State Hospital (PE440)
The first current petition is PE440, which is on patients ready for release or transfer from Carstairs state hospital. The petitioners are calling on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the problems that patients who are ready to be released or transferred from the hospital face.
There are two issues. The first is a general issue and is raised by Mr and Mrs Crichton. The matter is important, especially in relation to the example that they give of their son. However, Trevor Lodge's letter of 20 April points out that the Orchard clinic in Edinburgh is already operational, that work is beginning on a new unit in Glasgow and that a decision has been taken to establish another unit in Paisley. All those facilities will contribute significantly to alleviating the problem that Mr and Mrs Crichton drew to our attention. There is nothing more that we can do on that issue.
Given that the second issue is not raised specifically in the petition, I am not sure that we can do anything about it.
In that case, we have probably taken the matter as far as we can. Action is in hand that will provide what the petitioners have sought to achieve.
I broadly agree with that point. However, I refer to the previous Executive response. Out of interest, I would like to know—perhaps other members will know—that plans are on target, as stated there. I am thinking specifically of the 70-bed unit at the Stobhill hospital site that was scheduled to begin in March 2004. Did that happen? We know that the site for the west of Scotland medium-secure unit has been identified. The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 will come into effect in summer 2006. Is the process on schedule? Is the national health service being assisted, as planned, to prepare for implementation of the act? At the time of the previous response, the number of patients experiencing delayed discharge from Carstairs was falling. I would like to know whether that trend has continued.
In its response of 20 April 2004, the Executive says:
So the timetable is being met?
That is how it looks to me. If you want us to seek confirmation of that, we can do so.
It is not necessary for us to pursue the matter—I was seeking information out of interest. I am glad that you have told me what is happening with the west of Scotland medium-secure unit. Mike Watson may know when work started at Stobhill.
Unfortunately, I do not know that. However, the Executive's letter, which was written less than a month ago, states that there is "work beginning" on the unit. Work may not yet physically have started, but if not it is just about to.
Are you happy with that, or would you like us to pursue the matter?
I would be interested to know whether the number of delayed discharges from Carstairs has fallen. That information does not have to be sought through the committee—I can do that through a parliamentary question. I agree with Mike Watson—there is not much more that we can do in relation to the petition.
There are figures in the briefing papers that refer to
Those statistics were provided by the petitioner. Linda Fabiani is seeking to find out from the Executive whether the fall in the number of patients experiencing delayed discharge has continued.
I can seek that information—we do not need to do so as a committee.
Do we agree to close the petition?
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
PE504 is on preventing convicted murderers from selling accounts of their crimes. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.
The sense that something is to happen soon—or that proposals are to be produced for consultation soon—is the first sense of urgency that we have had. The correspondence that has gone backwards and forwards has suggested that it would be some time before proposals would be published. It looks as though something is going to happen sooner rather than later, which is helpful. That is the first positive indication that we have received.
Would we be able to firm up what "soon" means? The letter is a bit vague about that. The other issue is the fact that we are told that it would be better to wait for legislation in England and Wales than to do anything in Scotland. There are specific problems with publishing. Something could be published in Ireland, Australia, America or another English-speaking country. I am concerned about waiting if something could be done in Scotland.
I agree with your first point, that we should ask when "soon" will be. I have no problem with that. However, as Jackie Baillie said, the issue is not where the documentation is published; it is where it is allowed to be available. A court recently made the decision to prevent information from being published by national newspapers about the woman from the Soham murder case.
Maxine Carr.
The national newspapers suggested that they might still be able to publish such information in Scotland, as the decision was made in a court in England. That is the kind of difficulty that we might get into. Unless the decision is led by Westminster, we could find ourselves in a difficult situation. We could identify when a decision will be made, but it might be best to wait until we know what Baroness Scotland has to say about keeping things in Britain on a level playing field.
I can see the logic of that. The first thing that we need to do is to clarify when "soon" will be. It might also be worth while for us to find out whether the Executive is feeding into the on-going review rather than just sitting back and waiting. There must be differences between Scots law and English and Welsh law that would create anomalies. If those are ironed out as the review progresses, and before the proposals are published, that will stop any further delay.
We can ask about both those matters if we write to the minister. Are members happy to do that?
Cullen Inquiry (100-year Closure Order) (PE685)
PE685 is on defining the subject of and the maximum time limits for closure orders. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to enact legislation to define the nature of files that can and cannot be subject to closure orders and to define accurately the maximum time limit that can be imposed on closure orders.
When we discussed the petition, we were all concerned because we could not understand why there was a bar on information, but the response that we have received is fair enough. It seems that the general concern is being addressed. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 will have an impact and will negate some of the earlier stuff. I do not think that we can take the petition further.
Do members agree?
Travelling Show People (PE698)
The next petition is PE698, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce a national policy for travelling show people.
