Contents
New Petitions
Dog Theft (PE1776)
The first new petition for consideration is PE1776, lodged by Maryann Parry-Jones, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the classification of dogs from inanimate objects to sentient beings for the purposes of legal action on dog theft.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to the Scottish Government for its views on the issue. I was surprised to find that there are no official statistics on dog theft, especially when, as we see from our papers, the Dogs Trust says that
“Incidences of dog theft have been increasing over the past few years”.
We are all aware that the Scottish Government sees dogs and other mammals as sentient beings, and we should certainly classify them as such for the purposes of keeping track of dog theft. We should write to the Scottish Government to get its views, as I said.
As a doggy person, I recognise that the loss of a pet, particularly under such circumstances, is horrifically distressing. Dogs are part of the family. As we do not know how many dog thefts take place or how they are treated, I agree with Gail Ross that we should definitely pursue the issue and that our first course of action should be to write to the Scottish Government.
With this petition, there is a crossover with work that the Public Petitions Committee has done in the past on puppy farming and the idea that it is a trade or business that feels a bit unregulated and unsafe. On the other hand, considering the amount of personal investment that people have in their dogs, the idea that a dog theft would not be recognised as such is concerning, so perhaps we should write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition.
I agree entirely with that. The petition refers to pets being stolen to be used in dog fighting. I have always been unhappy about that issue not being investigated properly, so there should be a reference in the letter to our concerns about that. There should be a three-pronged attack: puppy farming, dog fighting and theft.
We are on a roll now. There is also the petition about how greyhounds are treated; the whole dog community—[Interruption.]
Our discipline is breaking down now. Yes, there is a petition about greyhounds, which we will deal with separately, as there were a lot of responses to it.
Are we agreed to write to the Scottish Government in those terms?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Landlord Register (Review) (PE1778)
The second new petition for consideration is PE1778, on reviewing the Scottish landlord register scheme, lodged by David Findleton. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the effectiveness of the Scottish landlord registration scheme.
I declare an interest in that I was the relevant Scottish Executive minister when the scheme was brought in, which shows how long ago it was. The intention was to ensure that landlords understood that they had a responsibility to their tenants and the community, and that they should not be in receipt of public funds if they could not be identified, which meant that someone should not let out properties without being visible and being seen to have applied some tests. Back in the day, that was the purpose of the scheme.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on the petition?
We should write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Association of Landlords to seek their views on the petition. It is a rising concern at the moment. There was a case in my area of a landlord being struck off for taking actions that were not sensible and not looking after their tenants. I strongly support finding out the Scottish Government’s and Scottish Association of Landlords’ positions on the issue and seeing whether any tightening up needs to be done.
If I recall correctly—this is also mentioned in our papers—although landlord groups had reservations about the scheme, a lot of them were keen that a distinction be made between good landlords who took their jobs seriously and rogue landlords, and that the latter be identified. The question is whether the registration scheme does that.
It might be worth writing to COSLA to ask about the extent of the issue. When the scheme was being implemented, there were concerns that it was not given the level of priority that might have been expected, and if enforcement is not resourced, it is difficult for the scheme to be effective.
I absolutely agree with that. I know of a couple of authorities that have not been enforcing things properly. We should make sure that that point is included, and I strongly advise that we write to COSLA.
Do members agree to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Association of Landlords and COSLA to ask for their views on the action called for in the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Ovarian Cancer (PE1779)
The third new petition is PE1779, by Denise Hooper, on reducing the risk of ovarian cancer. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise public awareness of the importance of the CA125 blood test to help detect ovarian cancer, and that endometriosis can increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
We have received a thorough briefing on the petition and the actions that it calls for. The briefing notes that fewer than 2 per cent of women with endometriosis will go on to develop ovarian cancer. We are also advised that, because a number of other conditions lead to an increase in CA125 levels, the test is not appropriate for population-wide screening for ovarian cancer.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
This is an emotive subject. It is not for us, in this sphere, to claim medical knowledge, so we have to be led by what the clinicians say. The point in our briefing that other conditions could be related to an increase in CA125 levels and the questioning of the test lead us to consider how the committee could take forward the petition. We will always take the advice of clinical experts on such subjects. The subject is difficult, and I understand where the petitioner is trying to go, but it is difficult for us to take forward the petition to realise the petitioner’s wishes.
There is a desire for people to be vigilant. We all want any cancer to be detected early, including ovarian cancer, and our briefing tells us that, too often, ovarian cancer is detected very late. The briefing also tells us that the solution that is suggested in the petition would not necessarily achieve the aim, because the test is not distinct and is not appropriate for population-wide screening. However, the issues and concerns that have driven the petition still exist.
