Public Petitions Committee, 13 Jan 2009
Meeting date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Official Report 303KB pdf
Contents
- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 13 January 2009
- New Petitions
- Current Petitions
- New Petitions (Notification)
Current Petitions
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Appeal Tribunal) (PE1076)<br />Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Audit) (PE1163)
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE1186)
We move now to our consideration of current petitions. A number of members have suggested moving a particular petition further up the agenda, but we will start by considering three petitions that have been grouped together.
Petitions PE1076, PE1163 and PE1186 are being considered together because they are all on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Among a range of issues that they raise is an appeal tribunal to review final decisions. One of the new petitions that we dealt with earlier was on a similar subject. Do members have any views on how we should deal with these petitions?
I refer you to my previous remarks and our previous decision.
Yes. We should defer consideration of the petitions until we learn what emerges from the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Family Mediation Services (Funding) (PE1120)
Petition PE1120, by Brian McNair, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review its family law policies and spending levels to ensure that more emphasis is placed on family mediation services and family support for children. Previously, we had a substantial discussion on the issues that the petition raises. Do members have any views on how we should proceed?
The Government has provided information on the level of funding that it will make available to mediation services in each year up to 2010. In the early years framework, the approach will be to intervene early to support children and families. I do not know that there is anything else that this committee can do.
It has been suggested that we consider closing the petition on the ground that the issues can be addressed through guidance within the Government's structures.
I do not disagree with closing the petition, but can we also write to the Government to ask whether it proposes to review the adequacy and effectiveness of mediation services?
Doing that might mean that we cannot accept Bill Butler's suggestion—although in closing the petition, perhaps we can write to the Government to draw attention to the issues that have been raised.
It would be nice to put the point to the Government. Personally, I would like there to be a review of how well mediation services are doing and of how adequately they are funded.
I would like to take it a bit further, convener. The available funding is very small indeed—it is almost minute—and is just about the minimum that is required to employ one or two people in each council, except for one or two honourable exceptions. I would like to register my concern at the level of funding. I do not know whether the committee agrees with me.
You still want to close the petition, but you want to register your concern.
I wish to close the petition and also register my concern.
The monitoring that Nigel Don has suggested could examine Robin Harper's point about whether the funds are inadequate. They certainly seem to be inadequate, or the bare minimum.
I am not sure that we can close the petition while members are raising concerns about the level of funding. Although the information that is before us indicates how much is being spent, it does not tell us about the demand for family mediation services. Also, if we promote such services, demand will increase. If the Government has set aside funding for these services, it should be able to indicate the number of people who request or are directed to them. If the figure increases, the Government will need to increase the resources that it makes available to enable the services to deal with that. There is no point in having the policy if people cannot access the service because there is not enough funding.
It would be useful to keep the petition open and ask the Government to specify the number of individuals who have been referred to family mediation services or who have used them in the past. We could also ask whether the Government intends to monitor the situation in the future.
Okay. I recognise members' willingness to address the problem, and two or three questions have been raised with a view to exploring it further. Let us keep the petition open and try to achieve a resolution through asking for the information.
I am happy to go down that route, but I wonder whether we might ask the Government a wider question. It would be useful to know not only how the money is being spent but what other services are provided from local authority budgets or by the voluntary sector and other organisations. The adequacy of services needs to be considered in the round.
Okay. Thanks for that guidance. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Members who have other duties to attend to this afternoon have expressed interest in petitions PE1179 and PE1180, therefore we will move on to them. The members will speak on behalf of constituents and petitioners.
Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)
Petition PE1179 is by Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of "acquired brain injury" to ensure that people with acquired brain injury and their carers, in particular, get the services and support that they need and that agencies can plan and deliver services more effectively. David Whitton and Paul Martin are here to speak on the petition because of constituents' concerns. I invite David Whitton to speak, followed by Paul Martin.
I will say a few words in support of the petition. Just over a year ago, a constituent, Dr Mark Ziervogel, came to see me to inquire about the treatment that is available to people with a brain injury once they have left hospital. Dr Ziervogel and his colleagues from the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, who are responsible for the petition, are in the public gallery today.
