Current Petitions
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
Item 4 on our agenda is consideration of current petitions.
Petition 504 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to stop convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.
As you can tell from its number, the petition has been in our system for a considerable time.
This is a classic case of a long hike involving two steps forward and one step back. This morning, on the Justice Committee, Bill Butler and I were involved in consideration of a legislative consent motion on the Coroners and Justice Bill that is going through Westminster at the moment. The LCM would bring into Scottish law provisions from that bill that would do something about the problem that the petition addresses. However, as of this morning, the Government has decided to withdraw that LCM because of other issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice advises us that the part of the bill that concerns this petition will be back on the agenda soon, together with various things to do with fatal accident inquiries.
I think that we can assume that the matter is being dealt with. However, unfortunately, the progress is not quite as fast as we had hoped that it might be.
The Westminster legislation reflects the civil approach and would enable damages to be sought from those who are gaining from the kind of activity that the petition deals with. However, the legislation is not comprehensive. It is a bit of a sieve, as it were—there is a lot of metal there, but there are also many holes. One of the holes that I pointed out in the Justice Committee this morning is that, if I were a seasoned criminal, although the bill would prevent me from writing my memoirs, my son might be able to write them for me and retain any benefit that would derive from doing so, which is clearly unsatisfactory.
We are going in the right direction, but we do not yet have the whole answer. The bill will come back to Parliament in some form, and we will have to see whether, in time, we can make it more comprehensive by ensuring that there is more metal and fewer holes.
I confirm what Nigel Don said. It is unfortunate that the legislative consent motion has been withdrawn. Some of the Government's reasons for withdrawing it are clearer than others, and we are seeking clarity on those that are less clear.
It still might be a good idea to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether the consultation paper on defamation will be published and, if so, what the timetable for that is likely to be.
It might be useful to inquire whether there is an opportunity to take action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against anyone who might seek to profit from their crimes by writing or serialising a book about them. We could also explore whether those provisions might also apply to members of the criminal's family.
I see that the clerk is studiously examining the paperwork.
Fergus, you have been named by a member, so you are allowed to defend yourself.
The summary of responses to the Government's consultation on proposals to prevent criminals from profiting from published accounts of their crimes, which was published in January, says that the Law Society of Scotland favoured the civil route, but pointed out that
"civil recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 would not be applicable and, accordingly, new measures require to be introduced."
If that is the case, we should look to the Government to revise the proceeds of crime legislation. My understanding of the point of the legislation was that it was designed to prevent anyone from profiting from criminal activities. Clearly, that should cover someone receiving money for writing a book about those activities, as that would mean that they were profiting from crime.
We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it intends to review the legislation. It might not be possible to ensure that all issues of concern are covered, but it should be possible to deal with some of them.
Members have made a few useful suggestions. Do we agree to pursue them?
Members indicated agreement.
High-voltage Transmission Lines <br />(Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
PE812, by Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.
A series of questions has arisen from our correspondence on this petition.
We should ask some questions of the Scottish Government. Clearly, there is a desire for the cables to be buried underground, and the petitioner has indicated that the costs of that might not be as high as was previously assumed. I wonder whether we could get a comment from the Government on that issue. If it were possible to place the cables underground, that would satisfy all sides.
The underground cabling of high-tension wires is not in my back yard and therefore not a problem for me, but the science of it worries me a great deal. I am looking at three different papers. The first is the Government response, which says:
"We are confident that the HPA is diligent in its approach, and we see no need to make any additional approaches".
Yet I have a comment from the petitioner that says:
"If Committee members were to read just three of the reports"—
I confess that I have not done so—
"I doubt they would describe the evidence as either ‘limited' or ‘weak'".
Then I find a contribution from Denis Henshaw, a professor of physics from the University of Bristol. He says:
"I have concluded that sending scientific papers to members of the HPA serves no purpose—they will simply be ignored."