I understand that the petitioner met Margaret Curran, the Minister for Communities, at the end of April. It might be useful to send the Executive's response to the petitioner and to ask whether the meeting was positive. They may have got what they wanted and there may be no need to take matters further, but we do not know that, so we are operating in a vacuum. I am keen to go back to the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain with the Executive's response and to ask how it got on with the meeting. We can take it from there.
Are members happy with that course of action?
Shop Workers (Christmas Day and New Year's Day Working) (PE700)
Our next petition is PE700, on stopping larger shops opening on Christmas day and new year's day. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to support the statutory protection of Christmas day and new year's day, which would prevent shops of more than 280m2 from opening on those days.
That is a reasonable position. In effect, it is a matter of waiting. We cannot do any more on the petition at present.
Do you mean at present, or ever? Do we want to close the petition, or wait for the consultation?
I am not aware of when the consultation period ends.
I suggest that we close the petition, but that we send it to Karen Whitefield so that she can include it.
Yes. That would make it part of her consultation.
Is it agreed that we should draw a line under it?
School Closures and Mergers (Consultation) (PE701)
The next petition is PE701, on consultation arrangements on school closures. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the consultation arrangements for school closures and mergers to ensure that local communities' concerns are fully taken into account, that proper risk assessments are conducted and that detailed costings are made available.
We should send the petitioners a copy of the Executive's response, keep the petition open and wait to see what the petitioners say.
We recently dealt with a petition on rural school closures in relation to which a delay in issuing guidance also arose. Obviously, that matter has not yet been dealt with. The Executive has given a response, but the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is still waiting for the Executive to issue guidance. That situation led to the petition on rural school closures, which raised the general issue of guidance on school closures and mergers. We cannot yet close consideration of the petition. I agree with Linda Fabiani that we should at least let the petitioners know about the Executive's response.
There is another issue, although I do not know whether we can address it. I know the people who are involved in the fight against school closures in East Kilbride and Hamilton—as does Michael McMahon. There is dissatisfaction that the Executive has agreed with the council a plan to close schools. People have asked for justification from the Executive; they are angry about the lack of transparency in the Scottish Executive's decision taking.
I have a slightly different point. The key issue, irrespective of whether we are talking about rural or urban schools, is the lack of time for consultation that present legislation affords, rather than the criteria on which matters are referred to the minister. Under the regulations, a consultation must take place for 28 days. In many cases, local authorities exceed that because of good practice, but I wonder whether the Executive should review the 28-day period. That is not much time to consult people and engage them in the process. A change in the period might help, but it would require a change in the regulations.
The Executive states that it does not intend to amend the regulations.
When we dealt with the petition on rural schools, did we ask the Executive whether it would amend the regulations?
Yes.
I am sure that we did.
That petition was about rurality; I am not sure that we asked about timescales.
We should keep the petition open and wait for the Executive's response to the petition on rural schools. Then we can consider the responses together. The petition on rural school closures was about the delay in issuing guidance and about what the guidance would say. We should leave PE701 until we can consider both responses at the same time. In the meantime, we will ask the petitioners for their comments on the Executive's response so that we will have a reply when we consider the two responses from the Executive. Are members happy with that course of action?
Food for Good (PE704)
In PE704, the petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support the terms of Unison Scotland's national health service food for good charter.
I am stunned that people said that hospital food is wonderful. I have never heard anyone say that. I suppose that we are talking about one of those surveys, the outcome of which is determined by the way in which questions are asked. Perhaps I am being unfair.
Did the Executive announce yesterday that more locally produced food would be used in schools and hospitals? That is a welcome step in the right direction. We should draw the petitioners' attention to that.
We should draw it to the minister's attention, too.
We will await a response from the petitioners to the Executive's comments.
The paper from the clerks says that the Executive ran a conference yesterday, but did the Executive make an announcement?
Yes.
I just wanted to confirm that.
It would be worth writing to the forum. Do members want to write to the minister, too?
Pyroluria (PE706)
Our final petition for consideration today is PE706, on the diagnosis and treatment of pyroluria—I am determined to get one other member of the committee to say that word, because you all managed to avoid doing so when we last discussed the petition. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that NHS boards recognise, diagnose and appropriately treat pyroluria.
The Executive's response was interesting, because it takes us back to the division that sometimes exists between standard and what is called alternative medicine. We can only invite the petitioners to comment on the Executive's response.
We should ask the petitioners why they describe the condition as "well documented". The Executive's response refers to websites—the condition cannot be all that well documented if the Executive's health professionals had to find out about it from websites.
We could ask for clarification on that specific point. We will await a response from the petitioners. Perhaps then one of you will say "pyroluria".
Pyroluria.
Pyroluria.
Thank you. I wanted to make sure that I was not the only one who could pronounce it.
Meeting closed at 11:19.
Previous
New Petitions