Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Current Petitions
Current Petitions
School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
We move to agenda item 2, which is the consideration of nine current petitions. We will take together the first two petitions: PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield on behalf of Kingseat community council, and PE1223, by Ron Beaty, which are both on school bus safety. I note that Mr Beaty is once again sitting in the public gallery, and I thank him for all his efforts on his petition over the years.
Members have a note by the clerk. Stewart Stevenson has had a long-standing interest in petition PE1223, but he is unable to be here today. Nevertheless, we note his interest.
On the options for each petition, the committee may wish to defer further consideration of PE1098 to early 2015 and seek at that time an update from the Scottish Government on progress with the devolution of powers relating to seat-belt provision. Is that agreeable?
It is agreeable, but I say what I said two weeks ago about speeding up the whole process. I will be 125 by the time this is dealt with—that is next year. We need to get an understanding. The petitioners have spent a lot of time on the matter, and the situation has been going on almost for ever. Perhaps, in our letter, we might impress on Transport Scotland our wish to come to a conclusion.
I think that Mr Brodie’s frustration is felt by all the committee.
The reason why people are holding back on undertaking a pilot project in a rural local authority area is clearly to do with the financial situation. This is probably not within our remit, but it would do no harm to suggest that Transport Scotland could cover the costs of a pilot, if that is the sticking point.
Does the committee agree to write to Transport Scotland in the terms that Angus MacDonald suggests?
Members indicated agreement.
As for PE1223, the committee may wish to write again to Transport Scotland about the petitioner’s views and to the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers to suggest that a rural local authority should take part in a pilot enhanced signage scheme.
I agree that we should write to Transport Scotland again, but I would want to draw its attention to Ron Beaty’s letter and particularly to how he describes the consultation that took place. When the committee recommends that a public agency should engage with petitioners, we mean meaningful engagement, not a meeting in a cafe at which no notes are taken.
Discussing concerns in a public cafe is not adequate. Mr Beaty described how the person he met then went on to a meeting in the council offices. Such a right should have been afforded to the petitioner. Transport Scotland should be made aware that, when we talk about consulting petitioners, we mean meaningful consultation in an appropriate place, with appropriate time and consideration given to their views.
Is the committee happy to write to Transport Scotland in those terms?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree with my suggestion on PE1223?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Beaty for his time and commitment. The committee acknowledges all the work that he has done over the years.
Fair Isle Marine Protected Area (PE1431)
The next petition is PE1431, by Nick Riddiford, on behalf of the Fair Isle community, on a marine protected area for Fair Isle. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
A possible course of action for the committee is to defer consideration of the petition until early next year and seek at that stage further information from Marine Scotland on the outcome of the assessment of Fair Isle’s demonstration and research proposal. Do members agree to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
A Sunshine Act for Scotland (PE1493)
The next petition is PE1493, by Peter John Gordon, on a sunshine act for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
Given the information that the Scottish Government has provided to detail the measures that health boards have put in place and given the concerns that the petitioner highlighted, the committee may wish to write to the Scottish Government to ascertain what action has been taken since the information was gathered to ensure that the guidance in the health department letter—NHS HDL (2003)62—is being complied with fully and consistently by all health boards. Do members agree to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Renaming Glasgow Prestwick Airport (PE1506)
The next petition is PE1506, by Alison Tait on behalf of the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd, on renaming Glasgow Prestwick international airport to Robert Burns international airport. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite Chic Brodie to make an opening statement.
I do not agree with the proposed committee recommendations, largely because of my involvement with Prestwick airport. First, we must drop “Glasgow” from the title—the airport is in Prestwick in Ayrshire. It is interesting that we are being asked to rename the airport as Robert Burns international airport—which we cannot do, apparently—while we sit in a committee room called the Robert Burns room.
I suspect that the committee will want to close the petition given the airport board’s imminent announcement. I assure members that the issue will roll on, but I suspect that there is no point in continuing the argument in the committee, although I will continue the argument elsewhere.
I understand that you will continue your argument individually.
I sure will.
Is the committee minded to close the petition in light of the Scottish Government’s view or is there an alternative view?