I find myself thinking that there are people who are not communicating with each other; somehow or other people are not listening to what they are being told. There is a body of scientific evidence, which might be refuted by another large body of scientific evidence, but I am not seeing the two parts being put together by somebody forcing the answer out. We are looking at people who are taking an entrenched position that says, "We do not have to worry about this." The lesson from history is that we do have to worry about such things. If there is one lesson to be learned from the current financial mess it is that the people who should have been the gatekeepers were not. If we do not understand simple things such as money, how easy is it to misunderstand difficult and complicated things such as science and electromagnetism?
We should get back to the Government and say that it should not be saying that it is confident that everybody is being diligent because, frankly, it is not entitled to be confident. I do not mean any personal disrespect to the people concerned. We should also ask that, if there is other evidence around, the Government reviews that evidence and shows us the review and the opposing evidence.
I agree with Nigel Don, who puts it neatly that people need to listen to each other. Whether or not we have a notion to agree with evidence, it must be considered and be seen to be considered. That does not appear to be the case.
I tend to agree with my colleagues. We should write to the Government to ask whether it is 100 per cent content that no public health hazards are associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines. Additionally, we should ask the Government whether it is confident that there are no long-term risks to public health from EMFs—for example, the possible increase in Alzheimer's disease. We should also ask which other European nations take a different view on the matter and why. All those questions are appropriate and I hope that the answers will be illuminating.
Like the rest of the committee, I am confused about the situation. You read one paper from the proposers of the scheme and they are convinced that there is no detriment to human life or habitation and yet the objectors are equally professional in their contrary view. As my colleague Mr Butler was saying, I do not think that the Government—or any Government—can give an absolute guarantee that overhead transmission lines in close proximity to habitations or groups of people are absolutely safe and do not cause physical damage to individuals. We have to be very careful which way we go; after all, one big and very topical issue is the transmission line from the north of Scotland down to the central belt, and a lot of evidence out there suggests that it will have a very detrimental effect. As a result, I feel that the precautionary principle should apply.
I echo John Farquhar Munro. The World Health Organization has recognised that there are degrees of plausibility with regard to the impact of such lines, and one need think only of things such as asbestos and nuclear power that we were told were safe and would benefit communities but that have had, as we are only beginning to realise, a real impact on people's lives. We need to get the Health Protection Agency to consider the evidence that, as Nigel Don indicated, has been published by the University of Bristol and others, to take the matter seriously and to err on the side of caution. The HPA has said that on the evidence that has been presented it is, on balance, still in favour of the installation of such transmission lines; however, the difficult issue is the long-term impact of high-voltage transmission lines on communities. We heard earlier about a possible link with Alzheimer's disease, and there might also be links with leukaemia clusters. Those concerns must be taken on board, particularly by the Health Protection Agency in its consideration of the evidence.
Moreover, as members have pointed out, we must examine what has happened not only in Europe but in other parts of the world. For example, a lot of evidence about energy generation has come out of the United States, and it might be useful to seek reassurance from the Health Protection Agency that it is considering examples and evidence from around the world, instead of simply relying on evidence that it has been presented with and its own view that, on balance, such evidence is better than that produced by certain academics who have expressed concern about high-voltage lines.
It is really important that we follow the option to seek specific comments on the updated opinion of the European Union's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.
Members have raised specific concerns about the evidence base and highlighted the need for further information on the long-term impact of these lines, and I ask the clerk to pull those points together. Although the petition has been in the system for a while, the issues that it raises have not been resolved. I recommend, therefore, that we keep it open and follow through on the points that members have raised.
National Planning Policy Guideline 19 (PE1048)
PE1048, by Kitty Bell, calls on the Parliament to alter national planning policy guideline 19 in order to correct an anomaly in paragraph 21.4 and ensure that the precautionary approach also applies to pre-school children, and all children at play, thereby giving them the same protection from telecommunication masts as that given to their older brothers and sisters attending primary or other schools.
Do members have any comments or suggestions about the petition? I point out that it has been in front of us before and that we have interrogated the issues that it raises.
The procedure that we suggested with regard to the previous petition should also apply to this petition. There is no concrete evidence that no harm is done by such installations, and I believe that the precautionary principle should apply to the issues that have been raised.
The Government seems to state fairly clearly that no anomaly exists and that the precautionary principle applies equally to pre-school children and schoolchildren. If that is the case, however, surely it is reasonable for that to be stated somewhere. In fact, I think that such a move would satisfy the petitioner. As a result, I suggest that we ask the Government whether, having reiterated the same point on a number of occasions, it could make its policy absolutely plain—or have I misinterpreted something?
As the options paper points out, the Scottish Government has copied to local authorities its response to the committee, which makes clear its policy that, in such cases, the precautionary principle applies. I acknowledge John Farquhar Munro's point with regard to the previous petition, but perhaps the background material on this petition is enough to indicate that, in this case, the principle applies as much to kids in nurseries as to kids in primary schools. As a result, members might wish to close the petition, but we should ensure that those who have responsibility for such matters inform the petitioner directly about the current position.
I think that that is what I am trying to say. The Government seems to be clear about its position, but the petitioner is not, so perhaps some way should be found of stating the position categorically.
Does Gil Paterson wish to comment?
If you do not mind, convener. I am very grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Nanette Milne has already expressed the point that I wanted to make. The Government says one thing; the petitioner says another; and local authorities—I believe—think something else. The Government has stated quite clearly that the precautionary principle extends to designated play areas, nurseries and so on. However, the one fault that I find in its argument is that that position has not been communicated properly to local authorities, which, after all, are responsible for planning regulation. Instead of simply saying that the precautionary principle is there to be utilised by councils, we need to send out a clearer message to councils that the principle must also cover tots playing in designated play areas. I think that that is the anomaly that the petitioner has referred to—I also think that the Government has a case to answer in that respect.
We have been waiting a long time for the promised review of this matter—in fact, the wait has now stretched over two Governments—and it would be good to find out when it is actually going to happen. The scientific community has not been definitive in its statements on the effect of microwaves on people, never mind children. It is argued that what is important is not the power of microwaves that are emitted from the masts, but their frequency, which is very much in tune with the brain's own signals. As I say, there is a case to answer, and I ask the committee to ask the Government to clarify with local authorities that toddlers are protected in these circumstances.
I get a sense that we are nearing the end of our consideration of the petition, but that we need to get absolute clarity on that point. Do members want to ask the Government to issue to all local authorities the guidance that we seem to have been given to ensure that they are fully aware of the policy that the precautionary principle applies to all educational establishments, irrespective of the age of those attending them? If so, according to the committee's rules, we have to keep the petition open. However, I hope that we will be able to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory to the petitioner.
Robin Harper has a quizzical look on his face. I do not know whether that is a permanent expression or whether I have caused it.
It is merely semi-permanent.
I wonder whether we should also ask the Government to reply to the seven specific questions that the petitioner has raised in her submission to us. That might help to clarify matters.
We would be happy to do that.
Are members happy with those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much.
Air-guns (Ban on Sale and Use) (PE1059)
PE1059, by Andrew Morton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support a ban on the sale and use of air-guns, except for certified pest control purposes or use at registered gun clubs. Members have had a chance to debate some of the issues both in committee and elsewhere in the Parliament, but are there any views on how we might deal with the petition?
I do not know whether we can usefully do anything further on the petition, given that the Home Office has indicated that it keeps control of air weapons under scrutiny and will work with the Scottish Government to tackle the issue, especially through the enforcement of new laws.
The petition deals with an important issue. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is endeavouring to address public concerns about the matter. He is in dialogue with the Home Office in order to get a satisfactory solution. I recommend that we close the petition, on the basis that the committee has taken it as far as it can. Ultimately, the matter is best determined by dialogue between the cabinet secretary and the Home Office.
I endorse that view—we have gone as far as we can. Along with the cabinet secretary and many others, I am not happy about how far the Government has been able to get on the matter, but that does not mean that the committee has not taken the petition as far as it can. The issue is firmly in the Government's court.
Nigel Don is right to state that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has attempted to go as far as he can within the powers of the Scottish Government. The difficulty is that legislation on the issue is reserved. The cabinet secretary should be applauded for the work that he is trying to do in the area. I hope that, by working closely with the UK Government, we can bring about a change that will take many air-guns out of society. I hope that they will be regulated sufficiently to prevent incidents from recurring in communities throughout Scotland and that the cabinet secretary will be able to impress on UK ministers the need for consistent action to take air-guns out of society.
