Current Petitions
Hospital Services outwith Cities (PE407)
Members will remember the first of our current petitions today, which is from Ms Sandra Napier and concerns the funding of hospital services outwith cities. She was particularly concerned about Chalmers hospital in Banff. We agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive and of Grampian NHS Board.
We have received pretty detailed responses from both. The Executive points out the increases in expenditure on the health service in recent years and has provided details of the distribution formula for health service spending, which it says is directed towards the areas of greatest need. The Executive also mentions some of the actions being taken by Grampian NHS Board in relation to providing hospitals in rural areas.
Grampian NHS Board's reply gives us a detailed explanation of the current situation. A Banff locality review is on-going and the board has involved the public in that in a big way and has provided comprehensive information on current and future local needs and service provision.
The board has therefore expressed its disappointment at the petitioners' view that
"Grampian Health Board has failed to involve the local community."
It has provided with us with the information that it now has an outline business case for the development of Chalmers hospital, which it describes as one of its six highest capital priorities.
We have been joined by the constituency MSP, Stewart Stevenson, who wishes to speak to the petition. Have you seen the responses from Grampian NHS Board and the Scottish Executive, Stewart?
Until this moment, I have not seen the papers that are before the committee, but I have got the gist of the situation by other means and I wish simply to say that I am very pleased that we have received a positive response.
There does seem to have been a positive response in this case. The petitioners may well be reasonably satisfied by the responses of both the Executive and Grampian NHS Board. Would you like to comment further?
I would simply like to congratulate the Public Petitions Committee on providing a forum for those campaigning for Chalmers hospital, which has been helpful in conveying to Grampian NHS Board the importance of that facility. That has been supportive in ensuring that Grampian NHS Board came to the decision that it took.
Thanks very much. On the basis of the short discussion that we have just had, it is suggested that the committee agree to copy the responses to the petitioner and take no further action, as a satisfactory response seems to have been received and the issues raised by the petitioners are being addressed by NHS Grampian. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Bus Companies (Regulation and Control) (PE409)
The next petition is PE409 from Mr Douglas G Smart, on the regulation of bus companies. It calls for legislation to regulate bus companies so that public bodies will have some control over fares, routes, levels of service, timetables and the co-ordination of bus-to-bus and bus-to-train services. We wrote to the Scottish Executive, asking it to address the issues raised in the petition and to make reference to the quality contract schemes that are contained in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. We also agreed to seek a response from the City of Edinburgh Council.
We have now received those responses and the Scottish Executive has provided details of the provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, expressing the view that they address many if not all of the petitioners' concerns. The act contains provisions relating to ticketing schemes, quality partnerships and quality contract schemes. Those provisions, which have been commenced by order, provide for local authorities and bus companies to participate in joint ticketing schemes and for the provision of bus passenger information in an area by voluntary means, in the first instance, and by statutory means, if necessary.
It has also been made clear that an unofficial truce has been called. City of Edinburgh Council has stated that it is unlikely to consider using the new powers until the Office of Fair Trading's report into the bus war in the city is produced. We also know that Kenny MacAskill has a member's bill before the Parliament on the subject. It is suggested that, as the responses that have been received show that a great deal of action is being undertaken to address the issues that are raised by the petitioner, we should agree to copy the responses to the petitioner and take no further action. We should also copy the responses to Kenny MacAskill, as they may be of interest to him as his bill is scrutinised by the Parliament. At the same time, we should copy the responses to the clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee, for his information. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Access to the Countryside (PE415)
The next petition is PE415 from the Scottish Environment LINK Access Network, the Scottish Countryside Access Network and the Scottish Sports Association on outdoor access for all. The petition calls on the Parliament to ensure that the proposed legislation to provide a right of responsible access does not introduce laws that could criminalise the public while they are enjoying the outdoors.
We sought the views of the Scottish Executive on the petition and considered its response at our meeting on 16 December. We agreed at that meeting to ask the petitioners for their response to the Scottish Executive's response. We have now received a response from the petitioners that welcomes the many positive changes that have been made. However, they outline several concerns regarding the bill as introduced, particularly regarding section 11. Section 11 gives local authorities wide-ranging powers
"to exempt particular land and exclude particular conduct",
which they believe may put local authorities under pressure to close areas of land rather than to improve access to it, as the bill intends. They also draw attention to section 17, which gives local authorities the responsibility
"to draw up a plan for a system of paths",
but does not place on them any duty to implement and manage such a system, leaving open the possibility that the plans may never be realised.
As it appears that the petitioners have only minor concerns relating to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, as introduced, it is suggested that we agree to note their response and take no further action in relation to the petition. We should copy the petitioners' response to the clerk of the Justice 2 Committee, for her information, and to the Executive, for it to take on board as it pursues the bill through the Parliament. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Charitable Organisations (Regulation) (PE428)
The next petition is PE428 from Mr Eddie Egan in relation to the regulation of charitable organisations. The petition was raised in the context of the decision of Sue Ryder Care to close the Binny House residential health care facility, and we have discussed it before.
At our previous meeting, we agreed to wait for a further response from the minister on the general issues that are raised in the petition. We have now received that and members have copies of it. In his letter, the minister says that the Executive is already consulting on and responding to the report by the Scottish Charity Law Review Commission—the McFadden report—which considers legislation governing all charities, including those involved in the provision of health care and/or those that are funded by Government or local government agencies.
One of the report's recommendations is that a new body, called "CharityScotland", be set up to register and regulate charitable collections. The Executive is also to set up an advisory forum which will allow the voluntary sector and key agencies the opportunity to contribute to the process that is involved in acting on the McFadden commission's recommendations. However the minister's response makes it clear that there is no room in the legislative programme for a charity law bill before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2003.
