Public Petitions Committee, 23 Sep 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Official Report 296KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Adults with Learning Difficulties (Provision of Services) (PE743)<br />“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Implementation) (PE822)

---

“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Findings) (PE881)

The first three current petitions that we will consider relate broadly to the topic of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities". PE743, from Madge Clark, on behalf of the Murray Owen Carers Group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review the implementation of "The same as you?" to ensure that adults with learning difficulties who are still living at home and are cared for by elderly parents are given the same level of support and community care opportunities as is given to hospital-discharged patients. PE822, from Beatrice Gallie, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to allow the implementation of "The same as you?". PE881, from Rachel Cole, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the findings of "The same as you?" to ensure that those with profound and complex needs are properly provided for.

We had a chance to consider the petitions previously. How do members wish to progress them?

It is clear that the Government regards this as work in progress, as it is looking to implement the recommendations of "The same as you?". I get the impression that there is an on-going dialogue with some of the groups involved, which ought to continue. I am not sure that the committee can take matters any further. We could close the petitions and ask the Government to continue the dialogue with those groups so that the recommendations can be implemented over the years.

That is an acceptable suggestion. We should make that recommendation to the Government, given the importance of the issues raised. Some of those issues can be dealt with through other avenues and through negotiation and consultation, but it would be useful to draw the point to the Government's attention.

---

Family Law (PE944)

PE944, from Gary Strachan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate why there is no presumption of equal access to children for both parents and equal residence with both parents after separation in Scottish law; to investigate bias against fathers as equal parents in the Scottish court system; to investigate why contact orders are not enforced; and to investigate why parental responsibilities and rights are ignored by the medical, welfare and governmental institutions to the detriment of children. I understand that there is an issue to do with how sheriff courts deal with such matters.

This subject was covered in a members' business debate that I secured a week or two back.

The letter from the Government informs us that it is doing some research on contact orders, which is very welcome. I did not know about that research until I read the letter. We should at least hold on to the petition until the research has been completed and the report has been published in March 2009, which is six months from now. The research would deal only with point (c) in the petition, but there is not a great deal that we can do about the other points. The other issues were mentioned in the chamber very recently and, although they cause some people considerable grief, there is not a great deal that we can do to the legal system to improve the situation.

Given Nigel Don's comments and given what we did with previous petitions, would it be possible to close the petition and ask the Scottish Government to keep the petitioner up to date with the research that it is carrying out?

Yes. Are we happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will close the petition and try to ensure that the petitioner is kept up to date with any developments.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

With the committee's indulgence, we will deal now with PE1105, which relates to St Margaret of Scotland hospice. We have been joined by an elected member who wants to speak to the petition but who has another commitment to go to.

Representations were made to us on the hospice by a series of individuals. I welcome Des McNulty, who has spoken to the committee about the petition previously. There are still outstanding issues on the petition, which I ask him briefly to identify.

I thank the committee for its forbearance in letting me speak to the petition now so that I can get away to another commitment.

I will briefly rehash the issues. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has proposed the removal of continuing care patients from St Margaret of Scotland hospice, which currently has 30 continuing care beds and 30 palliative care beds. The hospice's view is that the removal of those continuing care beds to Blawarthill hospital a quarter of a mile down the road would place the hospice in severe financial difficulty and, perhaps even more important, go against all the policy frameworks on dealing with people who need end-of-life care. The people who are cared for at St Margaret's are well looked after and the hospice's provision is exemplary.

More than 100,000 people signed the petition against the health board's proposals. Marjorie McCance, who is here today, co-ordinated the campaign. I think that the petition is the second biggest that there has been in Scotland in connection with a government-type decision; only the petition about the children's hospital in Glasgow was larger, which puts the campaign in perspective for members. If the situation remains unresolved, the petition on St Margaret's might end up with more signatures than the petition on the children's hospital received.

I have been raising the issue for more than a year and the matter has certainly been in the public domain for a year, but NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has made no effort to justify its proposals. Local people feel huge antipathy towards the board, particularly if they have had a close connection with the hospice. The problem is that the Scottish Government, in the person of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, and the health board are not progressing the matter, which has been dragging on for a long time.