I am happy for those points to be on the record. We will close the petition, but we hope that the dialogue between the cabinet secretary and the Home Office will produce a satisfactory solution.
Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)
PE1089, from Morag Parnell, on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network Scotland, urges the Parliament to urge the Government to investigate any links between exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and the workplace and the rising incidence of cancers and other chronic illnesses. The committee has considered the petition in the past. Do members have any observations or comments?
Over the past 12 months, the Women's Environmental Network has done a huge amount of work to gather evidence and papers from across Europe on the presence of hazardous chemicals and toxic substances in our daily lives. It could be of great advantage to the Government at least to meet representatives of the network to canvass the breadth of evidence that it has assembled and to decide how to take that forward.
In the past couple of weeks, legal action has been taken down south, especially in Corby. A group of women have taken legal action against Corby Borough Council over the disposal of materials from former industrial sites. In their court action, the women claim that the materials that were disturbed went into the atmosphere and may have led to birth deformities. A victory for the women in the case will indicate that the hazardous materials that are on many industrial sites pose potential dangers to unborn children and their mothers.
As Robin Harper indicated, the Women's Environmental Network must be applauded for raising the issue of the environmental toxins that we come across on a daily basis. Another issue is the industries in which women find themselves working. We all know about certain watch manufacturers' use of phosphorus during the war. That led to health issues for women in that industry.
Constant awareness and constant vigilance are required to ensure that people are not put into potentially hazardous situations either at work or in the home environment. Robin Harper has suggested that we ask the Government to meet the network to discuss how to make progress on the issue, but it might be useful to keep the petition open so that we can find out the outcome of the on-going court cases. There might be further court cases, depending on the decision in the case involving the women in Corby.
We are talking about a massive issue that goes way beyond Scotland's boundaries. Given that it affects the entire developed and developing world, it is not something that a Scottish Government in isolation could take significant action on. However, I agree with Robin Harper. As the network has done a huge amount of work on the issue, it would be an excellent idea for it to have discussions with the Government and to make some useful suggestions that the Government could pick up.
There is consensus on that issue. We will pull the various suggestions together.
I agree with everything that has been said. It is a global issue. Information on cases such as those that have been mentioned is being collected all the time by groups such as the Women's Environmental Network. If the Government were to meet the network and to set up a working group to investigate the issues, there might well be measures that we could take in the devolved context. The network gives the example of the use of plastic bottles for babies. Parents need to be educated about the potential difficulties from putting plastic into microwave ovens, and the Scottish Parliament could definitely play a role in such educational matters. Work should continue to be done on the issue, and I would be interested to get an update on how the Scottish Government gets on with that.
I do not want to denigrate anything that has been said so far about an issue that is of immediate importance, but I would like to try to take us on a step. There are two things that I remember from the days when I was involved in industrial research—that was 30 years ago, horrifyingly. One was that the head of the lab that I went into put out a list of chemicals that would not be allowed in the lab because they were known to be dangerous. We were just not allowed to have them, full stop.
I also remember the emergence of a list of chemical attributes—if you like, things that we could say about a chemical that told us that it was likely to be carcinogenic. The discovery of such characteristics told us that it would be wise not to proceed in a particular direction, because it was becoming clear from general chemistry that the chemical ingredients in question were probably not good.
Toxins in the environment are a national and international issue, but then so is CO2 in the atmosphere. The planet has more or less got its head around that; dealing with it is a longer-term problem, of course. Perhaps we should encourage the Government to find out for us what global organisations worry about chemistry and dangerous chemicals and provide international advice on substances that should not be produced, so that those who are in the business have the best current advice on where they should not be going. It is in no one's interests to generate dangerous chemicals in any quantity at all. If we can identify such chemicals globally, surely we should disseminate the necessary information rapidly.
We will pull together those positive suggestions about continuing to interrogate some of these issues and we will keep the petition open. The Women's Environmental Network Scotland is holding an exhibition in the MSP foyer for the next two days, which will give us a chance to meet the representatives of the organisation and explore the issues with them. Members should do that if they have time over the next couple of days.