Like Mr Brodie, I am loth to close the petition. The difficulty is that the board’s justifications for its decision have not been met. As far as I am aware, it has not tested the market on renaming the airport. We know from the feedback of other airports that have renamed or rebranded themselves that they see those exercises as a major success for their airports’ popularity and that they have brought in more carriers.
I wanted to see more evidence from the airport board and the Scottish Government to show us what they have done to test the market not only in Scotland but internationally. We have to retain Prestwick airport as an important hub not only for Scotland but for the United Kingdom.
The committee has done a power of work on the petition, so is there any reason why Mr Brodie thinks that it should be continued?
The name Glasgow Prestwick airport was adopted largely because of one carrier, which wanted Beauvais airport to be called Paris airport, although it takes 45 minutes to get from Beauvais to Paris.
Because of my involvement in business opportunities, I spent almost all the weekend at Prestwick airport. I would like the petition to continue. It is instructive that calls were made last week for Edinburgh airport to be called Robert Louis Stevenson airport. The evidence from discussions that I have had with chief executives in Liverpool and Belfast is that, although it is not greatly important, the name has ramifications. The fact that Burns material is produced in 159 countries suggests to me that there is a marketing opportunity. I will say no more.
I take on board what Chic Brodie says, but I reluctantly accept the recommendation to close the petition. It is clear that the Scottish Government will not budge on the issue. I wish Chic Brodie success in his future endeavours.
Since we previously discussed the petition, we have written again to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, Nicola Sturgeon—very soon to be she who must be obeyed—and she replied saying:
“We have considered very carefully the suggestion that the airport be renamed Robert Burns International. On balance we have decided that there are strong commercial reasons to retain the Glasgow Prestwick name but the importance of recognising the rich legacy of Burns is accepted.”
The Government, which now owns the airport, has said that it will not change the name, and the management committee that it has appointed to run the airport has concluded that it will not change the name. I therefore cannot see what the committee believes is yet to be achieved and so, whatever the strength of opinion is that underpins the petition, it is clear that it will proceed no further. On that basis, although individuals will pursue the matter, we could not have stronger or clearer grounds on which to close the petition.
I clarify that the management committee has not been involved, because the board has not yet been appointed. Who knows what will happen after that?
I am reluctant to open a free-for-all debate on the matter. Members have all discussed it. Mr Carlaw expressed a very strong no, if I picked it up correctly. We all respect the work that Chic Brodie has carried out individually, but I see no option other than to close the petition, particularly in light of Mr Carlaw’s points. All committee members bar one have supported that. Reluctantly, we will close the petition because of the Scottish Government’s position, but we all wish Mr Brodie well in his endeavours.
Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices (PE1517)
The next petition is PE1517, by Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy, on behalf of the Scottish mesh survivors hear our voice campaign, on mesh medical devices. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
We all recognise that it has been a first-class petition. A number of supporters are in the public gallery; I welcome them back. I also put on record our thanks to Neil Findlay, who has carried out a strong campaign, and to the Sunday Mail for the work that it has carried out.
The suggestion is that we defer consideration of the petition until early 2015 to await the outcome of the independent review that the Scottish Government set up and the opinion that the European Commission requested from the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Before we make a final decision, I want to hear from any committee members who wish to speak.
I will speak, despite what some people think about Government back benchers. In reference to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the clerk’s note, I do not remember when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing was at the committee, but the action that had to be taken was made clear. I acknowledge what Mr Findlay has done and I am more than concerned that 29 women have received mesh devices from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde since June 2014. I thought that the cabinet secretary’s decision was clear, so I am surprised that the Minister for Public Health said:
“there will be individual circumstances where clinicians, in consultation with the women involved, will consider all the potential risk factors”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2014; c 8.]
I would like to understand the basis for that.
We could certainly write to the cabinet secretary about that.
12:15
I echo that. When we took evidence, we were largely assuaged by the cabinet secretary’s assurance that he had instructed that a moratorium be put in place. He explained the limitations on him, but I thought that the response to the question that was put in the chamber was somewhat cavalier in its generality. I think that we had expected something a little more absolute, based on the assurances that had been given to us.
We should acknowledge the public recognition that the petitioners have been given for the work that they have done. I believe that, as a consequence of what they have done, Westminster’s Department of Health has also taken an interest in the issue. As we continue to review the petition, it will be interesting to note what that department’s conclusions have been and to consider whether that might affect the position that we adopt and pursue in Scotland.
We are still part of the European Union, so it would be useful to get the European Commission’s views as well.
Like Chic Brodie, I listened to the cabinet secretary give evidence to the committee, so I am aghast. The saying that the tail is wagging the dog springs to mind. I would like more information.
I have another point to make—I am going to become a bore on the subject. Two weeks ago, we discussed how long one element was taking. We need to start asking those who advise ministers exactly when in early 2015 we can expect to see the outcome. In business, if I am asked to do something, I cannot say, “I’ll do it early next year.” It is incumbent on us to start asking when we will see information and outcomes and what those outcomes will be, so that we can promote the interests of those who bring petitions to us.
Neil Findlay has been a champion of the issue. I invite him to address the committee.
I have with me the patient information leaflet that has been produced to accompany the on-going trials. Given the lack of information in the leaflet, the belief is that people are being, in effect, hoodwinked into taking part in trials. They are being asked to take part without knowing that they will have a mesh device fitted or that the procedures have been suspended by the Scottish Government pending a safety review. That is a concerning situation. There is no mention of mesh in the leaflet.
Since the process started, we have seen the suspension—or the alleged suspension—of the procedure in Scotland; a working group has been set up; a revised consent booklet that should include the word “mesh” is being created; US courts have twice found products to be defective; and, alongside all that, the deputy chief medical officer—one of the most senior medical officials in the country—has been encouraging women to take part in trials.
Also since then, many settlements have been reached in the US courts. The list that I have covers two pages. There was a settlement on 4 March of $16 million; on 3 April of $1.2 million; on 5 September of $3.27 million; on 8 September of $73.5 million; on 30 September of $1.6 billion; on 21 October of $21 million; and so on.
My concern is primarily for the women who are affected and those who might be affected if they take part in a trial and are injured by the product. However, I have another concern. Those lawsuits are massive. We know the number of people who have been affected in Scotland, and the consequences for our national health service if the situation develops in the way that it has in the US and is likely to in Australia are eye watering.
It would help if you could leave the information that you have quoted with our officials, for the Official Report.
I put on record the fact that the committee is due to visit Brussels soon. We made attempts to contact the office of the European Commissioner for Health to raise the issue. Although we will not be able to meet him when we go to Brussels, we are assured that we will meet his officials at some stage. That is important. We want to put the issue to bed, because it is crucial across Europe and America, as Neil Findlay has stated. We will give people further information about that when we have had the meeting.
On the back of Neil Findlay’s comments, one of the problems, which the petitioners highlight in their updated submission, is the lack of certainty in the reporting mechanisms from health boards around Scotland. The petitioners have highlighted that some of the evidence that health boards provided—I welcome that evidence—clearly indicates that they do not keep or might not be keeping accurate records of incidents when patients have reported concerns about the devices that have been fitted. Concern has been raised about that.
The petitioners have asked whether the records include referrals to specialist services and general practitioner referrals. The British Medical Association’s response states:
“The BMA recognises that many women have suffered complications following the insertion of a polypropylene mesh medical device”.
However, the difficulty is that we do not have an accurate number of the women involved, because of the reporting mechanisms and the issue of who patients speak to after an operation. Do they raise concerns only with their GPs or are they referred back to the consultants who carried out the operations?
We must try to impress it on the Scottish Government that we need to find ways of accurately measuring the number of operations that have resulted in complications in later years or immediately after they were carried out. It would be useful to get some clarification because, if health boards are not clear about the reporting mechanisms, we certainly cannot be clear about the number of incidents that have taken place in Scotland.
Neil Findlay raised a specific point about the future liability of the Scottish Government to court actions. Do members agree that we refer to that in our letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing?
Members indicated agreement.
Another issue is the information leaflet that is provided to those who might be considering—or might be being considered for—trials. A major concern is that people are being approached about clinical trials without having the full evidence. I do not want to tell the committee what to do, but it might be appropriate to write to the Scottish Government and the other agencies involved about the issue.
When the minister was before us, we discussed the wider issue of informed consent. I think that you are raising the question whether consent is informed.
Like Jackson Carlaw, I understood that there was to be a moratorium. The letter from the chief executive of NHS Grampian, who I think is no longer with us, suggests that
“medical recommendations should be based on medical literature, high quality medical research focused on patient-reported outcomes and clinical expertise.”
