Official Report 361KB pdf
Given the late hour and the fact that another committee, of which I am a member, meets in this room at 2 o'clock, I have a suggestion for dealing with the rest of the agenda. MSPs and members of the public would like to take part in the discussion on some of the current petitions, which are PE327 on organic waste spread on land, PE551 on the provision of residential and respite care for the elderly, PE500 on the Scottish Transport Group pension funds, and PE582 on the Scottish fishing industry. I suggest that we deal with those petitions now and leave the remaining current petitions and the rest of the agenda until the next meeting. Is that suggestion agreed to?
Organic Waste Disposal (PE327)
PE327 is from Mr Duncan Hope on behalf of the Blairingone and Saline action group. We referred the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which appointed a reporter and issued a report on the matter, as a result of which the Executive published a consultation paper. Later, we received a letter from George Reid MSP calling for further investigation into the health aspects of the petition. We agreed to appoint Dorothy-Grace Elder to consider the case for an inquiry. We also appointed a medical adviser, Dr John Curno, to assist Dorothy-Grace Elder.
Dr Curno has just been formally appointed, but he has been most helpful and has done a power of work already. Our investigation is progressing well, but the time span is a problem—our commission from the committee was to produce a report in a short time span. The Transport and the Environment Committee has produced a report, but this one will focus on health issues.
Dorothy-Grace has already raised the issue with me and with Steve Farrell, the clerk. It would be possible to fit her suggested evidence-taking session into the meeting scheduled for 11 February, if members agree. Is that agreed?
Is that okay, Dorothy-Grace?
I forgot to add one further name. I will confer later with the clerk on numbers, but I would like to call Tricia Henton, the former chief executive of SEPA, who has expressed views on the issue. I think that her attendance would be useful.
We can invite her on your recommendation.
I do not know whether a general practitioner practice might have to be represented. We might manage without that. Thank you so much, convener.
You can liaise with Steve Farrell about the key people who should be invited. We will pursue the issue further in Public Petitions Committee evidence sessions.
Scottish Transport Group Pension Funds (PE500)
The next petition is PE500, which is a big one. The petition is about the Scottish Transport Group pension fund surplus. Members will remember that we have dealt with petition PE500 on at least five previous occasions. Last time round, we sought further responses from the Treasury in London—indeed, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and from the Executive minister responsible, Lewis Macdonald. We have their responses, which are detailed in the papers that members have before them.
I agree with that suggestion.
I suggest that we write back to Ruth Kelly, drawing to her attention the fact that she has not met the pensioners' representatives. We can suggest that she consider meeting the pensioners' representatives and the pensioners' legal advisers directly. Is that agreed?
Dennis Canavan has other detailed responses to what Lewis Macdonald said. However, the Scottish Executive has no control over what happens. The outstanding £50 million that the pensioners still seek is under the control of the Treasury, as is the question of double taxation by the Inland Revenue. Those issues must be pursued at the Westminster level. I suggest that the Public Petitions Committee suggests to Ruth Kelly that she meets the pensioners and their legal representatives, who could pursue the issues with her rather than get involved with the Executive, which at this stage can do no more.
Can we also copy all the correspondence to Cathy Peattie, Sylvia Jackson and Dennis Canavan? I think that they should be kept on board.
I suggest that we should also include Fergus Ewing. Is that agreed?
Elderly People (Residential and<br />Respite Care) (PE551)
Our next petition is PE551, from Pat Brown, on care of the elderly. It relates to South Ayrshire Council's decision to close St Meddan's Court in Troon which, when the petition was first received, housed 16 residents. It says that the council used the home's inability to meet standards that are required by the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 as a reason for the closure. We have written to the Scottish Executive, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. They have all responded, as detailed in the papers before members. Before I turn to the suggested action and response to the letters from the three bodies, a number of members want to speak.
As far as the committee was concerned, the key issue from the first hearing was whether the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 was having unintended consequences by putting councils in a position whereby they could not afford to bring residential homes up to the new standards. It appears that in the case of St Meddan's Court in Troon, the council's version of events is not accurate. The care commission carried out a formal inspection of the home in November and, consequently, the home has been reissued with its registration under the new act. It was registered under the new act last April, so it would appear that the unintended consequences of the act have not come to pass. The council's reasons for closing the home are not related to the new act—that is the substance of the matter. It is clear that local politicians have been taking up the matter and challenging the council about its decision and the reasons for it.
I welcome the Public Petitions Committee's investigation of the matter. I am concerned that the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 appears to be creating such situations not just at St Meddan's Court but elsewhere. I am also concerned that the council appears to have jumped the gun, because planning permission was given by the council's planning committee before the committee heard the petition.