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
We have had PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, before us for a considerable period of time. We are aware of what the petition calls for. We have with us a couple of parliamentarians—Gil Paterson and Des McNulty—who have expressed an interest in the issue and wish to say something about the petition. I invite Des McNulty to start.
The petition has two strands. One is to do with the proposal by Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board to withdraw funding from continuing care at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. The other strand is about the method of funding for hospices and the impact that that has on St Margaret's. I do not want us to lose sight of that point.
The focus of the petition has been on the proposal to withdraw funding from continuing care. St Margaret's currently provides 30 beds for palliative care and 30 beds for continuing care. Even on the palliative care side, it is one of the larger hospices in Scotland. It is the oldest hospice in Scotland. The continuing care patients receive very similar care to that which is given to end-of-life patients. The skills involved in dealing with both types of patient are, in effect, interchangeable, which is why it makes sense to provide continuing care and palliative care in the same context.
The health board indicated that it wished to discontinue the provision of continuing care at St Margaret's by April 2009. That has been hanging over St Margaret's for a considerable period—certainly for the past 18 months. It has caused a huge amount of anger and resentment locally, particularly among people whose relatives have been patients in the hospice, which is a well-known institution, not just in Clydebank but throughout East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and a significant section of the western side of Glasgow.
St Margaret's offers outstanding care—no one has said at any point that the care that is provided there is anything other than outstanding. In fact, I would say that it is a beacon for the type of care that people with such needs should be receiving.
In 2001, the health board proposed that, in reviewing continuing care as part of a rationalisation from its point of view, it would build a new continuing care unit at the site of Blawarthill hospital, where the scope of provision was being altered. In 2005, there was a needs review—the balance of care review—which said that a smaller amount of continuing care was needed in the north side of Glasgow than had been needed previously. The health board decided that continuing care at St Margaret's was surplus to requirements, while continuing with its previously agreed plan to build the 60-bed continuing care unit at Blawarthill. Much of the debate has been about the logic of that decision and whether it was correct.
To St Margaret's, it seemed entirely inappropriate that the care that it provided, which was not considered to be under any threat when the decision was made in 2001 to rebuild Blawarthill, should be the victim of the decision that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde took in 2005.
The health board offered St Margaret's two options. The first was that it would become, in effect, a nursing home that would provide care facilities with a nursing component, funded by the local authority. The other option was that it would continue to receive funding to deal with national health service patients, but would become a specialist provider of continuing care for people with mental health problems.
St Margaret's took the view that both those proposals were inappropriate in a hospice context. With regard to the first proposal, it felt that people who had a significant amount of life ahead of them would feel concerned about being cared for in a hospice, the prime purpose of which is to deal with people who are very sick or at the end of life. With regard to dealing with mental health patients, the hospice asked why, if NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde had identified that need, it was not catering for it in its plans for Blawarthill, which has yet to be built, rather than telling St Margaret's that it should fill that gap.
It is not for St Margaret's to decide what should or should not be put in place at Blawarthill. St Margaret's was concerned that its top-quality provision was viewed by the health board as being somehow dispensable. One question that arises is whether NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in a sense decided that it, and no one else, should provide continuing care—in other words, that such care should not be provided by a voluntary sector or charitable body—without making clear that policy intent. It has never stated that that is its policy, but that is the substance of what it has been trying to do.
It is fair to say that there was a substantial public campaign around the issue. The petition gathered more than 100,000 signatures, which makes it the second biggest petition in Scotland since devolution—the larger one related to children's hospitals in Glasgow. It has been a significant campaign, and the health board has not managed to convince the public—or me, Gil Paterson or the other politicians who have been involved—of the rightness of its case.
Last Tuesday, the health board met to discuss a paper on what to do about St Margaret's. The essence of the paper's recommendations was that continuing care provision should be withdrawn from St Margaret's in early 2012 rather than in April 2009 to reflect the realities of the situation. The new Blawarthill building has not been started yet—there is no logic in a potential transfer of patients from a high-quality, relatively new-build facility at St Margaret's to something that has not yet been built less than half a mile up the road.
