had forgotten who Mr Russell was, but I now recollect that he lives in Lytham St Anne's. In advising him that we are closing the petition, we could suggest that the profitable route for dealing with standards would be to consult his local MP.
That might be a better suggestion. Are members happy to do that?
Although we are to close the petition, should we pass a copy of it to the Health Committee, because of the diverging views?
It will just be for information, because of the issues that have been raised.
Medical Negligence (PE866)
PE866, by James Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the need to establish an independent body to investigate claims of medical negligence.
We could invite the minister to give us his views on all the responses, of which we have several—they include responses from Citizens Advice Scotland, the BMA, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
It would be worth taking the minister's views on all those responses.
I suggest that we send the responses to the petitioner now rather than wait for the minister's response. Interesting threads emerge, such as people saying that we might not need a new body and that existing powers might provide for investigations, particularly of medical negligence. The view is emerging that people—particularly lay people such as us—might not understand some of the issues that arose and that medical professionals would need to be part of any body's membership, although not exclusively. To do justice to the range of responses, I would like us to send them to the petitioner for his comments, in addition to writing to the minister.
Are we happy about that?
We will await responses from the minister and the petitioner.
NHS Scotland (National Specialist Services) (PE791)
PE791, by Brian McAlorum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the criteria and funding mechanisms for national specialist services that are provided to NHS Scotland by individual health boards, as they are neither transparent nor effective, as evidenced by the situation at the centre for integrative care at Glasgow homoeopathic hospital.
I think so. On the basis of the minister's response, there is no need to take further action.
Members will have noticed that several people who petitioned the Parliament—including Mr McAlorum and others—have e-mailed us. My impression from their e-mails is that they are happy with the outcome, so we can close the petition with a bit of gratitude that the hospital remains open.
That is another success story. All the campaigners deserve to be congratulated.
Absolutely.
GSM-R Communication Masts <br />(Planning Permission) (PE811)
PE811, which is by Mark Mulholland on behalf of Parents and Residents against Masts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the permitted development rights that Network Rail enjoys in respect of the erection of 96ft-tall global system for mobile communications railway—GSM-R—communication masts in residential areas.
The Executive is reviewing permitted development rights, so we should put the petition in that context. As members, we are all aware of the continuing deliberations. Perhaps we should agree that no further action is required, as the matter is being given attention elsewhere.
Although no further action is required, should we send the petition to the Communities Committee, as it is considering the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill? We did that with several petitions en masse; this is another that needs a bit of scrutiny.
I support that proposal. I understand that discussions are taking place about permitted development rights and mobile communications masts in general, but issues with Network Rail have arisen throughout Scotland, not least in my constituency. I would very much welcome sending the petition to the Communities Committee; your recommendation is spot on, convener.
I agree. That would be fair to the petitioners, who would appreciate that.
The issue that the petition raises can be addressed along with other planning issues. Is that agreed?
That concludes our consideration of petitions. I thank members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 12:06.
Previous
New Petitions