The penultimate sentence of the letter states:
“We must avoid basing any recommendations on the basis of media or political pressure.”
I believe and will personally ensure that anything that comes out of the committee is properly directed political pressure. The political pressure comes from those who come here with petitions and, if the balance of probability results in a cabinet secretary announcing a moratorium, the people who run the various health services should understand that that is properly directed political pressure.
The wider point, which Mr Brodie rightly makes, is that our consideration of several previous petitions has shown that a clear and well-accepted Scottish Government policy might not be fully implemented by health boards. That is a common theme that we have raised time and again.
I am conscious of the time. If members have no further points, do we agree that we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing about liability costs and informed consent and that we defer consideration of the petition until 2015 to await the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, which the European Commission requested?
Members indicated agreement.
I add to the list that you have read out the issue of the records of incidents that health boards are keeping. It is important that there is an accurate record and that the patients who are suffering can be assured that their issues are being heard and reported appropriately.
Thank you for that point. We will add that to our list of objectives. I thank Neil Findlay for giving evidence and all the supporters in the gallery who have come along again. We are with you on the petition. Thank you for all the work that you are doing.
No More Page 3 (PE1521)
The next petition is PE1521, by George Eckton and Jane O’Donnell, on no more page 3 in The Scottish Sun and the Scottish Parliament. Members have a note by the clerk and the submission. Jackie Baillie has an interest in the petition. I invite committee members to raise any specific points.
There are a couple of options. We could write to the EHRC for its views on the sale and availability in the workplace of The Scottish Sun while it carries the page 3 feature. Are members happy with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I am pleased that the committee agreed to write to the EHRC. I encourage the committee to write to Rupert Murdoch, on the back of the letter from Gordon Smart, the editor of The Scottish Sun. In his letter, he suggests that Rupert Murdoch is considering the future of page 3, so that might be a timely intervention by the committee.
Unless I have read the note wrong, there does not seem to have been a response from the SNP group. I do not know whether that is an oversight but, as the SNP group is the largest group in the Parliament, I hoped to see a response from it. The committee has the opportunity to chase that down.
Since the committee previously discussed the petition, a complaint against The Sun has been lodged with the Advertising Standards Authority about the offer of a date with a page 3 model as the prize in a contest organised by the paper. I am pleased to say that the authority upheld the complaint on the basis that the offer objectified women.
For all those reasons, I hope that the committee will continue the petition.
Jackie Baillie has recommended that we write to Rupert Murdoch.
I made it clear before and I make it clear again that I ask why we are talking about The Sun specifically. We may as well widen the scope. Never mind what those who are involved are doing—which I do not approve of—they wish to do it. We are encroaching on certain freedoms.
In general, although I support this, let us not particularise. We had another petition that said that we should say no to a particular supermarket. I am concerned that we will pillory one thing in particular. Let us look at the whole thing.
I am not going to get involved in the debate, but we can deal only with the petitions that are in front of us. The petition in front of us specifically mentions The Scottish Sun, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That is why Jackie Baillie made her suggestion. I ask for the committee’s view on whether we should write to him.
I totally agree that we should write to Rupert Murdoch. I am absolutely disgusted that we have such newspapers in the Parliament. I have read the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s letter and I am not sure why we are still deliberating the issue. The Sun is distributed without page 3 in other areas, so why not here? I am absolutely appalled that this is on-going.
If the committee agrees, we can write to the EHRC on that very point.
It is on record that, when the petition first came to the committee, I suggested that we write to Rupert Murdoch. I concur with Jackie Baillie.
You are obviously ahead of the pack.
Do members agree to write to the EHRC in the terms that I described and to Rupert Murdoch for his views on the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
I express again my deep concern about particularising. We might as well include The Daily Star, the Daily Sport and all those other organisations.
You have made your point clearly, but I re-emphasise that we are dealing with a specific petition that mentions a specific paper. If we receive other petitions that deal with other papers, we will deal with them.
I am conscious of the time. Do members agree to defer to a future meeting the other petitions on the agenda?
Members indicated agreement.
I apologise to the petitioners for having to do that.
12:29 Meeting continued in private until 12:30.Previous
New Petitions