Official Report 205KB pdf
Methadone Prescriptions (PE789)
The first current petition is PE789 by Eric Brown. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a view regarding the need for regulation to ensure that methadone prescriptions are taken by the patient while they are supervised by a suitably qualified medical practitioner. At its meeting on 22 March, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care. A response from the minister has been received and has been circulated to members. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?
I was very concerned about this petition. As I said at our meeting on 22 March, I visited some pharmacies to see how the methadone programme is carried out. Glasgow seems to have a good record. Unfortunately, since the petition was lodged, there has been another tragic death—this time in the NHS Lothian area. I find that worrying and disturbing.
I agree with Sandra White. To put it more succinctly, we need results and a timescale. When will that group report? Given the dreadful circumstances surrounding the death of Derek Doran, we must move matters on as swiftly as possible. I suggest that we keep the petition open and let the Executive know that we will not close it until we see some results.
Would it be possible to ask for more information about what some of our European partners are doing? I understand that France deals with such issues in a different way. I would be happy to share with the committee clerks the document about that that was sent to me. Lessons might be learned from elsewhere. The issue is causing great concern throughout Scotland. Like other colleagues, I suggest that we keep the petition open to see whether we can get more progress on this important issue.
The issue has not gone away. We keep hearing problems about that type of prescription delivery. We need to know that the issue will be resolved and when it will be resolved. I agree entirely with Sandra White that we need to ask questions about the timescales that will be involved.
Convener, forgive me for taking up more time but I want to mention that an item on Radio Scotland yesterday morning highlighted the fact that Switzerland's approach to drug use and drug abuse is fundamentally different from the approach that we take in the United Kingdom. If it is possible, we should include information on that in the paperwork on the petition. I do not know whether we should pursue an approach that is hugely different from our current model but, from my casual hearing of the issue, I think that it might be worth pursuing that idea. There are different ways of treating drug and methadone addiction.
We can ask the Scottish Executive for its views on that study.
That might be a better way of going about it. Switzerland now has experience from a 14 or 15-year programme.
The Executive must have some perspective on that. Perhaps our letter will encourage the Executive to take a look at the idea.
Gaelic Language Teachers (PE857)
Our next petition is PE857, which is by Mrs C A Jackson on behalf of Bowmore primary school. At its meeting on 17 May, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the response that we received from Argyll and Bute Council. The petitioner's response has now been received and has been circulated. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?
The issue has been debated at some length over many months. I think that the situation has improved sufficiently. I am not aware that the problem exists at present.
Are you happy that we close the petition as the issue has been resolved?
I see that the recommendation is that we close the petition.
Do you agree that it is possible to close the petition at this time?
Yes.
I think that we should take John Farquhar Munro's advice and close the petition. Is that agreed?
A77 (Southern Section Upgrade) (PE859)
Petition PE859, by Sheena Borthwick, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to upgrade the southern section of the A77 between Ayr and Stranraer, to include the provision of passing places every six miles and to develop a bypass at Maybole.
I suggest that we seek the petitioner's views on the response from Transport Scotland. Knowing that stretch of road very well—Maybole is not in my constituency, but my home is in the constituency—I know that more fatal accidents have happened on that road since the petition was lodged. Indeed, I have known personally some of the people involved. The need for the upgrade is greater than ever because of the volume of traffic from Northern Ireland.
Okay. We will invite the petitioner to comment and keep the petition open until we see her response.
Rural Schools (Funding) (PE937)
Our next petition is PE937, by Catherine MacKinnon on behalf of Roy Bridge primary school. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to recognise and promote public-community partnership funding as an alternative to public-private partnership funding as a means of securing the long-term future of rural schools. At the committee's meeting on 22 March, we agreed to write to Highland Council, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Executive. Responses have been received and circulated to members. Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?
I find the response from Highland Council particularly disappointing and I am sure that Catherine MacKinnon will, too, but perhaps we should allow her to judge and ask her for her views on the responses. I understand the view that COSLA has taken, but I feel that it should be a bit more proactive on community ownership.