I approached the board and the minister recently to ask for a meeting. They said that discussions are going on between the health board and the hospice. However, at the health board's behest, the fundamental point of principle, which is whether continuing care should remain at the hospice, has not been dealt with during the small number of meetings that have taken place. Financial technicalities to do with palliative care have been discussed, but the core strategic issue, which is whether a vital service should continue to be provided at St Margaret's, has not been discussed.

I wanted to bring the committee up to speed on that. The health board and the Scottish Government have written to the committee to say that things are happening, but the core issue is not being addressed. I and the many people who signed the petition and feel strongly about the issue would appreciate any assistance from the Public Petitions Committee in highlighting that the core issue, which is the retention of continuing care provision at St Margaret's, must be addressed in principle. There is no point in having discussions about technicalities that might arise from a situation until the issue has been addressed in principle. The health board must stop saying that it is having meetings, given that the central issue is not being addressed at those meetings. It worries me that, in some months' time, the board might say that it had meetings but got nowhere. If the health board does not discuss the issue, the situation will not be resolved.

The proposal remains to divert continuing care patients away from the hospice from April 2009, which is only seven months away. St Margaret's is labouring under that situation. It cannot plan its future, retain staff and operate properly while such a cloud remains on the horizon. I hope that the committee will write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to say that, on the basis of what it has heard, it believes that the situation cannot be left unresolved and must be sorted out, if necessary by her intervention.

The committee received a submission from the hospice, which is in members' papers. We should write to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and to the cabinet secretary to say that we understand that profound issues remain outstanding and unresolved, which could have an impact on the hospice's support structures and viability.

I am aware that Gil Paterson hoped to speak on the petition, but I do not know whether he can make it. I apologise if he has missed the opportunity to speak on an issue on which I know that he has spoken in the past.

There is broad support for targeting the health board's role in holding more effective discussions. It would be useful if the minister could, as my mother used to say to me, jildi the process along. We will take the course of action that has been outlined.

Perhaps this is a case for independent scrutiny. If the health board is seen to be dragging its feet and not consulting people properly on a change in how their health care is delivered, it might be worth asking the minister whether she has considered that possibility.

That would certainly be worth considering.

Another issue that has caused me great frustration is the fact that, on two or three occasions, the minister has written back to me to say that she does not think that it is appropriate to meet me individually or along with members of different political parties—I have made such an offer because, as far as I am concerned, it is a cross-party issue—to discuss matters. Basically, she says that she will not meet us until the health board has sorted out its position, but if I cannot get the health board to progress the matter, there is nothing that I can do. Ministers cannot hide behind that argument indefinitely. There must be a point at which, on a matter of concern to an elected member, ministers must agree to meet that member—or members—so that they can make representations about how the matter is dealt with. There is an issue of parliamentary protocol at stake, which I am beginning to get a bit exercised about.

We will see whether the suggested course of action can kick-start the process. The health board gave us a commitment that genuinely open discussions would take place with St Margaret's hospice to address the concerns that had been raised about its long-term future.

---

Free Nursery Education (Eligibility) (PE1116)

PE1116, from Alexis Stevenson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that a fully funded place for free nursery education is provided from the date of a child's third birthday. David Whitton, who has been waiting patiently, supported the petition when we first considered it a few months ago. Do you have anything to add?

Mrs Stevenson is very grateful for the responses to the committee, on each of which she wrote to the committee as it came in. It has been an interesting exchange of views.

It is quite clear from the evidence that the committee has received that some children are missing out on pre-school nursery education and are getting only four terms instead of six. That is not what the free-place-at-nursery provision was designed to do.

Some interesting compromises have been suggested. To get round some of the difficulties of giving a child a free nursery place when they hit their third birthday, there could be a fourth intake—an October intake—so that children who are born between September and December do not have to wait so long to access their place. That suggestion came from Stirling Council, which made a number of excellent suggestions.

I hope that the committee will consider what is on offer. We would still like every child to get a free place as soon as they are three, but I hope that the Government will consider the compromises that have been received as part of the consultation information.