As part of its recommendation not to withdraw funding until 2012, the health board agreed to serve notice on St Margaret's that continuing care would be withdrawn from 2012. It appeared to me and to others that there was no logic in making that decision at that particular time or in the decision itself. Both points are important.
Why decide three years in advance to withdraw care at a facility when one or more reviews could take place between now and 2012 that might affect that decision making? The health board seems stubborn to us. It recognised that its decision to withdraw continuing care from St Margaret's could not be achieved sensibly in 2009, but it still intends to go ahead with withdrawal in 2012.
The health board has agreed to further discussions on expanding palliative care provision at St Margaret's, so the proposals in connection with the nursing home facility and the provision of specialist mental health care are in effect off the table. Future discussion will be about palliative care. Currently, match-funding arrangements apply to palliative care—the hospice would be reimbursed for up to 50 per cent of agreed costs for such care. The hospice is fully funded for continuing care with about £1.2 million, but the financial environment would be entirely different if the 30 beds for continuing care were converted into hospice beds and the hospice had to gather in from additional personal contributions 50 per cent—or 50 per cent plus a wee bit—of the funding for such provision. Great financial uncertainty is associated with that arrangement.
The petition highlights the fact that the match-funding system creates huge discrepancies in the amounts of support from the NHS that hospices receive for hospice beds. St Margaret's receives £31,000 per bed per year, whereas the Scottish average is £86,000 per bed per year. Some hospices receive up to £200,000 per bed per year from their health boards and one hospice in the Highlands receives more than £300,000. Such huge variations in how hospices are provided for are intolerable.
The committee should continue to pursue vigorously the funding implications because of the clear discrepancy. That discrepancy is not shown just by the figures from St Margaret's—some endorsement of the hospice's calculations has come from the Auditor General for Scotland. The figures that have been put into play are official and highlight an anomaly.
The health board's decision about St Margaret's was wrong. Concerns were expressed about the conduct of the meeting at which the decision was made and about how the decision was made. However, now that a decision has been made, that can bring into play a role for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, who is ultimately responsible. Until now, she has said that she could not become involved in the decision-making process, because the health board had yet to make a decision. The health board has now made a decision—I believe that it is the wrong decision.
As an elected member, I will ask the cabinet secretary—with, I hope, the support and participation of elected members from other political parties—to review the decision and perhaps subject it to the independent scrutiny process that she has instigated for other decisions. The health board's decision meets the criteria for using that process.
From previous consideration of the petition and—I hope—from what I have said today, the committee will be aware of questions about how such decisions are made and about the role of the Parliament and its committees in questioning how health boards reach decisions. On the face of it, it is illogical to decide to build a new facility to replace an existing facility that offers perfectly good and well-supported care. A lot of public concern is felt about the health board's decision and there are technical arguments against it.
I personally think that there is win-win situation here for both Blawarthill and St Margaret's. If there is flexibility in the range of provision that can be provided at Blawarthill, it can be a perfectly sound facility and can complement St Margaret's, which can continue to do what it does very well. It is the rigidity and stubbornness of the health board in refusing to look at complementary situations that have caused such frustration among local people.
Gil Paterson can speak now. He has a minute left.
I have been trying to change my notes in order not to repeat what has been said.
The health board meeting did not give a reprieve or stay of execution; it provided a facility to keep the beds in St Margaret's so that the health board could realise the potential from Blawarthill, which I think is unfair. Should the Blawarthill facility not come into play in three or four years' time, I think that St Margaret's will be expected to pick up the slack. Again, I think that that is unfair. There were no real options for St Margaret's and it was a case of, "Here's what we've got for you." There were no deliberations on the St Margaret's option. I found it astounding that it was not mentioned at the meeting that 100,000 people had signed a petition to save the beds at St Margaret's.
It was also remiss that there was no reference at the meeting to the charitable status of St Margaret's and the fact that it has articles to abide by. I wonder what would have happened if St Margaret's had just agreed to what was proposed. I think that its articles would have had to be changed and I do not know what would have happened to its charitable status.
