Public Petitions Committee, 31 Jan 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Official Report 276KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Adults with Learning Difficulties (Provision of Services) (PE743)<br />“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Implementation) (PE822)

---

“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Findings) (PE881)

We move now to current petitions, the first of which are PE743, PE822 and PE881.

Petition PE743 is by Madge Clark, on behalf of Murray Owen Carers Group. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the implementation of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities" to ensure that the needs of adults with learning disabilities who are still living at home and who are cared for by elderly parents are given the same level of support and community care opportunities as are given to hospital-discharged patients.

Petition PE822 is by Beatrice Gallie, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to enable the implementation of "The same as you?" so that all people with learning disabilities have a choice of living at home like anyone else, with the support that they need to live independently and have control of their own lives.

Petition PE881 is by Rachel Cole and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the findings of "The same as you?" to ensure that people with profound and complex needs are properly provided for.

At its meeting on 3 May 2006, the committee agreed to seek the views of the cross-party group for learning disability and the petitioners. Those responses have now been received.

Linda Fabiani has joined us, because she has an interest in the issue. Do you want to comment on the petitions?

I am happy to hear the views of committee members before I comment.

Do committee members have any views? Perhaps Jackie Baillie will comment.

Convener, I do not need a second invitation.

The cross-party group for learning disability spent quite a bit of time on the issue, which we welcomed, and came up with six priority recommendations that we want the Executive to take forward. The recommendations cover local area co-ordination, direct payments, personal life plans and, very specifically, the needs of people who live at home with older carers, which is the subject of petition PE743. Through their persistence and continued attendance at our committee meetings, the petitioners Madge Clark and Jeanette Kelly have brought about action on the issue. We have called for local authorities to report on progress, for the Minister for Health and Community Care to make a statement to Parliament and for a number of other things that I will not take up the committee's time by repeating.

Suffice it to say, I believe that we should seek the Executive's views on the response from the cross-party group and on Madge Clark's response, which is given in annex C of our papers. On that basis, I suggest that we keep the petitions open and write to the Scottish Executive to ask what it will do now.

Does Linda Fabiani wish to comment now?

I am glad to hear that and I am delighted that the petitions will be kept open. This has been a long, drawn-out issue, but it is extremely important to many people. I am happy to hear the comments that have been made by Jackie Baillie in her capacity both as convener of the cross-party group and as a member of this committee. I urge other committee members to agree with her recommendation.

My only suggestion is that the letter to the Executive should, if possible, make specific reference to the need for housing choice. Adults with learning difficulties who live with elderly parents should have the same right as hospital-discharged patients to be housed on their own within communities, where that is felt to be the optimum solution in the circumstances. They should not be pushed to the end of housing waiting lists. We must avoid giving the perception that they are not quite as important as those who are discharged from institutions.

Are members happy to agree to Jackie Baillie's suggestion and to ensure that the Executive is made aware of the comments that have been made this morning?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Linda Fabiani for her attendance.

Thank you very much.

---

Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)

Petition PE767, which is by Norman Dunning, on behalf of Enable, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation and effectiveness of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976.

At its meeting on 31 May 2006, the committee agreed to invite the views of the petitioner on the response that we received from the Minister for Justice. The petitioner's comments have now been received and circulated.

I do not think that we have fully concluded all the work that the Parliament could do on the petition. The petitioner clearly welcomes the fact that the minister will address one of his concerns by implementing a process for ensuring that the recommendations of fatal accident inquiries are recorded centrally. However, although that is a welcome development, the petitioner is concerned that the proposed process will still be passive, in the sense that it will be up to interested parties to follow through an inquiry's recommendations.

On the issue of good practice for public bodies, the petitioner is clearly concerned that the recommendations need to be taken forward. His point about the improved training that is being implemented for procurators fiscal who are involved in fatal accident inquiries is that the Parliament should find out what that training involves.

In the light of all that, and given that we can always do a bit more work on such an important topic, I suggest that we keep the petition open and that our legacy paper for our successor committee in the next parliamentary session should suggest that the issue be taken on board by the new committee and perhaps be referred to one of the justice committees.

I agree with most of what Helen Eadie said. A number of people have approached me on the issue of fatal accident inquiries, although not in connection with the Enable petition. I am pleased with the minister's response, and I note Norman Dunning's comments.

However, I would like some clarification from the clerk on the issue of keeping the petition open or moving it to another committee. We could send the petition to one of the justice committees, with a recommendation that it look into the petitioner's request for an inquiry, or we could keep the petition here, thus keeping it open, but leave it in abeyance with a recommendation to our successor committee. What would be the difference in timescales? I assume that the petition will eventually go to one of the justice committees anyway, so what is the difference between our sending it to a justice committee now and our keeping it here until the next session of Parliament?