Do members have any comments on how to deal with the petition?

Could we put those compromises to the Government and ask for a response?

Okay. It would be helpful if we could get an update on where the Government is at with the early years strategy. A number of issues have been raised through the consultation process. David Whitton has identified the specific issue of when access to free pre-school education kicks in. There is no reason not to support his proposal. We will keep the petition open and explore the further options that have been mentioned, if that would be useful to the petitioner. I hope that that is useful.

Thank you.

I thank David Whitton for his patience.

---

Sleep Apnoea (PE953)

PE953, from Ms Jean Gall, on behalf of the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness, promote proper diagnosis and treatment, and provide sufficient resources—including adequately funded sleep centres—to tackle the health problems that are associated with obstructive sleep apnoea.

A working group of the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network is considering this issue. Nanette, what should our course of action be?

Obviously, we should keep the petition open until we hear about the review of the SIGN guideline next year.

Information that I have received over the years has suggested that facilities are a bit patchy across health board areas. It might therefore be interesting to seek information from health boards on what funding is available to cater for sleep apnoea sufferers and to provide future services. This is an important issue and, to raise awareness of it, we should find out what is happening at local level.

Those are sensible suggestions. Are committee members happy to accept them?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (PE965)

PE965, from Dean Widd, on behalf of the Parent Project UK Muscular Dystrophy (Scotland), calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that sufficient funding and resources are in place to combat Duchenne muscular dystrophy and to ensure that the care requirements of those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy are met. I believe that consultations have been taking place on the petition. Nanette, I always look to you on medical issues.

It would certainly appear that the minister has taken this issue seriously and has set up a dialogue with representatives of patients. We have probably done what we can, and the minister can now carry on the dialogue.

Dialogue has opened up between the petitioner and the minister and the health department, so do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Plants (Complaints) (PE984)

PE984, from Dr Colin Watson, on behalf of Scothedge, calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints regarding vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines or other plants. Members have received an additional letter from Dr Watson and Scothedge.

This issue has been a long time in gestation.

Do you mean that the hedges are getting bigger?

Yes. I am sure that anything we could do to expedite legislation would be very welcome to the petitioner.

Do we wish to pursue with the Government the issues raised by the petition that are still outstanding? The additional letter identifies one or two points. I see that Robin Harper is looking at me quizzically.

Not at all—I hoped that I was looking at you encouragingly.

That is the story of my life; I have misread too many situations.

We should keep the petition alive and pursue it.

Yes, some issues are still outstanding. We can pursue them with the Government and address some of the points raised in the additional letter.

Members indicated agreement.

This is the kind of issue that we should not let go of. We have to sort this. It has already taken too long, but it does not matter how long it takes. We should not let this carry on. We have to sort it one way or the other—even if we, collectively, have to put together a member's bill or something.

That would be interesting.

It is an interesting concept, but members know where I am coming from.

---

Rural Post Offices (PE1102)

PE1102, from Councillor Bill Herd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to assess the impact of recent announcements by the UK Government and the Post Office on the future of the post office network, and the impact on the future of rural communities.

Perhaps we should keep the petition alive. Local authorities and other agencies are working strenuously to overcome the difficulties of post office closures. It might be seen as a retrograde step if the committee closed the book on the petition.

Do members have any other views?

I was intrigued to read that the local enterprise network has a role in this. I was not aware of that, although I knew that local authorities had a role. It is regrettable that we are in this situation, but I am not sure that the committee can do any more.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise would certainly have a role in the matter, as it has a social responsibility as well as an economic responsibility. However, I am not sure whether Scottish Enterprise would have a role. I understand what John Farquhar Munro is saying, but I do not think that we should keep a petition open for the sake of it if we cannot do something with it. We could perhaps write to the Government, suggesting that it bring the matter to the attention of the local enterprise companies and perhaps instruct Scottish Enterprise—because this is to do with community development and local economies—to consider how it can strengthen the post office network. Before closing the petition, we could write to ask the Government to remind enterprise companies of their responsibility.