Dr Ziervogel's wife suffered a head injury in an accident, and there were concerns that her follow-up treatment was not as connected as it should have been. On his behalf, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and she replied, outlining the work of the national managed clinical network for acquired brain injury. As the committee will know, the network receives funding from NHS Scotland for its administration costs.
The objectives of the network, as the cabinet secretary outlined to me, are to map out services for people with acquired brain injury who are aged 16 to 65; to promote the adoption of recognised standards of care; to identify the educational needs of the health groups that are involved in the care of people with brain injuries; and to identify the information requirements of patients, families and carers. The cabinet secretary emphasised that it is important to ensure that the standards of care are the same throughout Scotland, no matter where a patient happens to live. I am sure that we all agree with that.
The committee has received the responses to the petition and the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign's response to the views that have been expressed. I do not need to go over that ground again. Suffice it to say that it is clear from the responses to the petition that there is still a case to be made for recognising people with acquired brain injury as a distinct health and community care category.
I will highlight three of the responses to the petition. Headway Scotland said:
"As long as the status quo prevails whereby there is no separate and distinct health and community care client category of acquired brain injury, people with this condition and their carers will continue to lose out in relation to the services and support they require."
The Princess Royal Trust for Carers said:
"The Trust would request that the Petitions Committee make recommendation to the Scottish Government to give particular consideration to this group to ensure improved mainstreaming of services to better meet the needs of this very complex caring situation."
The Scottish head injury forum said:
"If ABI were a separate category for the purposes of planning, funding, and delivering NHS and local authority services this would make it easier for everyone to recognise and co-ordinate the pathway of care, and would improve the clinical and social outcome for many people with ABI."
The type of brain injuries that we are talking about affect, in the main, young men who have been involved in car accidents, but there are many others. People who have suffered such trauma often have violent mood swings and become aggressive, and they can become alcoholics and suffer deep depression, which affects not only them but their families. It has been shown that, where a proper aftercare policy is in place—in countries such as Australia and New Zealand and in parts of the USA—the patient outcome is much improved. It is important to understand that those who are affected by acquired brain injury may need a lifelong follow-up process.
If the Scottish Government accepted that there is a client group of acquired brain injury patients, it would bring social services and health services together behind a coherent treatment and policy procedure. At present, as we see in the response from the Scottish Government primary and community care directorate, there are
"no plans to introduce a separate and distinct … client group".
Indeed, the Government seems to suggest that setting up such a group would require extra resources. The Brain Injury Awareness Campaign disputes that. As you can see from its reply, it suggests instead that what is required is a reorganisation of the resources to obtain a better outcome for patients with the condition through setting up an identifiable category of care for people with acquired brain injury. I hope that the committee agrees that the petition should be kept open and forwarded to the Scottish Government for further investigation, to allow such a group to be established as soon as possible.
It is important to put on record that Helen Moran, in partnership with others, has put forward a very constructive case for change. I am sure that other members share that view. That must be taken into account when the issues are considered by the Parliament.
I am an avid reader of the Glasgow Evening Times, as, I am sure, are other members. A powerful case was made in the Evening Times, not just by Helen Moran but by another individual who had experienced difficulties with an acquired brain injury. The powerful case was made that, although the care that he received for his condition when he was treated in hospital was exemplary—he made that clear on a number of occasions—he had concerns about the care that he received after he left hospital. Helen Moran and others have, on many occasions, raised the issue of the support that is provided to those with the condition following their release from hospital. We must take that into consideration. The points have been well made by David Whitton and others.
Do members of the committee have any comments, observations or questions?
We are obviously trying to achieve a reorganisation of resources, as David Whitton put it, so that what the petitioner requests—a separate and distinct category of ABI patients—is ceded by the Scottish Government. We should, therefore, write to the Scottish Government on that basis. We must ask how people with ABI will be prevented from falling through gaps in provision, as there is no distinct and separate ABI category to lessen the danger of that. As Paul Martin suggested, we must ask the Government how it will ensure that carers of people with ABI get the services and support that they need. We must convey to the Scottish Government the petitioner's case that there will be a better chance of the various agencies delivering in a planned way the services that citizens with ABI require if there is a distinct and separate ABI category.