The justice committees are not mandatory committees, whereas this committee is a mandatory committee. There is no guarantee that the justice committees will be re-established in their current guise after the election. If the Public Petitions Committee is minded to maintain the momentum that this petition has clearly built up, the safest thing to do would be to retain ownership of it just now. Immediately after the election, the new committee—which will definitely be established—will be in a position to refer the petition to whichever committee it thinks appropriate.

I accept that advice and will therefore agree with Helen Eadie's recommendation.

Are other members happy to accept Helen's recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

NHS (Provision of Wheelchairs and Specialist Seating Services) (PE798)

Our next petition is PE798, by Margaret Scott, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to resolve the current critical problems in the provision of wheelchairs and specialist seating services in the national health service, both by providing an immediate increase in funding and by instigating a review which, in consultation with users, will address minimum standards, the scope of equipment provided and the delivery of services.

At its meeting on 14 June 2006, the committee agreed to seek an update from the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care in relation to the Scottish Executive's response to the independent review of NHS wheelchair and seating services in Scotland. Responses have been received and circulated.

This is very sad, because the petitioner has died. We are all very sad about it, and the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care has expressed his regret too. Margaret Scott made a major contribution to wheelchair provision. I remember going with some constituents to meet the deputy minister to discuss the issue, and I was pleased—as I am sure Mrs Scott would have been—to see the intense work that the Scottish Executive put into having a national conference and, more important, the various regional events that gave users and their carers an opportunity to make their views known. A wealth of work has been done, and it is sad that Mrs Scott is not here to enjoy the results of her efforts. We should acknowledge those efforts and the changes that have followed on from them, but perhaps we should now close the petition.

I, too, acknowledge the efforts of Margaret Scott and regret her death. What she did was superb. She initiated the review, which the Executive moved forward with, although we are now slightly out of date. My understanding is that the Executive published a response as recently as—I think—19 January.

It did.

I have a copy floating around my office, because I specifically asked for it, but I have not had time to digest it. I wonder whether, instead of closing the petition, we should see whether the Executive's response does everything that Margaret Scott wanted. It would be worth pursuing the detail a little further.

I worked with Margaret Scott and the other petitioners.

Yes, I remember that.

I endorse what Jackie said, and I urge committee members to consider the Executive's response. The Executive has been excellent, but one or two of the petitioner's main arguments have not been addressed.

Committee members should have a copy of the letter I received from Liz Rowlett, who is the policy, information and parliamentary officer for the Scottish Disability Equality Forum. She told me that she had

"also copied this to the members of the Petitions Committee".

Her organisation is grateful to the Executive for the good things that it has done, but adds the big caveat—I will cut it short because of time—that the

"SDEF is disappointed that the response falls short of setting up a single, integrated service for wheelchair provision, the key recommendation of the report. We would caution that, while the creation of a project board and advisory group with representation from service users and carers is welcome, this should not delay the implementation of the principle improvements recommended."

I had a meeting with Andy Kerr—I think that it was last week. My feeling is that the whole issue may have fallen between two stools—or two funding years—as that would account for the comments on funding in the letter. The SDEF is concerned that improvements will have to be implemented without any new money. Before the committee moves to close petition PE798, I suggest that members address the outstanding questions, look again at the Executive report and read the letter. I will ensure that the committee has a copy of the letter.

If other members agree with what Jackie Baillie said, we will not close the petition. All the information is useful. If we keep the petition open, we can examine the review and assess the outcomes. We can also put petition PE798 on the agenda for a future meeting, when all the information can be drawn together. That will give everyone the opportunity to consider it again.

That is good. I do not want to leave you with the thought that people are girning—they are not. They are absolutely delighted with the response, including, of course, this committee's response.

You are always welcome here, Margo.

We will keep petition PE798 open, as that will allow us to consider both the review and the information that Margo has brought before us. It will also allow further discussion to take place.

I will make sure that you get the information.

Thank you.

---

Mental Health Services (Deaf and Deaf-blind People) (PE808)

Our next petition is PE808, by Lilian Lawson, on behalf of the Scottish Council on Deafness, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop and establish a specialist in-patient mental health unit for deaf and deaf-blind people and to provide resources, such as training, for mainstream psychiatric services in the community to make them more accessible to deaf and deaf-blind people in Scotland.

At its meeting on 14 June 2006, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care on the response from the petitioner and on submissions from the cross-party group on mental health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The response from the minister has now been received and circulated to members.