We should get updated views from the Scottish Government on the issue. It is a difficult and emotional issue, as has rightly been said. I would be happier if, to do the petition justice, we got an updated view from the Government on the medical situation and what has been done since the issue was raised previously.
The choice that we have is to close the petition and recognise that what is being asked for is not the solution to the problem of early detection, or to write to the Scottish Government. If we do that, the Government will simply tell us what we have been told in our briefing, which is that the test will not achieve what is expected of it. [Interruption.]
I am sorry, but there is a strange noise coming from the heating system. I will suspend the meeting briefly.
09:58 Meeting suspended.09:59 On resuming—
I apologise for that brief pause in our consideration, which was due to matters outwith our control.
We recognise that the petition raises a serious issue about how we ensure that ovarian cancer is identified early. The advice that we have been given is that the petitioner’s proposal will not address the problem. If we ask the Scottish Government about the issue, it will say the same thing. We have to decide whether to close the petition or write to the Scottish Government. It might be an option to ask, “If not this, then what?” Alternatively, we could close the petition but write to the Government to flag up the issue that the petitioner has raised. That is the choice in front of us.
I am happy with your final suggestion. We should flag it up. Even if we close the petition, we should flag up the importance of the question.
10:00
I am interested in the “if not, what?” way forward. If the Scottish Government writes to the chief medical officer for Scotland, they will come back with exactly the same response as the other clinicians.
If we are going to close the petition, I like the idea of asking the Scottish Government what is being done to ensure that detection rates are increasing, if what is suggested in the petition is not the way to detect cancer early.
I agree. Maurice Corry mentioned the work that was done previously. In 2018, Jeane Freeman gave an update on the detect cancer early campaign. If we are to close the petition, it might be worth writing to see how that campaign is going.
Exactly. There is also a psychological battle for the people who are concerned.
That would make me more comfortable than closing the petition outright, because the petitioner has taken the time to put everything together.
I agree with Gail.
If we close the petition, the Government’s response will not come back to the committee. In writing to the Scottish Government, perhaps we should say that we are closing the petition because what it suggests is not the solution, but we want to be reassured that the Government recognises the need for early detection, and that it will contact the petitioner to give them an answer. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we agree to close the petition. However, we will flag up to the Scottish Government that there is an issue about early detection of cervical cancer and ask it to engage with the petitioner.
We thank the petitioner for highlighting the issues, and emphasise that they have the right to return with a petition in a year’s time, if they feel that that is necessary. In the meantime, we thank them for raising a very serious concern for a significant number of women.
Large Shops (Closure on New Year’s Day) (PE1780)
The final petition for consideration today is PE1780 on the consultation on the closure of large shops on new year’s day. The petition was lodged by Stewart Forrest on behalf of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament
“to urge the Scottish Government to launch a consultation on implementing legislation already in place to ban large shops from opening on New Year’s Day”.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I was closely engaged with the issue when Parliament debated it. At the time, the compromise position was that we would legislate on Christmas day and that we would consult further on what should happen on new year’s day. That was not done; the incoming Government did not consult further.
The petitioner’s point is that Parliament should ask the Scottish Government to look at the issue again. It is a controversial issue for some people. I should declare an interest and say that I absolutely support the petition.
There are campaigns to protect shop workers from abuse. However, in this world of fragile work, a lot of retail workers are working when everyone else is on holiday, and they are doing increasingly long hours or different hours than they have done in the past, without getting paid extra. I am genuinely interested in the issue. Do other members have views?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the petition appears to relate to a piece of work that was interrupted and not delivered to its conclusion. If the agreement was to do some evidence gathering and delving into the issue, and that was not done, surely, the way forward is to write to the Scottish Government and ask if it will pick it up again and take it forward.
There was a change of Government in 2007. The issue was highly controversial and I will not pretend that there was a consensus—far from it—so my recollection is that the compromise across the piece was that the Government would settle on Christmas day and consult on new year’s day.
To be fair to the Scottish Government, after 2007, it was clear that it had made the decision that it was not going to take that forward. The question that we might want to ask the Scottish Government is if it would now look at taking that consultation forward. A significant period of time has passed since 2007. The retail sector will have changed since then, and work will have become more fragmented for a lot of people.
Do we agree to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action that has been called for in the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Subsequent to that, there will be an opportunity for Stewart Forrest and USDAW to respond to what the Scottish Government says.
That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. We now move into private session.
10:05 Meeting continued in private until 11:03.Previous
Continued Petitions