Contents
- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 11 May 2005
- New Petitions
- Current Petitions
- Equalities Report
Current Petitions
Nuisance Hedges (PE497)
Petition PE497 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, following its consultation exercise in 2000, to implement legislation at the earliest opportunity to alleviate the nuisance caused by hedges.
At its meeting on 8 December, the committee agreed to seek details of Scott Barrie's plans for a proposed member's bill on high hedges and, in particular, to ask about the timescale for the publication of a consultation paper on the proposal. A response from Scott Barrie has been circulated. Given that he intends to introduce a bill at some point—
The petition has been around for a long time.
It has indeed.
Does Scott Barrie definitely intend to introduce a bill?
Yes, according to his response.
The committee's additional papers include an e-mail from Scott Barrie, in which he says that he hopes to issue the consultation document later this month.
He has been working on the document and intends to issue it soon.
I have received numerous complaints from constituents about the matter. I always tell them that Scott Barrie is going to introduce a member's bill, but I have been saying that for four years and it is wearing a little thin. I am pleased to hear that he will do so, but I hope that he gets on with it.
Scott Barrie says in his e-mail, in relation to the consultation document:
"I have been working with ScotHedge on this document and I had hoped to launch it on 20th May but it may require some tweaking and therefore the date may need to be put back a couple of weeks."
I should think that he will launch the document in June.
We are hedging our bets.
That was worth a try. Do members agree to close the petition? That would save us from more such jokes.
Members indicated agreement.
NHS Prescribed Drugs<br />(Effects on Children) (PE639)
Petition PE639 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the storage and dispensing of national health service prescribed drugs in schools.
At its meeting on 27 October, the committee agreed to write to the Scotland Patients Association, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Association of Head Teachers in Scotland and the Scottish Association of Health Councils, to seek their views on the Scottish Executive's response. Responses from the SPA, the EIS and the AHTS have been circulated to members. Do members have views on the responses?
I was surprised that the EIS said that it was
"not in a position to respond to the issues raised in the petition".
The letter does not suggest that there are no issues, and it was odd that the organisation supplied the advice on the matter without saying whether it thinks that the advice is being followed. Perhaps we should ask the EIS about that.
I was concerned by the fact that the SPA said that it does not agree that the medicines should be stored in schools. If that is the case, what happens to the children who need the medicines? There is no doubt that an arrangement is needed. We do not have a neat solution to the concerns that the petitioner has raised. Perhaps we ought to ask the Executive whether it is satisfied that the guidance that was issued on 4 September 2001 is working in practice. The petitioner brought to us a legitimate concern and I am sure that every parent in Scotland would want to be satisfied that the drugs, which are essential, are administered properly.
Are we happy to write to the Executive? Mike, do you want to get back to the EIS?
I am just rather surprised that it gives us a rather equivocal answer. It simply says that it is not in a position to respond, although it has guidance. Perhaps we should get some views about whether the guidance is effective. It seemed odd that the EIS did not state one way or the other.
Do you want us to write back to the EIS and ask it again?
Let us see what other committee members think.
That is a reasonable suggestion. The question is whether the matter was put to the EIS's executive committee or whether a researcher just wrote back because they did not have time to deal with the petition. If the EIS researchers do not have time to deal with it, the matter needs to be put to its executive, as it is important. Last week, I was out with a school and saw an auxiliary whose job was to administer all the medicines. That reminded me that the petition was coming up and made me think that, if I was a patient, I would like to be absolutely sure that all such medicines were properly stored and administered.
We will write to the EIS and seek further clarification, but that need not hold us back from asking the Scottish Executive how effectively it thinks the guidance is being implemented.
Tax Collection (Legislation and Procedures) (PE766)
Petition PE766, by James Mackie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the financial implications on businesses of the Inland Revenue's current system of collecting taxes and to change the legislation so that businesses have prior notification and the opportunity to address issues in front of a sheriff before a warrant is issued to collect alleged overdue taxes.
At its meeting on 27 October, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Scottish Executive, the Inland Revenue, the Scottish Sheriff Court Users Group, the Scottish Association of Law Centres, the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland and the Confederation of British Industry Scotland. Various responses have been received and circulated to members. Do members have views on the petition?
It would be fair to ask Mr Mackie for his views on the responses that we have received. As I said when the petition was first lodged, I am not sure that the problem is huge but, were it to arise, it would be a matter of concern to the CBI and the FSB.
Shall we pass on the responses to Mr Mackie and ask him to reply to us?
Members indicated agreement.
Historic Scotland (Remit) (PE703)
Petition PE703 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, as part of its review of Historic Scotland, to amend the organisation's remit to ensure that it is accountable for its decisions and responsive to communities' views.