I note that Lilian Lawson is in the public seating. I have read the response. If we agree to seek the petitioner's comments on the response, I look forward to reading what Lilian and her group have to say. There is some positive stuff in the response, but the Executive does not seem to have addressed all the points that we raised. For example, I am still interested to find out about NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's involvement in the new multi-agency team.

I agree.

So are we all agreed to keep petition PE808 open and to ask the petitioner for her comments on the response?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Small-scale Energy Generation Equipment (PE837)<br />Renewable Energy Technology (Installation) (PE969)

Our next petition is PE837 by Neil Hollow, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to actively use its influence to ensure that, by 2020, all buildings in Scotland, including domestic, commercial and government buildings, are fitted with at least one type of small-scale energy generation equipment; that such equipment is brought within permitted development rights; and that no charges for connecting to the grid are made.

We are also considering petition PE969, by Alan Kennedy, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to promote and encourage the development and installation of micropower renewable energy technology in business and domestic premises and to set targets for doing so. At its meeting on 14 June 2006, the committee agreed to link petitions PE837 and PE969, and to seek an update from the Scottish Executive on the promotion of micropower renewable energy technology. The response has been received and circulated to members.

I note that the petitioner behind petition PE969 welcomes the input and information that he has received but regrets the slow pace of progress. Given that the Executive has indicated that the energy action plan that is mentioned in its letter of 15 September 2006 has been delayed and will not be published before February, it might be best for the petition to be considered further by our successor committee in the Parliament's third session, by which time the petitioner will have been able to comment on the action plan.

I concur.

I am sorry, but I must leave, because I have a meeting at 1 o'clock.

Are members happy that we keep the petition open and include it in our legacy paper?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Culture (Study of History, Literature and Language) (PE910)

Our next petition is petition PE910, which was submitted by Dr Donald Smith on behalf of the literature forum for Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct an urgent review of the study of Scottish history, literature and languages at primary, secondary and tertiary levels, to ensure that all citizens of Scotland have the opportunity to understand those key aspects of their society and culture. At its meeting on 14 June, the committee agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the responses that it had received from various educational and cultural bodies and the Scottish Executive. We have now heard from the petitioner.

On the basis that the petitioner appears to be perfectly happy, I suggest that we close our consideration of the petition.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

---

European Drinking Water Directive (PE929)

Petition PE929, which was submitted by George Packwood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the implementation of the European Union drinking water directive 98/83/EC as it relates to the replacement of lead piping in public and private sector domestic properties, to ensure that drinking water in Scotland has zero lead content. At its meeting on 14 June, the committee agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses that we had received from various organisations, including the Scottish Executive. His response has been circulated and members should have a copy of a further letter, which the committee received this week. How should we progress our consideration of the petition? Should we write back to George Packwood?

The petitioner expresses the concern that the issue that he raised has not been properly addressed. Perhaps we could write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has not yet replied to us, and to Scottish Water to ask them specifically about the replacement of lead piping rather than just water quality. The distinction that the petitioner makes might be a moot point, but it is worth pursuing.

If we get those responses, we can contact the petitioner again. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Housing (Right to Buy) (PE950)

Petition PE950, by Andrew Doak, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 (Scottish Secure Tenancy etc) Order 2002 to ensure that tenants retain pre-existing right-to-buy terms if they are compelled to take up a new tenancy as a result of being the victims of antisocial behaviour. At its meeting on 3 May 2006, the committee agreed to seek views on the petition from COSLA, Communities Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Scottish Tenants Organisation, Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Executive, and to invite the petitioner's views on those responses once we received them. I seek members' views.

It appears that there is a clear legal remedy to the situation in which the petitioner finds himself, which has been set out in the Executive's recent guidance. The petition concerns an issue that is really a matter for the local authority concerned, so perhaps we should close our consideration of the petition. Part of the problem that the petitioner raised seems to have been tackled.

Do members agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move into private session, there are two matters that I want to comment on. It might simply be that my memory is failing, but when we discussed the petition on euthanasia—petition PE1031—I do not remember agreeing to send any responses that we receive to the petitioners for their consideration. To be on the safe side, I seek the committee's agreement to do that.

Members indicated agreement.

It is better to be safe than sorry.

I point out to members that after today we will consider no more new petitions before the election. At our remaining meetings we will consider only those petitions that are already in the system, so we might be able to reduce the length of meetings or to condense the number of meetings—perhaps we could have one meeting per month. I will speak to the clerks about that.

Meeting continued in private until 12:59.