The minister also responds to the specific calls in the petition for legislative change to improve consultation with stakeholders. He provides details of a recent consultation on proposed draft regulations and an order that is to be made under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 in relation to care services and the procedures of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. The draft order aims to ensure that, where a care service provider applies to the commission for cancellation of registration, it does so three months in advance of the proposed date of cancellation and informs the commission of alternative arrangements to be put in place for those who use the care services. The provider will also need to provide full details of the notice of cancellation given to those who use the service.
It is suggested that we agree to note the minister's response and the action that is being taken to ensure that adequate notice is given and that appropriate alternative arrangements are put in place when the closure of care service facilities is proposed. It is also suggested that the committee agrees to take no further action, and to copy the minister's response to the petitioners and to the clerk to the Health and Community Care Committee for information.
It appears that we are on the edge of setting up further non-departmental public bodies in the form of regulators and advisory bodies. I sometimes despair: I thought that the Parliament was going to get rid of all those bodies, but report after report brings us to a position of being set on creating even more of them.
It is all very well to lay down conditions on circumstances. If three months' notice can be given under such circumstances, that is ideal. However, all of us have had experiences in which money for certain facilities has run out. Immediate closure must follow. To aim for such periods of notice is one thing; to achieve them is another.
Your comments are duly noted. Everyone is in favour of abolishing quangos until they get into Government.
Do we agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Foot-and-mouth Disease (Pyre Ash) (PE429)
The next current petition is PE429 from Councillor Julie Faulds about the dumping of foot-and-mouth disease pyre ash. We discussed the petition at previous committee meetings. On the most recent of those occasions, we agreed to seek further information from the minister on the decision to use the dump at Garlaff in East Ayrshire rather than the one at Carlisle.
We have received a comprehensive reply from Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. He indicates that the decision not to use the site at Carlisle was taken to avoid cross-border traffic at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. He also explains why the site at Garlaff was chosen and that 11 other sites were identified because no one knew at the time how widespread the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak might become.
The minister has also given us information on three inquiries that are underway into the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. It is suggested that we agree to copy the petition and all associated correspondence to those three inquiries, with the request that the issues raised be taken into account as part of any consideration of the procedures followed in relation to pyre waste disposal. It is also suggested that we agree to take no further action other than to copy the latest correspondence to the petitioners and the clerk to the Rural Development Committee for information.
I note from the minister's response that, as a courtesy, he informed the local authority of the decision. There is no legislative requirement to consult, but something more than a courtesy would have been better. The Executive could have gone into some form of dialogue with the local authority and the community to explain the circumstances to a greater degree and to demonstrate some of the safety precautions that were taken. That would have acknowledged the anxieties of the local community. To inform the local authority is one thing; to involve it in some way is another. There were failings. On such an emotive issue as this, the local authority and community should have been involved.
That is right. Obviously, one cannot have local authorities vetoing the dumping of ash, because if that were the case, everybody would veto it. They should not, however, just be informed of a decision, but involved in it, and they should receive a full explanation and be party to discussions. You are quite right about that.
Perhaps instead of having inquiries all over the place, it would have been far better to have one public inquiry into foot-and-mouth and all the ancillary matters around it. That is another issue.
Yes, that is another issue. Many people share your view.
Throughout the foot-and-mouth outbreak generally, and during the BSE crisis, the public did not get proper information. Elected local councils and community councils did not get proper information. The ultimate example is in the east end of Glasgow. We were told specifically that although a cattle incinerator was burning cattle, that had nothing to do with BSE. We had to find out for ourselves that that was taking place under the BSE surveillance scheme. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is involved in that. People and their elected representatives are being brushed aside. It is not always the councils who are the wrong yins in such cases.
You make a fair point. Is the proposed course of action agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Greater Glasgow Health Board (Consultation) (PE453)
We come to the response from the Greater Glasgow NHS Board to the petition that relates to the proposed location of the secure unit in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area at Stobhill. The response is fairly detailed. It deals—almost line by line—with the points that were made in the Public Petitions Committee meeting on 5 February. Paul Martin, who has a particular interest in the matter, has not had the chance to see the response from the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Would it be possible—as only four members of the committee are present—for us to carry the matter over to the next meeting? That would allow members to check the Greater Glasgow NHS Board's reply against the Official Report of the petitioner's contribution to the committee and would allow Paul Martin to be informed and to make further representation to the committee, if he wanted.
The petitioner is not here to speak to the petition.
There is nobody here to speak to it. We could carry the petition over and return to it. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move on, I would like to comment on a few of the petitions in the progress of which there have been changes. I made reference to them earlier on. I have the same comment on both the petitions concerned.
It seems that we pass on petitions to other committees, which agree to conclude consideration of the petitions. Why do we not receive some kind of feedback on those petitions? For example, the Rural Development Committee simply concluded consideration of the petition about Cowal and Bute and the proposed Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park—it did not register an opinion on the merit of the proposals.
You are referring to petition PE417.
Yes. I would have liked some feedback. Similarly, the Justice 2 Committee expressed no opinion on petition PE227 on the National Trust for Scotland issues that surround Glencoe. Surely the value of passing petitions on lies in the informed views of whichever committees consider them. We might get a division of opinion. It would be of interest to know what the relevant committees' opinions were.
That is a fair point. I am informed that a review is being undertaken of our monitoring procedures and how policy committees report back to the Public Petitions Committee. The issue that you raised will form part of that review, which will be reported back to the committee.