At its meeting on 5 October, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport seeking an indication of whether the Executive has any plans to encourage Historic Scotland to adopt any measures to enhance community involvement. A response has now been received and circulated. Are committee members satisfied with the Executive's response?
The minister's response is clear and there is not much more that we can do. It is a fairly definite letter from Patricia Ferguson and we should probably let the matter rest at that.
Are committee members happy to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Opera (Funding)<br />(PE715 and PE777)
Our next petition is PE715, which is linked with PE777. PE715 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scottish Opera has adequate resources to maintain a full range of operatic provision; PE777, which is by Lorne Boswell, on behalf of Equity, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to safeguard the future of Scottish Opera by ensuring adequate funding to allow maintenance of a full-time chorus.
At its meeting on 27 October, the committee agreed to seek an update from the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, as well as from Scottish Opera and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union Scotland. We have received responses, so I ask committee members for their views.
The Cultural Commission is undertaking a review of all aspects of arts and culture in Scotland and is due to report soon. That report will certainly include Scottish Opera, but we could still write to the minister.
Are members happy to send the responses to the minister for comment?
Members indicated agreement.
Local Government Finance (PE754)
Petition PE754, which is by Christine Grahame MSP, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to accelerate the review of local government finance and to ensure that the review takes into account the ability to pay. In the meantime, the Executive is asked to consider a means of reducing the impact of this year's increase in council tax for those who have no matching increase in income to meet the additional charges.
At its meeting on 5 October, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform to seek details of the timescale for the review of local government finance and to request that the petition be passed to the review group. The minister's response, which has been circulated to members, states that the review committee has recently launched its website. A copy of the current timetable for the review, which appears on the website, has also been circulated to members.
Do members think that we can do anything else with the petition?
I suggest that we close the petition. As the minister's letter states, the review is independent of ministers, so we should send the petition directly to the review group, if we have not already done so.
The minister's response states that the petition has been passed on, as we requested.
Fine. We should just close the petition then.
There has been a consultation on the issue, which closed on 16 March.
I hope that the MSP in question has responded directly to that consultation.
She will not be able to use this committee any longer.
Building Regulations<br />(Thermostatic Mixing Valves) (PE786)
Petition PE786 is by Alan Masterton, on behalf of the Scottish Burned Children's Club. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to include in the Scottish building regulations a mandatory requirement for thermostatic mixing valves to be installed in the hot water systems of all new-build and renovated properties.
At its meeting on 24 November, the committee agreed to invite the views of the Minister for Communities, the Scottish Building Standards Agency, the Thermostatic Mixing Valve Manufacturers Association and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation. The responses have been received and circulated. Do members have any views?
Perhaps we could write to the Scottish Building Standards Agency to ask for an update with regard to the working group that it said it would establish early in 2005 to review section 4 of the technical handbooks for the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004.
I agree. We might do this as a matter of course, but we should also pass on the correspondence to the SBSA, because we have received worthwhile letters from the SNIPEF and other bodies, which have moved on the discussion in a sensible and worthwhile way.
The petition is worth while. The committee was unanimous that we wanted to pursue the issue vigorously. If we pass on the correspondence, we can be said to be doing that.
Yes. I am certainly concerned about the danger of legionella. A sensible solution must be found at minimum cost, but the petition is a good one.
Complementary Medicine (PE571)
Our final current petition is PE571, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to require health boards in Scotland to integrate and implement within the NHS the recommendations of the National Medical Advisory Committee's 1996 report, "Complementary Medicine and the NHS".
At its meeting on 2 February, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care to seek further comment on the petition. The minister's response, which has been circulated to members, states:
"the Executive's position is that it is already open to NHS Boards to provide CAM, based on their assessment of local needs … I agree that it would be appropriate to remind NHS Boards that they have this discretionary power. Health Department officials will do so when they write to NHS Boards about the herbal medicine and acupuncture consultation."
I am delighted by the response from the minister. He makes it clear that the expectation is that complementary and alternative medicine can be provided based on an assessment of local needs. That helps to move forward the situation for those who campaign and argue for complementary or alternative medicine. It is very good that the minister will address the issue in the context of the consultation on improving our access to herbal medicine and acupuncture. I thank the minister and also thank the petitioners for bringing forward a very important petition.
The minister's letter to the committee was written on 1 April. Is it possible to find out whether the letter to health boards has been sent? That letter was to be sent within two months and it will soon be six weeks since 1 April. Thereafter, I suspect that we should close the petition.
We can close the petition, but get confirmation that the letter has gone out. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
New PetitionsNext
Equalities Report