I agree with Helen Eadie that the petitioner will find Highland Council's reply disappointing. Nevertheless, and unlike Helen Eadie, I understand why Highland Council has taken the view that it has—but we should seek the petitioner's views.
It is about having trust in our communities.
I find it difficult to understand why Highland Council opposes the proposals to the extent that it does. The Roy Bridge community is organised and is happy to make the finance available to provide the facility, so the response seems strange. The argument goes back many years, when it was agreed to build a new primary school at Spean Bridge, which is 3 miles along the road from Roy Bridge. At that time, it was anticipated that Roy Bridge primary school would close and that pupils would go to Spean Bridge. However, Spean Bridge school is full to capacity at present, so there is justification for the parents in Roy Bridge having their own facility, but Highland Council has refused to provide it. The parents went out and secured finance and are ready to move if Highland Council agrees.
I am happy to see what the petitioner's views are on the responses and to consider the petition again when those come back.
I should make clear that I have every sympathy with the petitioner's point of view, but I can understand where Highland Council is coming from.
We will discuss the matter further when we get the petitioner's views.
Family Law (PE944)
Our next petition is PE944, by Gary Strachan. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate why, in Scots law, there is no presumption of equal access or residence for children with both parents after separation; 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. At the committee's meeting on 22 March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive and responses have been received.
Gary Strachan might be pleased with what is happening, but we should allow him to come to that conclusion and ask him for his views on the letters that we have received.
Are members happy to do that?
Disabled People (Local Transport) (PE695)
Petition PE695, by Jan Goodall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local authorities make affordable and accessible local transport available to disabled people who cannot use public transport and to provide ring-fenced funding to local authorities and/or community groups to provide dial-a-ride projects for that purpose.
We should ask Jan Goodall for her views on the response. I am a bit disappointed that the Minister for Transport has not really picked up on the issue. He uses the term "disabled people" but, as is evidenced in the letter that we received from Jan Goodall and the Dundee accessible transport action group, the thrust of the petition is more about frail elderly and vulnerable people, not just disabled people. The key point is that it is not enough just to have disability access; we need to consider how we can improve matters for really frail people who want to get out, too.
I have read Jan Goodall's letter, but I do not know whether it would be her final response. She might want to respond further, so I agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion.
Before that, if the committee agrees, we will give Jan Goodall the chance to respond to the written information that the committee has received.
Seagulls (Health and Safety Hazards) (PE616)
Our next petition is PE616 by John Boyd. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate and assess the health and safety hazards caused by seagulls in urban areas. At its meeting on 22 March, the committee agreed to write to the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. A response has now been received and circulated.
I have raised this issue on numerous occasions. The petition was first lodged in 2003. The report by the University of Stirling has been a long time coming. A lot of money was spent on it, but we do not seem to have any answers yet. I live in the centre of Glasgow, where seagulls are a nuisance. The research in the report is research that any of us could have done. I am quite disappointed in it.
I live close to the coast in Ayr, where seagulls are a growing problem. To deal with it, the Scottish Executive should meet local authorities to try to establish best practice.
Shall we write to the petitioner and then consider the petition again when we receive his views?
New Towns (PE887)
Our last petition this morning is PE887, by the Rev Neil MacKinnon. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the long-term planning, social, economic and transport issues surrounding the creation of new towns such as Cumbernauld.
Since we last considered this petition, the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill has been passed. Sections in the bill relate to business improvement districts. Because of that, and because of the possibilities for partnership for the business community and the wider community, I think that good progress has been made. We should write to the petitioner and say that that is the committee's view. No further action should be taken on the petition.
Are we happy with that?
The petitioner certainly seems happy with the responses, which is good.
We have a précis of the response from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, which is especially sensible. If mistakes have been made, it is important to acknowledge them, learn from them, and move on.
Are members happy that we close the petition?
Meeting closed at 11:35.
Previous
New Petitions