In their responses, the Scottish Government and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland refer to a draft report that will be available in early 2009 and a final report that will be published in May 2009. As Bill Butler indicated, we must try to ensure not just that people do not fall through gaps in the system but that we get uniform delivery for ABI sufferers throughout Scotland. We do not want excellent services to be delivered in some health boards—as reporting has shown—while others are declassifying and downgrading support services. If ABI services are to be delivered throughout the NHS in Scotland, they should be delivered at the same level—there should be no postcode or health board lottery that results in people in different areas getting different treatment. Ensuring uniform service delivery throughout Scotland is a common thread in petitions that have come before the committee.
We should continue consideration of the petition. As Bill Butler indicated, we need to write to the Scottish Government for further information. It will be interesting to find out what is contained in the draft report and in the final report, when it is published in May. We want to ensure that some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed are addressed by NHS Scotland when it rolls out the new programme for the delivery of services.
I draw members' attention to the letter of 21 November from the primary and community care directorate, which is signed by Jean MacLellan. The last paragraph on the first page states:
"The Government has no plans to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client group category of acquired brain injury."
If that is the position at the moment, collectively we are challenging the Government to say why such a group is not needed. The evidence appears to point in another direction. Given the large number of pieces of paper that we have received, we should ask the Government to explain its position.
I agree with Nigel Don. We could also ask the Government whether the NHS carer information strategies will include ABI training for health staff, which would be helpful.
I know that Paul Martin and David Whitton are familiar with the process, as they have appeared before the committee before. I ask them to inform the petitioners with whom they have been dealing that we will discuss the petition further once we have obtained answers to some of the points that have been raised.
Would it be appropriate for the committee to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to respond to its inquiries?
No problem—that will be done. Thank you for your time.
Further Education (Students with Complex Needs) (PE1180)
PE1180, from Tom and Josie Wallace, has been before the committee before, and Alasdair Morgan is here today with the petitioners. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in their further education placements and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up.
I know that Alex Fergusson, who has expressed an interest in the petition, would have liked to come along to this afternoon's meeting, but Presiding Officer duties have worked against that. We heard some of the arguments on a previous occasion, but Alasdair Morgan would like to amplify a number of points.
Thanks very much, convener. My brief remarks relate mainly to the Government's response, which is in one of the committee's papers. All I would like to do is quote from the Government's conclusions, which are in bold, to give members a flavour of what I think the issue is:
"there is more we can do … we are funding a new post",
a revised version of the guidance will be issued,
"arrangements will be discussed … This group will reconvene early in the new year … This will also be discussed … discussions between all the relevant parties are progressing … This too will be discussed".
Those quotations, which are from different paragraphs, make it clear that people are aware of the problems. Evidence that other people have submitted in response to the committee's call supports that idea but, to someone who is outside the process, the pace of progress seems to be glacial. In the meantime, Mr and Mrs Wallace's son—I appreciate that his case is not the substance of the petition—cannot get the placement that is best for him, although a placement is available south of the border.
I urge the committee, at the very least, to find a way of developing the pressure on the Government so that all the intentions that are expressed in its response are delivered in the form of concrete action within a reasonable timescale. Many good intentions have been expressed, but we need effective action, and I would like the committee to take steps to ensure that we move closer to the taking of such action.
Thank you. Do members have any comments or observations? As Alasdair Morgan has suggested, there is broad agreement on the direction of travel.
We should echo Alasdair Morgan's general comment when we approach the Scottish Government. We should tell it that its intentions are good and that they hit the mark but that we need to know what concrete action it intends to take and whether it can give the petitioners a good approximation of the timescale. Despite its having all the good intentions in the world, progress has been "glacial", to quote Alasdair Morgan, and that is not good enough. We should praise the Government for its general thrust but say that its programme of action needs to be expedited.
There is agreement from the committee for that course of action. I thank Alasdair Morgan for his time and patience.
Diabetes (Self-management Plans) (PE1123)
PE1123, by Stephen Fyfe on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that all NHS boards provide the necessary resources to promote and deliver diabetes self-management plans to all people with diabetes.
Do members have any comments or observations? We have considered the petition on a previous occasion, and I do not know whether I am totally convinced that we have a framework in place to deal with diabetes issues.
