Gender-neutral Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (PE1477)
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the eighth Public Petitions Committee meeting of 2015. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones and electronic devices, as they interfere with the sound system. No apologies have been received.
The first item is consideration of four continued petitions. The first is PE1477, by Jamie Rae, on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation, on the gender-neutral human papillomavirus vaccination. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite contributions from members.
I am certainly keen to keep the petition open, at least until the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has the data from the modelling of the cost-effectiveness of the proposal. Given that there is a further investigation under way, I propose that the committee reconsider the petition once the JCVI has concluded its research and issued formal advice. I note that the modelling for the gender-neutral HPV vaccine will not be completed until 2017 at the earliest, so clearly the petition should be kept open until we have that further information.
I am happy to support that.
I am happy to support that.
Are we agreed that we will follow 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. I invite contributions from members.
I will comment before we come to a decision on action. Guidelines were issued as far back as 2003. It appears that before the matter came back to the attention of the Scottish Government the guidelines had been either completely ignored or totally forgotten.
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government expressing strong support for the establishment of a register. In doing so, I suggest that we ask that the register be more statutory, because guidelines appear to have been ignored.
It is alarming that it was not until the Scottish Government started asking questions after the matter was brought to its attention by Mr Gordon that we found out that the guidelines had not been implemented. That is why I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask that the register be made statutory rather than just provided for in guidelines.
I am happy to agree. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the petitioner on highlighting the issue, thereby ensuring that the Scottish Government has realised the inadequacies of the 2003 circular. I am encouraged by the response from the Scottish Government, which has initiated the review as a result of the petitioner’s work.
I would be content to close the petition on the basis that the issue is being actively taken forward by the Scottish Government, and to write to the Scottish Government expressing strong support for the establishment of a register.
Can I be a slightly dissenting voice? I remember Mr Gordon presenting the petition in September 2013; he gave an excellent presentation. I was, however, unpersuaded about the nature of the register or about putting it on a statutory footing, although I thought that he raised some important issues.
I note that the Scottish Government is undertaking a review. I am inclined to support the review and to see what conclusions arise from it, rather than to decide at the moment that we should advocate the establishment of a register or that it should be on a statutory footing. I am not sure that that is where the review will end up. Important issues have been raised, but some of my concerns—about the register and it being put on a statutory footing and the practicalities of that—remain.
I am trying to walk a middle line here in relation to what Angus MacDonald suggested, which was to congratulate the Scottish Government on holding a review and close the petition. I do not think that we can close the petition. We need to wait and find out what the Scottish Government’s review is going to contain if we are going to do justice to the petition and the issues that have been raised by the petitioner. We should keep the petition open and we should ask the Scottish Government when it intends to carry out its review and the timetable for the review being published, and we should also ask the Government to consult the petitioner regarding the review, to ensure that the issues raised in the petition are covered in the review.
Clearly, in 2003 the then Scottish Executive felt that it was relevant to have some form of register; it put its trust in the health boards to carry out that work. We are 12 years down the road and we are still trying to achieve something workable. It would be useful to find out from the Scottish Government exactly what it intends to do and what the results of the review may be. If technical issues are identified in the Scottish Government’s response in relation to information technology compatibility and other issues, let us resolve them and move things forward. I am minded to keep the petition open with the proviso that we await the Government’s review, but we should also ask the Government to include the petitioner in discussions about the review.
I welcome John Wilson’s suggestion. When we see the outcome of the review I may be persuaded to recommend the establishment of a register. However, I would like to await the review if the committee feels that that is possible.
The Government has pledged to engage with the petitioner, which is clearly very welcome. I take on board John Wilson’s points—he made a valid point about keeping the petition open while we monitor progress. My support for the petition is now on record, but I am happy to agree with colleagues to keep the petition open and to monitor proceedings.
Okay. The consensus is that we keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government. By way of explanation, I say that the reason why I talked about a statutory requirement was that it appears that the best models—which have been identified in France and the USA—are bound by statute.
Are members happy to move forward with the action that has been recommended?
Members indicated agreement.
Access to Justice (PE1525)
The next petition is PE1525, by Catherine Fraser, on access to justice. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
We should close the petition: we have gone as far as we can. The petitioner has raised the matter and the Government, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Justice Committee appear to have made their positions quite clear. There is a historical anomaly—not just since I started practising law in 1980, but since legal aid came in in the 1960s. There has never been legal aid available for defamation, either to pursue or to defend. That was decided on a public-interest basis in order to discourage people from taking recourse to litigation when they felt slighted. Scotland has significantly fewer such cases than there are south of the border.
I appreciate that the situation is an anomaly, but there are two reasons for it. First, the petitioner is asking for legal aid only to defend; it would be rather perverse to allow legal aid to defend but not to pursue. Is it not as bad to be the victim of defamation as it is to be the person accused of defaming somebody? If there were to be legal aid available, there would need to be equality of arms so that it would be available both to those who wish to pursue a claim and to those who are being pursued for having committed defamation.
Secondly, there is a public interest; legal aid is under huge pressure. The Government is facing financial challenges, and the Scottish Legal Aid Board is doing a remarkable job in trying to keep civil legal aid available in areas including asylum, employment and domestic violence. The budgetary constraints militate against any widening of the scheme at present.
Given that neither Parliament nor the Government, nor a statutory body such as SLAB, has indicated any interest in changing the scheme, I cannot see where we can take the matter other than simply to acknowledge the petition and to close it.
I am happy to back Kenny MacAskill’s suggestion that we close the petition.
In supporting the suggestion to close the petition, I will only comment that, although I fully understand that the Government may be under financial pressures, defamation should be considered in a broader context, so perhaps the Government can do so at a later date if financial pressures lessen a wee bit.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Social Care (Charges) (PE1533)
The final continued petition today is PE1533, by Jeff Adamson, on behalf of Scotland against the care tax, on abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
The Government has indicated some willingness to look at the matter, and we should encourage it to do so expeditiously and to report back. It would therefore be premature for the committee to make a decision beyond simply encouraging the Government to get on with it and keeping the petition alive pending some reasonably speedy—one hopes—discussions.
Do members agree that we will write to the Scottish Government to request that it convene a round-table discussion as requested by the petitioner and report back to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. We will suspend for a few moments.
10:12 Meeting suspended.Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions