St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices, as they interfere with the sound system. No apologies have been received.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of four current petitions. The first petition is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite contributions from members on what action they wish to take.
I ask that the petition be deferred to allow the petitioner and Gil Paterson MSP the opportunity to speak at a future committee meeting.
I am content for the petition to be deferred so that Gil Paterson can be present when we next consider it. I am not so sure that I would invite others to contribute, but I would certainly be happy to receive any further submissions that they might wish to make before we decide on the best course of action.
I agree.
Do members agree to that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
National Bird (PE1500)
The next petition is PE1500, by Stuart Housden OBE, on behalf of RSPB Scotland, on the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite members’ contributions on what action to take.
This has been one of the most preposterous petitions that I have had to consider in a number of years. We have been trying to breathe life into this dead bird of a petition for quite some time. The Scottish Government’s position is clear: it is not persuaded of the need to take a legislative route through Parliament. I therefore move that we close the petition. I am happy for the RSPB, in so far as it wants to do so, to continue to establish public opinion on the matter and, perhaps at some other date, to persuade the Government and others of the need to advance a petition for Scotland to adopt a national bird.
I am happy to agree with that and to let the RSPB consult before coming back to us.
I am happy to close the petition. The onus is on the RSPB to prove its case, so I fully agree that it should be the RSPB that arranges or undertakes the public consultation, particularly given the financial constraints that everyone is under. We are led to believe that the RSPB is not short of a penny or two.
The issue is not about finances but about the Government’s position, which it has made clear. It is important that a consultation is allowed to take place. If it wants to, the RSPB could always come back to us in a year, once it has its findings and if it has established greater support than it has shown so far.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Housing Associations) (PE1539)
The next petition is PE1539, by Anne Booth, on housing associations and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. After the committee papers were issued, an email was received from the petitioner. I invite members’ contributions on what action the committee should take.
I propose that we keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the special report that the Scottish Information Commissioner laid before ministers. The commissioner clearly indicated in her submission that she supports the concept that housing associations and all registered social landlords should come under the freedom of information legislation. We should seek the Government’s views on the information commissioner’s report.
Commissioners have the right to lay special reports. The information commissioner has made her views known on the issue. It would be interesting to find out how the Scottish Government will respond to her report. It would also be useful to ask for the Scottish Housing Regulator’s view on including housing associations and others in FOI legislation, so that we can get a rounded picture on how we progress the petition.
I am not averse to writing in the proposed way but, to an extent, the petition’s purpose has been achieved. We must get an assurance from the Government about where it is going. Further changes in FOI legislation, which I think that we all accept, are going to happen. That should probably be done contemporaneously rather than piecemeal.
It would be important to make it clear to the Government that there appears to be support for the proposal, but the next stage in extending FOI should not be to have a bit on RSLs and a bit on something else; rather, it should be to move forward across the board by widening and deepening the range of organisations that are FOI-able.
I am happy to close the petition, given that the Scottish Government will shortly consult on the matter.
I agree. There is no point in duplication. The Government is going to carry out a consultation anyway, which will probably cover the issues that the petition raises, so I am happy for the petition to be closed.
10:15
Does the committee agree that we should close the petition? [Interruption.] The clerk has reminded me of John Wilson’s proposed course of action. Does the committee agree to go forward with his suggestion and then bring back the petition later with a view to possibly closing it?
That is the way forward. It would be good to hear from the Scottish Housing Regulator before the petition is closed. I am happy to second John Wilson’s recommendation.
I am agnostic on the way forward. However, if our colleague John Wilson has a strong view, I am happy to allow that to dictate the way forward on this occasion.
Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Single Room Hospitals (Isolation) (PE1482)
The fourth and final current petition is PE1482, by John Womersley, on the isolation of single rooms in hospitals. Members have a note by the clerk and a submission from the Scottish Government.
I am happy to defer consideration of the petition to allow the Scottish Government time to publish its review. We can then consider its findings and continue from there.
From Mr Browning’s letter on the Scottish Government’s behalf, I was not clear on whether the Scottish Government has detailed any timetable for any review that it might initiate. I note from the letter that the Scottish Government is going to undertake research. The letter is very strong in detailing that there is a presumption in favour of single rooms rather than there being a no-obligation choice.
The petition has raised the issue for our consideration and debate and we have kept the petition open for some time. From the letter that we have received, it seems that the issue will now be part of an on-going review. Therefore, I am not sure what more the committee would achieve by keeping the petition open.
I would be happy for the petition to be closed. If that is not what colleagues want to do, that is fine, but I am not sure when specifically we would expect to have any evidence. I imagine that, if the evidence was compelling in a particular direction, the Scottish Government would take account of it, so in a sense the petition’s ambition has been fulfilled.
I noticed from the letter that there is a preliminary copy of the review, which the Scottish Government is seeking expert views on. It adds:
“We will write again in due course once we have obtained expert opinion on its findings and reassessed the Scottish Government’s policy in the light of this evidence.”
Where is that said?
In the Scottish Government letter dated 18 February.
My understanding is that the review confirms that research has had nothing to do with the impact of single rooms in isolation. Paragraph 4 of the letter says:
“In light of the lack of research on this issue we recognise it will be important to gather evidence from our own facilities to measure the impact of single rooms and consider any implications for our current policy ... and we will take steps to address this through ongoing surveys as well as formal post occupancy analysis.”
There is nothing in the review on the issue. The Government has looked at that and concluded that nothing in the review will give us further illumination on the issue of single rooms. The only way in which that will happen is through further analysis, which the Government says that it will undertake—but not to any specific timetable, as far as I can see.
Paragraph 2 in the letter that we received on 18 February starts with:
“I have attached a preliminary copy of this review on which we are currently seeking some expert views.”
Jackson Carlaw is right. No timetable is attached to that correspondence, but we could write to the Scottish Government and ask it what the timetable is for seeking expert views. Once the Government gives a response, we can consider that.
It is clear that the Scottish Government is doing on-going work on the issue, and it would be wrong of us to close the petition until we get further information from the Government on how it intends to carry out the review and on the timescale for that review. If we got that information, we could move forward on closing the petition.
I agree with those sentiments. There are two important aspects. First, the petitioners obviously want to see a conclusion, which would be helpful. Getting a conclusion is the whole point of bringing a petition to the committee in the first instance.
Secondly, the approach will perhaps allow the Government to focus more clearly on a timetable, which is also important. We should keep the petition open at this stage to allow that to happen, but we need to press the Government to come up with a timescale, because it is important to show the petitioners that work is being done and that there is an end to the tunnel at some stage.
I agree that we should give the Scottish Government time to publish the review, but we should certainly contact it to find out what the timetable will be.
Do members agree with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions