Official Report 163KB pdf
Are committee members happy to take the second current petition on the agenda first, given that Margaret Curran is here to speak to it?
Members indicated agreement.
Young Offenders (PE1155)
I welcome Margaret Curran to the meeting. PE1155, from Elizabeth Cooper, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the law to ensure that young people who are aged between 10 and 18 and who are charged with serious offences are tried by the criminal justice system, rather than the children's hearings system.
Thank you for taking me a bit earlier—I appreciate it. I know that Mrs Cooper and her family would want me to thank the committee for its sustained interest in the petition and for helping them to delve into the roots of the issue. The petition talks about amending the law, but what has also been revealed is how the children's hearings system operates. Even if this were not all that the family aimed to achieve, the limitations of that system have been shown and suggestions as to how it could be improved have been made. Mrs Cooper and her family are determined to get to the bottom of the issue. They feel frustrated that they are not getting answers to their questions and they genuinely appreciate the committee's assistance in getting some answers.
I am loth to encourage you, Margaret, but on you go.
I remind members that Mrs Cooper's son was badly assaulted three years ago. He has lasting damage, to the extent that he still finds it difficult, as a young lad of 16, to go out. The perpetrators of the assault still freely walk the streets of his community. Mrs Cooper and her son feel that no justice has been done and that the issues have not been addressed. There are questions to be asked about the operation of the children's hearings system.
Margaret Curran will recognise that the committee's dilemma is down to the timescale and the fact that due process has to be followed. However, we are not unsympathetic to any attempt to make the system more responsive. The petition clearly indicates a family traumatised by the experience that the son went through. We need to try to find ways to address that.
Obviously, members have tremendous sympathy for the Cooper family, and the young man who was attacked. I am not averse to having another shy at entering into dialogue on the case with the Scottish Government, and establishing why no further action is being taken. Part of the problem is that the explanation is not clear, transparent or acceptable. However, Margaret Curran and all other members will be aware that we would not want to try to fetter the discretion of the Lord Advocate. Of course, young people between 10 and 18 can be charged and indicted in the High Court.
I agree with Bill Butler. If we decided to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, I am 100 per cent certain that its reply would be that the children's hearings bill will be introduced at the end of June and that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to see whether anything is wanting in that bill and to campaign, perhaps through Margaret Curran, for amendments to be made to strengthen it if they think that that is necessary. I cannot second-guess what will be in the bill.
I agree with Robin Harper. Does the bill still have to go out to consultation?
That stage has passed.
I was just thinking that there could have been some input from Margaret Curran and the Cooper family, but if the bill has passed that stage, any input would have to be made at the amendment stage.
The clerk has indicated that there was discussion early in January with the Cooper family. It might be worth exploring another option for further discussion to provide an update and to see what could be fed into the bill. Perhaps the family would be reassured by that process. I sense that members would at least like to have another shy at getting a clearer explanation. However, we acknowledge that, to mix my sporting metaphors, we are in the final furlong of the shy.
It seems to me that, as with so many of our petitions, there are two issues. One is the particular case that still concerns those who were affected by it. I am not sure what we can do to get more explanation for them. If you have asked for an explanation, but you have not got it, you are not going to get it. However, if we can do something to twist an arm, let us do it. These people want to understand, so they should be told anything that they can be told.
As others have done, I suggest that we keep the petition open. We need to see how the framework in the forthcoming bill deals with the issues that are raised in the petition. The family who are involved might not get all the answers that they want from the various authorities about how the case was handled. However, we should keep the petition open until we see the framework in the bill and find out whether it addresses the issues to do with the children's hearings system and its relationship with the Lord Advocate.
We have a clear indication from members. We should take on board the points that have been made. I think that we want to keep the petition open, which will benefit the petitioner, and to explore one or two issues.
I do not want to take up too much time. John Wilson summed up the main point exactly and Bill Butler referred to it earlier. The issue is the transparency and accountability of decision making. The lack of that is deeply frustrating for people. One problem that they have is that it is difficult to have influence when the issue is not about the letter of the law. In essence, the issue is how the law is applied, rather than the law itself, and people want to get behind those processes. The petitioners feel as though the processes have not been explained clearly to them and that they have not got to the root of the matter. They feel that, if such a situation were to occur again, there is no reassurance that others would not have the same experience.
We have reasonable agreement. I hope that the petitioners will be pleased with the progress that has been made again today. Let us hope that we get further dialogue and that the process is made clearer for the benefit of the family.
Convener, do I have the committee's authority to have another meeting with officials to clarify the forthcoming bill and to discuss how the family's experience relates to it?
If it is okay with the committee, we will write to the Scottish Government to invite it to get in touch with the petitioner and you to make arrangements for a meeting.
That is helpful, because a meeting will allow us to explore the points that have been raised.
I thank Margaret Curran for her time and I thank the petitioners for finding time to come to the Parliament again—you have been regular visitors. I hope that Margaret has given you a nice cup of tea.
Deep Vein Thrombosis (PE1056)
PE1056, from Gordon, Jane and Steven McPherson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce mandatory assessment tools for all health boards for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis; to ensure commonality of patient guidance information regarding DVT; and to introduce a newborn screening programme for the factor V Leiden gene, which has been shown to increase susceptibility to DVT. We have additional items of correspondence that were not in the original papers for the meeting but which were received in the past few days.
I have taken an interest in the case. I recently attended a seminar on the topic of deep vein thrombosis. The patient guidance seems to have been sorted out now, although one health board was late in supplying information. However, I am not yet convinced that there are mandatory assessment tools for deep vein thrombosis in all health boards. A final decision on the screening of newborns for the factor V Leiden gene has not been made. We are not likely to get one until October next year, when a Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline will appear. Is it possible to suspend consideration of the petition until then? I would like to see a bit more detail before we close the petition.
That is a reasonable suggestion. We will suspend consideration of the petition until the SIGN guideline appears.
War Veterans (Health Care) (PE1159)
PE1159, from Mrs S Kozak, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide NHS Scotland and other relevant organisations and individuals, including veterans of the 1991 Gulf war, with all necessary information and facilities so that veterans who have been exposed to nerve agents and their preventive medications are assessed, advised and treated appropriately and fatalities are prevented. We have considered the petition in the past. There are outstanding issues on which we are seeking further information, so I suggest that we continue the petition, unless members are minded otherwise.
Members indicated agreement.
We will continue the petition until we have received an explanation on issues of concern that we have discussed previously.
National Concessionary Travel Scheme (PE1162)
PE1162, from Sally Ann Elfverson, on behalf of the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend the national concessionary travel scheme to ensure that people receiving the lower rates of the mobility and care components of disability living allowance are eligible for a national entitlement card. In recent months, we have received a number of petitions relating to entitlements and the national concessionary travel scheme. I suggest that we suspend consideration of the petition, given that we are awaiting a Scotland-wide review of the system. John Wilson is keen to comment further.
If we have received other petitions of a similar nature, I suggest that in future we consider them together, rather than separately.
That is a helpful suggestion.
I thoroughly agree with John Wilson. It has been brought to my attention that the young student card for reduced-rate bus travel expires when people reach the age of 26. Many mature students who could benefit from extra help with their travel expenses suddenly lose the card when they turn 26. That is one of many issues that have not been addressed. It could be considered if we looked at all the petitions relating to the scheme together.
Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)
PE1169, from Margaret Forbes, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce and enforce measures that ensure that magazines and newspapers containing sexually graphic covers are not displayed at children's eye level or below, or adjacent to children's titles and comics, and are screen sleeved before being placed on the shelf. I know that a number of members have received communication on the matter—a campaign has recently been established.