Our information is that the diabetes managed clinical networks are monitoring the delivery of diabetes structured education and that the Scottish Government supports the approach of the Scottish diabetes education network, so I do not know what other practical action we can take.
You expressed reservations, convener. Can you expand on those reservations before we make a final decision on the petition?
When we consider petitions that relate to the involvement of managed clinical networks, I have a sense that groups often come back and say, "What you thought was happening is not actually happening on the ground."
I am reluctant to suggest closing the petition, but if people want to do so, that is fine. However, given the fact that the incidence of diabetes is growing and that it will continue to be one of the most important issues in our health service planning, I worry that, if we close the petition, it would send a message that things are okay.
I endorse your reservations. At the top of the list of medical consequences of obesity is diabetes. Given that an obesity epidemic is manifesting before our eyes, we know that diabetes will grow as a problem.
I think that Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guidelines are being revised, which is always an important moment. I am not sure when an updated SIGN guideline on self-management plans will be issued but, if we defer taking further action on the petition until the new SIGN guideline is announced, we might be in a better position to judge what doctors are saying and how implementable the proposal is.
I support Nigel Don's suggestion. I also agree with the suggestion that we consult groups such as Diabetes UK Scotland and some local groups to find out their opinions about the delivery of the service. If we close the petition, we are effectively saying that we accept what various bodies have told us about the measures that they are implementing, but what bodies tell us about those measures does not tell us much about what is being delivered or whether it meets the needs of the user groups. Depending on the feedback we get from the diabetes groups, we might have to write to the Government to say that certain issues have to be resolved before progress can be made.
I agree that we should explore those issues further, as that will give us greater certainty when we ask the Government about its timeframe and decide whether its recommendations meet the petition's aspirations.
Do we agree to keep the petition open, as the issues are still unresolved?
Members indicated agreement.
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
PE1124, from Louise Robertson, has been before us on a couple of previous occasions. An additional letter from the petitioner, which contains more recent information on the issue, has been circulated to members. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to introduce provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares.
I think that there are still outstanding issues. For instance, I do not know how the new regulations will ensure that protected species are not at risk, so we could ask the Scottish Government about that.
There are issues that are still unresolved. The snare is not selective—it is destructive to all forms of wildlife—and many organisations object to snaring. The Government points out that new snares that reduce the risk of long-term injury to the animal are being manufactured, but I do not accept that at all.
I submit that we keep the petition open until we get clearer answers.
Asking for new methods to be introduced raises questions about educating gamekeepers. Not only do we need to know whether the new snares really cause minimal suffering, we have to find out whether organisations such as the one that has submitted the petition will be involved in training gamekeepers and land managers in their use.
So various questions need to be addressed including, for example, the impact on protected species and whether we can encourage the development of training for gamekeepers and land managers in other methods of control.
Given the petitioners' response, I suggest once again that, when we write to the Government, we ask why some landowning organisations can manage the land without using snares. After all, the list of organisations provided by the petitioners contains a number of substantial landowning interests that have obviously found that they do not need snares to control the types of animals that the Government claims landowners want to control or, indeed, eradicate. It would be useful to hear the Government's response to that question.
Okay. With that approval, we will move on.
Advocacy Services (PE1126)
PE1126, which is from Lesley Learmonth and Joan Mulroy on behalf of Enable Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to debate and amend legislation to ensure that people with learning disabilities in Scotland have an enforceable right to the services of an independent advocate and that such services are adequately funded. The committee has supported this petition in the past, and I believe that several issues that it raises still need to be explored with the Government. Do members have any comments or suggestions?
It would be useful to ask the Government whether, as the petitioner has indicated, there is uncertainty about people's rights under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and whether its review of the act will clarify them.
I declare an interest as the co-convener of the cross-party group on learning disability.
We could ask the Government for a timeline of action arising from the review and any benefits or improvements that might accrue from it; whether it is satisfied that the process by which a person with a learning disability can challenge a lack of advocacy services is simple, straightforward and designed with those people in mind; and why only 19 of the 32 local authorities mention learning disabilities in their single outcome agreements. It is important that we get an answer to that final question.
It would be worth while to encourage ministers to meet Enable Scotland, which, after all, is a national organisation with a very valuable perspective on the issue. Of course, that might well be happening—as a minister, I met representatives of that organisation and others—but we should perhaps encourage the Government to discuss the specific concerns with Enable Scotland.
I am wondering—as I have been for most of the afternoon—whether we should ask the Government a slightly wider question. Has it, for example, considered the value and benefits of advocacy services, which I would have thought were enormously useful to service providers as well as to individuals who would otherwise struggle to articulate their concerns? I see no need to distinguish between different sorts of disability with regard to communication. After all, it does not matter where folk come from; such services are enormously valuable to anyone who needs someone at their side to explain things. I wonder, therefore, whether the Government has reviewed or has any plans to review the provision of services not only throughout the country but across the various client groups and situations in which they would be of use.
As members have raised a number of points that need to be explored, we will keep the petition open.
Free Public Transport (Under-16s) (PE1174)
The next petition is PE1174, by Juliana Wolkow, on behalf of Holy Cross high school secondary 4 pupils. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free public transport for all under-16s who have no income. I understand that a review of the Scotland-wide concessionary travel scheme for young people is being undertaken, so I think that the best course of action would be to invite the Government to liaise with the petitioners to involve them in the review. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Historic Building Listing (PE1176)
The next petition is PE1176, by Thomas Ewing and Gordon Prestoungrange, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide a right of appeal against decisions by the Scottish ministers, following advice from Historic Scotland, not to list a historic building, to ensure that the value that a local community places on local heritage assets is fully reflected and that buildings can be considered for listing even when a planning application affecting them has been submitted.
A couple of issues have still to be resolved with Historic Scotland and the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland. Do members have suggestions on how to take forward the petition? Are we happy to endorse writing to Historic Scotland to seek responses to the submissions received from the petitioner, particularly on what concrete actions—a lovely term to use when talking about historic buildings—Historic Scotland will take; when greater transparency should be ensured with regard to rights of appeal against listing; and whether Historic Scotland considers that the current practice in relation to listing buildings when there is a live planning application should be reviewed as outlined in the submission from AHSS?
We might make the point in the letter that, as parliamentarians, we expect transparency and that an answer that says, "No, we don't tell anybody what we're doing but it doesn't bother us" is not acceptable.
Okay, that is accepted.
Radiation (Genetic Effects) (PE1177)
The next petition is PE1177, by John Connor, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out research into the genetic effects of radiation for all Ministry of Defence radiation workers and an investigation into whether child cancer clusters exist in all the parts of Scotland where nuclear submarines were, and are, based. Members have before them copies of additional information that the petitioner sent by e-mail to the committee clerk. Do members have any observations on the petition?
One point of difficulty is that, as far as I am aware, the Scottish Government has no plans to fund research in this area as it considers it a reserved matter, which is a hindrance to the petition. I do not know whether we can do anything practicable.
The option is to close the petition on the grounds that several issues that it raises have been explored through a variety of different reports and that the Health and Safety Executive is content that appropriate research on cancer incidence and genetic effects arising from radiation exposure relating to workers in nuclear installations continues to be carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Health Protection Agency. Do we wish to close the petition on those grounds? Do members feel that there are still issues to be explored?
I am content to close the petition, but I want us to ask the Scottish Government to request the UK Government to continue to monitor the situation. The issue will not go away and the fears and concerns of parents and others need to be addressed, so it is incumbent on us to ask the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to ensure that on-going monitoring takes place.
I am content that a huge amount of research has been done in the area and continues to be carried out, but there is still an issue—I am not putting it in the way of closing the petition, but I would like to draw the committee's attention to it—about the presentation of the figures. It is sometimes difficult to draw very much from the figures. There is a process called Barnardisation, which allows a slightly more transparent and accurate picture of what such statistics mean, but there has been resistance to introducing Barnardisation for leukaemia and cancer figures. I point out that that issue remains live.
We will take that point on board. Do we accept the recommendation to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Rural Fuel Prices (PE1181)
The next petition is PE1181, from Helena Coxshall, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to make representations to the UK Government on the cost of fuel in the Western Isles and to indicate the impact of that cost on individuals who are resident on those islands.