We are in a very fluid situation, which has changed even since the papers were issued to members. For example, the response from the care commission, which is detailed in the papers that have been given to us, did not make the point that the home has now been reregistered, so we did not appreciate that fact before the meeting. The position indicated is that the council was prepared to see the residents remain together as a group in Troon.
I accept that we cannot make a judgment on the matter and that it is the council's responsibility. However, I feel that South Ayrshire Council has acted in a most inappropriate way in coming to a settlement on the funding and on the planning process while the committee is still in the process of deciding on the matter as it was waiting for information to come back from the Scottish Executive. It seems to me that the information from the Scottish Executive conflicts with the information that was originally provided for councillors. On that basis, the committee should write back in the strongest terms to say to South Ayrshire Council that we feel that we have been railroaded and that the council has not given the committee its due recognition.
I am reminded that we made it clear when we received the petition that it is not our job to question decisions that are arrived at by the local elected authority. We certainly did not ask the council not to go ahead with the process. It would therefore be wrong for the committee to write back now to complain that the council has done so, because we did not ask it not to. We have on previous occasions asked health boards or whoever to suspend any action on their proposals until we have had the chance to consult, but we did not ask South Ayrshire Council to do that. It would be wrong to write back to it now on that basis.
I am not sure that I agree with that. South Ayrshire Council was made aware that the committee found it surprising that the care regulations were leading to such a conclusion's being drawn by the council. I used the word courtesy—I did not say that the council had breached any agreements or ignored any comment. It seems to me that as a matter of courtesy to the Parliament and to the committee the council should perhaps have held off until the Scottish Executive had responded; it might have given the council for backing for its actions. The Scottish Executive has not responded.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to write to South Ayrshire Council to draw Phil Gallie's remarks to its attention and to say that although we did not ask it not to proceed, perhaps as a matter of courtesy—as Phil Gallie suggested—it might not have done so.
If you write to the council, I want to make clear that I do not agree with Phil Gallie's comments. The Parliament, the Public Petitions Committee and any legislative changes that the Parliament makes would have no impact on the decision on St Meddan's Court in Troon. The council has taken its decision. We have always said as a committee that we have no locus in changing decisions that are made at local level. We have always made it clear that we would have a serious concern if there were a lack of consultation, but that has not been suggested in the petition.
We have always been absolutely clear that the committee has no power to ask another elected body to reverse a decision that it has taken. It is for the elected authority to take its decisions. Phil Gallie wants his remarks drawn to South Ayrshire Council's attention. It is reasonable to draw its attention to his remarks and to yours.
Not as the committee's remarks.
No, not as the committee's remarks. I am not taking that kind of decision.
If other committee members feel as I do about the way that the committee is being ignored, I must make the point that, never at any time did the committee ask the council to reverse its decision. The committee questioned the information that was passed to councillors at the time that the council reached that decision. We also asked for clarification from the Scottish Executive.
The Official Report of this part of the meeting will be sent to the council. If anyone wants to add their views at this point, they can do so, but the committee cannot decide to reprimand or call into question the action of a council as an elected body. Our job is to consider the bigger picture. The substance of the recommendation from the clerks is that we link the petition to the other petitions on the same matter and thereby continue our consideration of the petition. We will decide what we should do in response to all the petitions on the matter, not just PE551.
I accept that we should continue, but I am surprised that no other committee member feels that the job that we were doing on the petition was worth pursuing to the end. I register my disappointment that no other committee member—
I back Phil Gallie on that. We have heard many other examples of old persons homes closing down. Another one was mentioned earlier this morning.
We will send an Official Report to show that members have indicated their support or lack of it.
Would a point of information be in order?
It will be if it is helpful.
Helen Eadie mentioned that there may or may not have been a problem with consultation. I emphasise that there was a problem with lack of consultation. Essentially, the council informed the home's residents that the home had to close. The reason that was given was that the council could not afford to bring the home up to the new national standards that are required under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001. There was no consultation of residents.
That was why the committee agreed to proceed with the petition. I accept John McAllion's point about the big picture—that is about consultation, but it is also about ensuring that we have quality provision. There is no point in lots of homes being opened throughout the country if their quality and standards do not match those that the Parliament has set down.
As it happens, in this case, the care commission has—
We know. We will have to write to the petitioners to tell them the latest position. We will draw to their attention the fact that they have access to the Scottish public services ombudsman if they believe that the council has acted improperly in the way that Adam Ingram has described. However, it is for the petitioners to access the ombudsman. Is that agreed?
Fishing Industry (PE582)
The only other current petition with which we are dealing is PE582, which concerns fisheries. The committee will remember that we had to deal with the petition as an emergency because the debate at the European fisheries council took place almost immediately after we received the petition. We therefore sent it directly to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and asked him to keep us updated on the outcome of the negotiations.
Previous
New Petitions