Given the seriousness and complexity of the subject to which the petition relates, we should consider inviting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to give oral evidence to us. That would be helpful.
Although Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People is in a transition period, it might be worth hearing his views, as well as those of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
I was struck by the quotation from the National Federation of Retail Newsagents in paper PE1169/I:
We should keep the petition open. Would the issue benefit from a round-table discussion with interested parties?
We have established the principle that we wish to pursue the issue. We need to think about how we pull together a round-table discussion or whether we should use a different format. We might not get agreement today, but we can ask the clerk to come back to us with suggestions. There have been a couple so far, which is helpful.
The petition is hugely important and, if we simply go for the normal paper chase, we will be at it for a long time with stakeholders reiterating the position that they cannot do anything and that they do not think there is a problem. We will not make much progress until we get them at the table here—not necessarily all together, although it might be—to confront the issues rather than hide behind bits of paper.
I hear what Nanette Milne said about a round-table discussion. I am not against that in principle, but I would prefer a more focused questioning of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the children's commissioner. In that way, we would get evidence and be able to interrogate it. I am sure that a round-table discussion would be productive, but I always find it more difficult to sift through such discussions and get the salient points—perhaps that is just me—whereas there is more chance of the points at issue being aired in an evidence-taking session. That is a personal point of view.
We should consider both. That would be useful. From that, we can work out the areas that we wish to interrogate further. The matter is substantially subjective in some cases. The NFRN will claim that certain things make it difficult to enforce the voluntary code, but we all know that newsagents—whether small, local stores or national retail chains—have different approaches to the visibility or otherwise of material that is not appropriate for youngsters. We need to try to deal with that.
The petitioners are looking for an enforceable code. It is not permitted to sell cigarettes to people under a certain age—it is 18 now, I think—sell alcohol to a certain age group or display certain things. The situation with displaying sexually graphic material is similar: newsagents are not supposed to do it. The issue is finding a method of enforcing the code to ensure that they do not display such material. That is not necessarily something that the sector itself should police—I do not know whether you were suggesting that, convener. It is not responsible for policing alcohol and cigarette sales.
Okay. We wish to keep the petition open and to explore options and broad parameters for people to invite. We will come back to the committee on the best format for that. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Road Bonds (Sewers and Drains) (PE1185)
PE1185, by Andrew Kaye on behalf of the Coopersknowe residents association in Galashiels, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to amend the relevant legislation to ensure that sewers and drains associated with roads from new developments are included in road bonds and to give local authorities enforcement powers in that regard.
Perhaps we could write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it is fully satisfied that the relevant law is working as well as it can and that situations such as the one that the petitioner experienced will not occur again. We could also seek assurances that the Government is protecting residents by ensuring that developers and Scottish Water fully understand and meet the requirements that are made of them.
We should also write to Scottish Water and Waterwatch Scotland.
Do we agree to keep the petition open and explore the issues that John Wilson and Bill Butler have raised?
Members indicated agreement.
Some local authorities have written to us already, and we will pull all of that together.
Health Visitors (PE1198, PE1199 and PE1200)
PE1198, PE1199 and PE1200 relate to health visitor programmes and public consultation with service users and health professionals before any substantial change in primary care provision is enacted.
On the specific situation that gave rise to the petitions, I understand that the petitioners are now contributing to the local implementation plans of the NHS board involved. Given that that is the case, perhaps we should close the petitions. I do not see what further steps this committee can take.
We have tried to address the specific issues of the petitions. Obviously, the petition process has thrown up other operational matters that are not unfamiliar for health boards across the country—the experience of this committee shows clearly that people's experiences of health boards' processes can be less than happy. However, I agree that we should close the petitions.
Your last point is relevant. We should ensure that health boards and other public agencies get the clear message that, when we talk about public consultation, we are talking about meaningful public consultation. Although the petitioners are satisfied that they are now as engaged in the process as they can be, other health boards and public agencies should be aware that people are looking for meaningful public engagement and should not have to submit a petition to the Scottish Parliament to ensure that they get it.
In her letter, Jane Walker, the nursing officer, says:
I agree with what has been said so far.
They are on the public record and can be accessed by anybody, so I think that we can do that. There should be no issues of confidentiality. I hope that the health board will read the Official Report of our discussions in any case, given that we are dealing with an issue that was the subject of petitions that attracted such a high number of signatures.
Athletes (Rural Areas) (PE1219)
PE1219, by Christina Raeburn, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that adequate funding is available to allow talented young athletes in rural areas to travel to competitions at regional and national level, and to provide coaching support and training facilities across Scotland so that no talented young athlete in a rural area is disadvantaged as a result of their location.
We should write to the Scottish Government to point out the inconsistencies in the information that we have received and ask it how it reconciles the statements about, on one hand, funding being available and, on the other, no one having any. The Government ought to be able to say where it thinks that that funding will come from. When it does so, we can go back to that source and say, "Hey, guys. We think you've got that money because the Government says so."
There is a series of other questions in our papers. We can pull them together with regard to national policy and local application. All members have had families come to see us on behalf of talented youngsters, and we always feel at a loss because there is not much that we can do to help because of the difficulties in accessing funding.
Members indicated agreement.
General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)
Petition PE1220, by Alan Kennedy, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review all relevant legislation to ensure the continuation of general practitioner dispensing practices in instances where commercial pharmaceutical practices apply to operate in the same local area.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Flag (Parliamentary Chamber) (PE1224)
Petition PE1224, by John Blyth and Helen McNeill, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider displaying the flag of Scotland in the parliamentary chamber.
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's response states clearly that it does not intend to pursue the request, so I do not see that our committee can do anything more. I suggest that we close the petition.
Are there any other comments?
We could keep asking until the corporate body gives in.
I suggest that we thank the corporate body for its response but acknowledge our disappointment that it has failed once again—the issue has been raised on three occasions—to take on board the suggestion that the flag of Scotland be displayed in the chamber.
I think that we should acknowledge the corporate body's decision without commenting on it. I say that on the basis that, if we want to try again, there is no point in upsetting the corporate body. That would allow us to come to a unanimous view on the petition.
The clerks have been trying to clarify the matter for me, but they have probably made it even less clear. Perhaps they can articulate the matter to me again.
We could ask the corporate body for the rationale behind how it reached its decision.
That might open up 800 years of history.
It might, but we will not be able to go through all 800 years. With respect, I suggest that we respond to the corporate body by noting that this is not the first time that it has arrived at such a decision and ask whether it cares to outline the reasons behind its decision. In that way, committee members can at least fully inform themselves about the issue.
I am not sure that this will be a solution—I know that members hold different views—but I suggest that we note the decision of the corporate body and ask that it continue to examine and review its policy on the representation of symbols and flags within the debating chamber. I think that everyone around the table could feel comfortable with that suggestion without us needing to get the absolute wording right. Perhaps I should have been a lawyer—I try my best. Would that be helpful?
That would be very helpful. Given that flags are flown outside the Parliament building, perhaps we could ask whether we could have another flag on 1 May as well.
Can we close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Good stuff.
Assisted Dying (Referendum) (PE1228)
The final current petition is PE1228, by George Anderson on behalf of the Militant Retired, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to hold a referendum on assisted dying and for there to be a debate in Parliament on the issue.
In many ways, this is very simple because progress has been made. First, the Government is quite clear that it will not hold such a referendum, even if that is within its gift. If the Government's answer is no, that is about the size of it. Secondly, the bill proposal from Margo MacDonald MSP has now received the requisite number of signatures—plus two, as she says—so her bill will be introduced to the Parliament. As that will be the next process through which the issue will be discussed, I suggest that we can close the committee—I mean the petition.
You nearly got an affirmation for that previous suggestion.
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
New Petitions