I believe that a couple of county councils in England—Essex County Council is one of them—are considering innovative approaches and ways to support local post offices. I think that I have already lodged a parliamentary question on the issue. It might be productive to put pressure on the Government to investigate what recommendations it could make in terms of planning advice, for example. I know that there is resistance to the idea that Governments should tell local authorities what to do, but they can give advice.

This is a community issue that goes way beyond the Post Office as such. It is a big issue for local communities in rural areas.

I get the feeling that members are reluctant to close the petition, as there are issues of concern that we should try to explore around what the Scottish Government and the UK Government could do—or encourage to be done—and the role that local authorities can play in partnership with other agencies.

A number of local authorities are trying to fill the gap that is created by the post office network proposals with their own proposals. In my constituency, a credit union has stepped in and has taken over the former post office premises. It is trying to run as many services as were delivered previously. That is a welcome development, as the alternative was no services whatever. It is not ideal, but it was the best option that was available.

I seek guidance from members on what the committee wishes to do with the petition. If we are not closing it, we cannot just leave it sitting there. We need to do something with the petition.

I am not for closing the petition, either. When the petition was submitted, we were at the start of the post office closure process, and issues have since come to light. In the past week, we have heard of more decisions by the Post Office to close post offices in other areas.

First, it would be incumbent on us to ask the Scottish Government to comment on the scale and nature of the closures that have taken place so far, especially in the light of the issues that are raised in the petition, and on the impact that those closures have had on rural and other communities—in particular, communities in identified areas of deprivation. Secondly, we could ask the Government to find out what enlightened the Post Office's recent decisions to close local post offices and what the likely impacts will be. Thirdly, we could ask whether the Government is initiating any work with relevant agencies, local authorities, enterprise boards and the like to find alternative mechanisms to deliver some of the services that would normally have been delivered by post offices locally. It might also be worth asking Postwatch for its assessment of the impact to date of the post office closures on rural communities, although I know that that opens it up slightly.

There were several suggestions in that. Nigel, do you want to add to them?

I was going to suggest that we write to COSLA, but I wonder whether we should write to just the rural local authorities—it should be a pretty obvious list—to ask whether they have any relevant thoughts, experience, research from elsewhere or proposals. I suppose that it might be best to write to COSLA to draw everything together.

I think that there is a sub-strand in COSLA that deals with rural issues, so we could write to it for its views. However, the reality is that the impact of a post office closure can be dramatic in both rural and urban Scotland. Even in cities and towns, there can be as much of an impact as in a village or on an island.

It would be good to see whether anyone has done any research. I have no idea what Robin Harper's comment about Essex refers to, although I do not doubt his point. If nobody in Scotland is doing the research, we could be missing quite a few tricks.

Let us keep the petition open to explore some of the issues that it has thrown up and see whether there is any broader dimension. The subject will definitely not go away.

---

Violence against Women (PE1103)

PE1103, by Susan Moffat, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise the continuing development of strategic work on violence against women by following the 3 Ps approach: prevention, provision of quality support services, and effective legal protection.

We are still waiting for some developments. I think that we should write to the Government once its violence against women strategy has been published, to ask how it will constructively address the issues that are raised in the petition. I do not think that there is any dissension in the committee on the issues, so let us pursue the petition again with the relevant minister.

---

Mordechai Vanunu (PE1122)

PE1122, by Vanesa Fuertes, on behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to make representations to the UK Government to ask the Israeli Government to lift all restrictions on Mordechai Vanunu and allow him freedom to travel.

We are hindered in taking consideration of the petition forward as the Scottish Government has not submitted any response to our request. The issue touches on the crossover between the powers of the Scottish Parliament and UK reserved powers.

Despite repeated reminders from the clerks—the briefing paper is strongly worded, so well done to the clerks—the Government has failed to respond, which means that the petitioner has not had the opportunity to comment further, and we cannot deal with the petition today. There is a process issue.

I hope that I express the view of the whole committee on the Scottish Government's failure to respond to the committee. Even if a response had been negative, it would have been a response, but the Government has failed to respond on several occasions, despite strongly worded letters from the committee clerk, who must be commended for that. There is an issue: we are the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, and if the Government fails to respond to us, it raises the question why we are sitting here.

Far be it from me to defend the Scottish Government but, given that the issue is reserved, perhaps it did not feel able or empowered to respond. Given that the UK Government has carried out the action that the petitioner wanted—whether or not it was prompted by the Scottish Government to do so—can we close the petition? I understand what has been said about the lack of response not being good enough, but given that we would now be seeking an apology rather than Government action, do we close the petition and hope for an apology?

Are we agreed to close the petition?

No. As I said earlier, it is incumbent on the Government to respond, even if it is not the response that the petitioner or the committee is looking for. We still have the right to a response from the Government. It sets a bad precedent if we do not receive one. Irrespective of the cross-border issue of reserved and devolved powers, we still have the right, as the Public Petitions Committee, to expect a response when we write to the Government.

What is suggested in the paper covers things very well.

Okay. So the committee wants me to send a strongly worded letter to a Government minister. I am up for that.

John Wilson is absolutely right: there is no point in having committees of the Scottish Parliament if, when a committee asks the Government for a response, it does not get one. That is particularly important when the query is on a petition. We are talking about responsiveness and a willingness to take issues on board.

There are different perspectives on the issue of powers. I also take on board Rhoda Grant's point. Irrespective of the content of the response that may be forthcoming, we should write to the Government seeking one. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Personal Expenses Allowance (PE1125)

PE1125, by David Manion, on behalf of Age Concern Scotland, is on the personal expenses allowance. We discussed the petition previously. I suggest that we write again to the Government to ask whether a review of the personal expenses allowance is under consideration. If the answer is no, we should ask why. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

School Closures (PE1130)

PE1130, by Scott Reed, calls on the Scottish Parliament, in light of the proposals to close Drummond community high school in Edinburgh, to urge ministers not to consent to school closure proposals where a school roll exceeds 80 per cent of capacity. We have also considered this petition previously.

We seem to have a choice between accepting the Government's stated aim on rural schools as a sufficient response and saying that a sufficient response will come only when the point on 80 per cent of capacity has been addressed. Given that the subject is on the Parliament and Government agenda, I am inclined to say that we will gain nothing by holding the petition open. I suggest that we close it. The subject matter has been substantially dealt with. That said, one could argue that we should not close it until the issue of 80 per cent of capacity has been addressed.

I disagree with the proposal to close the petition. The Government has yet to publish its response to the consultation. Also, the Scottish Consumer Council published a report that referred to the need for much better consultation with parents and communities on all school closures, not just rural school closures. We can do more with the petition. Given that school closures are such a hot topic every time they are proposed, we should not rush to close the petition. We should wait until the Government has published its response to the consultation. Only then will we know whether what it says addresses the petitioner's concerns.

I think that that is the committee's view. I acknowledge what Nigel Don said, but issues remain that suggest we should keep the petition open. The Government might have signalled its direction of travel on its presumption in favour of keeping open rural schools, but let us see what happens with the consultation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Rural Schools (Closures) (PE1132)

PE1132, by Sharon Miller, on behalf of the community of Sorn, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the issue of sustainability in rural school closures. Essentially, the debate is the same as that on the previous petition.

It is.

I propose that we follow the same course of action.

Unless we join them together.

Okay. We can do that. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning Applications (Objections) (PE1133)

The final petition is PE1133, by Jean Mullan, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider whether it is entirely satisfied with the procedures and timescales for notifying persons who are affected by planning applications, and asks it to ensure that every local authority follows the correct procedures to ensure that no individual's human rights are infringed and that each person is given the opportunity to exercise their right to object to applications. Again, we considered the petition previously.

The issue has probably been addressed under the new planning regulations.

Will we close the petition on the ground that the substance has been addressed in the proposed new procedure for neighbour notification, which is to be amended by secondary legislation before the end of the year?

One assumes that that secondary legislation will come before the Parliament.

Are members happy to close consideration of the petition on those grounds?

Members indicated agreement.