Alasdair Allan has expressed an interest in the petition. We have discussed aspects of the petition previously, but I invite Alasdair to comment.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate the chance to speak again.
I welcome Councillor Donald Manford, who is the convener of the transportation committee on Western Isles Council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and, not Helena Coxshall herself, but someone else who has been associated with the petition: Archie MacKay.
The papers that have been submitted and which the committee has considered are self-explanatory, but the petitioners have asked me to elaborate on a couple of points and to clarify some points that arise out of John Swinney's correspondence with the UK Government, which took place after a prompt from the committee.
First, I will update members on the situation. The last time that we met, Robin Harper presciently asked about the prospect of fuel being brought in by road to Ullapool and taken across by ferry to the Western Isles. Since then, the prospect of that happening has arisen. Because of the reduction in the ferry fares, that is now being considered as a realistic option. The fact that a company considered doing that has prompted Scottish Fuels, which previously said that its prices were immovable, to reduce them by several pence as a result of the threat of competition. I should clarify that that affects only Lewis and Harris; it does not affect any of Scotland's other island communities—not even the Uists and Barra—but it is an interesting aside.
Secondly, the petitioners have asked me to comment briefly on the tax element, which the Scottish and UK Governments discussed—as I said, prompted by the committee—in correspondence. They do not understand the point that is made in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's letter about "perverse incentives", which might arise if the tax system were to be adjusted so that those in the most remote areas paid a lower rate of tax on fuel—the perverse incentive, presumably, being that drivers in Glasgow and Edinburgh would want to fill up their tanks on Islay or Shetland. The petitioners genuinely do not understand what is meant by that.
The petitioners are not calling for petrol or diesel to be cheaper in Scotland's island communities than it is in Glasgow or Edinburgh; they want it to be not quite as much dearer. They asked me to clarify that point, since the issue arose in the correspondence. This has obviously been a difficult time economically for Scotland's island communities, as it has been for Scotland as a whole. The island communities that pay more for their fuel than people pay anywhere else feel a particular injury when they find themselves, as a result, paying more VAT. That is worth mentioning again.
The petitioners would also like to clarify that part of the grievance that people on the islands feel relates to the fuel that is used in houses. There is no gas supply in most parts of our island communities, so people have few choices. Because domestic fuel oil is now such a valuable commodity, theft has been taking place, which is very unusual for the Western Isles. There have been numerous instances of fuel oil being siphoned out of tanks, including a tank at a children's centre in Barra. That gives members an idea of what a valuable commodity fuel oil has become.
It is worth reflecting on the updated prices that the petitioners are complaining about. The price of unleaded petrol this week was 89p in Glasgow; it was 103p in Benbecula. Diesel was 94p in Glasgow; it was 113.9p in Benbecula. That differential has a major impact on the economic viability of the islands.
The petitioners have asked me to convey their request: they respectfully urge the committee to examine the issue seriously and to make the necessary representations to Her Majesty's Government.
I invite committee members' comments and observations.
The proposition that we take evidence is interesting. However, might it be better to send the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, for it to take up the matter? The issue clearly needs to be pursued. There is tremendous inequity for the islands' small population.
There is clearly an issue in the petition, and the petitioners are asking us to raise the matter with the UK Government. I know that the minister responsible in Scotland has raised the matter directly, and we can see the response from the UK chancellor. I do not know whether this committee can do much more. We have raised the matter, and it has been identified. We can continue to ask the Scottish and UK Governments to monitor the issue and to consider whether there are ways of mitigating the concerns that the petitioners have raised.
I certainly think that we should keep the petition alive. There is nothing new in the petition; the statements that are contained in it have been made over many years, but we have never had any real satisfaction. The Treasury and those who are responsible keep telling us that fuel duty and VAT are controlled by Europe, and that the Government has no locus to alter that. However, in the past two months VAT has been reduced from 17.5 to 15 per cent on some commodities. I do not think that there was much consultation with Europe on that. If the Treasury is allowed to make such a change, I see no reason why the same could not happen for fuel. We hear complaints that such a change would be difficult to administer and monitor, but I am sure that there would be ways of getting round it.
Robin Harper suggested referring the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. There is also the possibility of referring it to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. There is a serious issue around the economic times that we face, and the pressures on and survival of rural and island communities in particular. As the member for the Western Isles, Alasdair Allan, said, a number of people in those communities rely on the fuel not only to drive and get about the area, but to heat their homes. We have just come through a severe winter, yet we are telling people who decide to live in rural and island communities that they must pay a premium for their lifestyle. That would be unfair on any community. We should refer the petition to other committees, because it might tie in with the fuel poverty debate that continues in Scotland and at the UK level.
We in the central belt and in other parts of Scotland are seriously considering how we support pensioners to live in their homes. Pensioners receive a flat-rate heating allowance from the UK Government, which does not go as far in rural and island communities as it does in the central belt. We need seriously to consider how we deal with fuel in our rural and island communities.
We could refer the petition to other committees to take on board. We need strong and thriving rural and island communities. That will benefit not only those areas, but the rest of Scotland, because they will be actively involved in Scotland's economy. If action is not taken by the Scottish Government and the UK Government, those communities could wither on the vine and die.
I propose referring the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. It could deal with transport fuel costs and, as part of its climate change remit, consider what extra funding could be provided for renewables and extra insulation for housing and businesses in the outer isles, to reduce demand for fuel. That needs to be part of the process, anyway. We should think first of increasing fuel security by reducing demand. Irrespective of the fact that people in such areas pay a premium on fuel prices already, they are likely to carry on paying higher fuel prices as time rolls on in the next decade. I hope that an initial investment in insulation and renewables to reduce demand would be more than welcome.
I am not against keeping the petition open. A referral to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee might be seen as a positive move.
We should write to ask the Scottish Government what measures it can take to address the concerns about increased heating costs and fuel poverty. We should also ask it to write to the Treasury to make strong representations by enclosing the petition and asking the Treasury to clarify what action individuals and businesses in rural areas are meant to take to deal with the higher fuel costs that have been outlined. That would be even-handed and rational.
That proposal is helpful, as is Robin Harper's suggestion of asking one of the committees—preferably the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee or the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee—to explore the issue.
The issue is a matter of judgment in different arenas. The chancellor has made his judgment and the petitioners—understandably—seek another judgment from him. We will see what we can do. The petition asks us to raise the matter, which we have done. We want now to move it into other arenas to obtain further detail and at least to keep open the opportunity for broader discussions.
The impression that I take from members is that we will not close the petition. We will refer the issues that it raises to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and ask other committees whether they wish to explore the issues that it raises. Bill Butler suggested raising the concerns directly with the Scottish Government and Her Majesty's Government.
It is correct to say that, in the Scottish Parliament's first decade, fuel costs have been a running issue that has not been dealt with adequately.
The clerk is going to enlighten me a bit at this late stage in the afternoon when I am really tired and exhausted.
If the committee agrees to refer the petition to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, the replies to the letters that Bill Butler has requested we send to the Government and the Treasury would go to that committee, not this one. We would ask both Governments to respond directly to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.
The clerk is happy now. We were doing so well with Zoé Tough in the role.
Epilepsy Specialist Nurses (PE1182)
PE1182, by Allana Parker on behalf of Epilepsy Scotland, urges the Government to increase the number of epilepsy specialist nurses and ensure that all NHS boards provide adequate epilepsy services for adults, children and people with a learning disability. Several committee members are members of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on epilepsy. For that collective group of us, I mention that interest prior to any recommendation being made. The petition is self-explanatory. Are there any views on what to do with it? There are still issues to raise with Government before we get satisfaction on the petition.
We should ask the Government whether it will meet all NHS boards to encourage them fully to implement the SIGN guidelines and the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland standards for epilepsy. That might be a starter.
We should ask the Government to say what action will be taken against NHS boards if they fail to deliver. Once again, I make a plea for uniform delivery of services throughout Scotland so that we do not end up with a health board lottery. The plea is to the Government to ensure that adequate services are provided throughout Scotland. To return to the convener's earlier point, we might have to contact voluntary organisations and others to ask for an indication of whether the services that are being delivered are adequate to deal with the needs in each community.
We should also ask the Government how it will ensure that epilepsy services for people with a learning disability are consistent throughout Scotland.
That is helpful. We will keep the petition moving forward and seek views from the various Government departments.
Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 (Third-party Right of Appeal) (PE1183)
PE1183, by Keith McCarter, on behalf of the Coopersknowe residents association in Galashiels, relates to a third-party right of appeal. The Scottish Government has stated clearly that it will not introduce a third-party right of appeal, as it considers that the new planning framework adequately addresses the concerns that the petitioner raises. The petitioner is aware that the petition could be closed. Are we happy to close the petition with an acclamation of unanimity? No—Robin Harper wants to say something. I was trying to get consensus there.
I would like to put on record my support for a third-party right of appeal.
Likewise, I put on record my disappointment with the attitude that the Government has taken towards a third-party right of appeal in planning applications. There is a serious omission in the planning regulations on that.
Are any other absolutions required by members? No. Okay—thanks very much.
Eco-friendly Schools (PE1184)
PE1184, by Mrs L Albarracin, on behalf of the Bellahouston academy eco-committee, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to make funding and other assistance available to enable schools to become environmentally friendly and achieve green-flag status. The Government provides funding for the eco-schools programme and additional measures. Do members have any views?
On that basis, we should close the petition.
All eco-schools face problems of one kind or another—part of the challenge of being an eco-school is to get past those problems. I would like to record my dissatisfaction that any local authority is not prepared to fund recycling bins in classrooms. The petitioners have got round that problem and have benefited from the experience. I am quite happy to close the petition.
Okay. We will close PE1184 on those grounds.
Road Bonds (Sewers and Drains) (PE1185)
Our final current petition is by Andrew Kaye, on behalf of the Coopersknowe residents association in Galashiels. PE1185 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend relevant legislation to ensure that sewers and drains associated with roads from new developments are included in road bonds. The petition has been in front of us before. Are there any views on how to deal with it?
There does not seem to be any movement from the Government or any of the related agencies. I do not see what else the committee can do in a practical sense.
Should we close the petition?
I think that we need to close the petition because, as Bill Butler said, we have done everything that we can do. However, it might be worth noting in passing that roads become the responsibility of the local authority and so a bond is deposited with the local authority.
No—
Okay, a bond is deposited: never mind where it goes. The difficulty is that the landowners who have bought the plots and the houses on them finish up being responsible for any sewerage and water works that are not completed because no bond is payable in that situation. It might be wise if developers or the lawyers who are buying from developers of large estates were to find some way of ensuring that there is a bond that covers the cost of those works. In other words, perhaps purchasers' lawyers need to put together a mechanism for protecting their clients. The local authority looks after itself but, at the moment, purchasers are not protected. They would need to get together to be protected and their lawyers would have to develop a scheme to achieve that, if it is worth the bother, which it might not be.
I am reluctant to close the petition, because there are issues around the adoption of roads in new estates. In my experience, some local authorities are willing to adopt roads on new estates and do so fairly quickly. However, problems arise when local authorities take longer to adopt a road. Before the local authority adopts the road, it must satisfy itself that the road is up to an acceptable standard. Unless the local authority puts a bond for the construction of the road on the firm that is building the new houses, there can be difficulties with the local authority adopting the road without incurring substantial costs.
The issue is whether local authorities and other agencies, such as Scottish Water, should impose bonds on construction firms. At the moment, the hard-pressed construction industry is trying to ensure that it can continue to construct new houses, but new houses mean new housing estates, which mean new roads and water courses. The question is whether local authorities and other agencies use the bond system adequately to ensure that, if there are any failings in the road or sewerage construction, the local authority or Scottish Water can hold the bond against the developers to ensure that any required works are done without imposition on the new homeowners. In many cases, and in the current economic climate, new homeowners will have a hard enough task to pay their mortgages without being landed with a potentially large bill to cover the cost of upgrading a road or water system when the problems were not their fault in the first place.
What do you suggest we do with the petition?
We should ask the Government whether the local authorities and other agencies that are involved are applying adequate bonds to safeguard people who are entering new estates, and whether they are providing the relevant level of security for roads and water systems.
I am fairly comfortable with that suggestion. We all have such cases in our caseloads. The petition refers to a unique set of circumstances, but John Wilson is exploring the broader principles. I am happy to accept his suggestion.
Previous
New Petitions