On the other hand, we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. We now have three years to work on the matter and prove our case. I think that the Public Petitions Committee should keep the petition going because there are good reasons to do so. There has been no answer to why Blawarthill should be preferred to St Margaret's. It seems inconceivable that a facility that has so much expertise and which delivers a service that, from all accounts and from my own personal experience, is second to none should suffer. Why try to replicate a place that does an extremely good job? That question should be answered.
The wider issue is the simple argument that we will need more continuing care beds rather than fewer. At the health board meeting, the representative from East Dunbartonshire Council proposed a delay of a few months so that we could see the direction of travel of "Living and Dying Well: a national action plan for palliative and end of life care in Scotland" and what it means for organisations and institutions such as St Margaret's. That proposal was supported by the representative from West Dunbartonshire Council, so it was supported by the two councils that know the institution better than anyone else does. I think that the proposal could easily have been accepted, as that would have gone some way to negating the belief that is held by most of us involved that the health board has not been fair to St Margaret's.
As I think the convener has mentioned at past committee meetings, it is clear that there is a gulf between St Margaret's and the health board. It is time that there was an independent individual—someone of status—to act as a go-between to bring the two parties together. That would be in the best interests not only of the hospice and the health board but of the wider Scottish community. I would be grateful if you did not kick the petition into the long grass at the moment. The committee has a role that is well worth playing.
I congratulate the campaigners who wish to retain continuing care provision at St Margaret's hospice and have stopped the immediate transfer of the continuing care provision. To get the health board to reach even that point has been a bit of a trial, but 100,000 signatories expresses the clear wish of communities around St Margaret's hospice with regard to the issue.
I also congratulate the campaigners and MSPs who have been involved for not falling into the elephant trap of posing St Margaret's hospice provision against possible future provision at Blawarthill. That is the correct approach. My colleague Des McNulty was right when he said that Blawarthill is a sound facility, which can complement St Margaret's hospice. That is absolutely the way to go.
This is not the first time that the health board has not convinced the public of its policy. Its policy is seen as not resilient and not convincing. However, I take on board Des McNulty and Gil Paterson's point that there is still a threat to St Margaret's hospice because of the health board's decision that continuing care provision should be withdrawn by 2012. We should not be under any misapprehension about that. Indeed, as Des McNulty put it, the health board has served notice on St Margaret's that it will withdraw continuing care by 2012. That decision should be contested.
The second part of the original petition was about the funding of palliative care throughout Scotland, the inequities in that system and the fact that if there were to be an extension of palliative care—let us say at St Margaret's hospice—it would be on the basis of only 50 per cent of the costs at most. Matched funding would be sought to meet the costs, whereas continuing care is fully funded.
I throw in some suggestions. The committee was right not to set itself up as a mediator in the consideration of the petition. However, it is worth noting that no workable agreement has been reached between the two boards, despite several attempts to reach a compromise.
It is also sensible to acknowledge that the issues are now outwith the scope of the committee's remit. I am not arguing that we should close the petition at the moment, but the issues will have to be taken forward outwith the committee and by means of other channels.
We should note our disappointment that, despite the strong encouragement that the committee gave to the health board to consider seeking independent mediation at the earliest opportunity to resolve the situation, that has not been done.
We should keep the petition open and follow the suggestion that was originally made by Des McNulty, that we write to the cabinet secretary, urging the Government to subject the decision that was made by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to the independent review process. In that letter, we should also urge the cabinet secretary to set up an inquiry regarding the funding arrangements for palliative care provision to ascertain whether they are fair or reasonable and, if they are not, how the Government would suggest that they can be made equitable.
Those are my suggestions to be thrown into the mix, convener.
Bill Butler has covered just about everything.
Right. Next petition, then.
The Auditor General's report was referred to earlier. It might be worth asking whether the Auditor General has any further observations that he would like to make. We should stress our utter dismay that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board has not followed our suggestion that it give consideration to seeking independent mediation. I find that almost impossible to understand, given the difficulties of the situation.
It is no surprise to the committee that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board decided not to seek independent mediation, given the previous decisions and previous petitions that have come before the committee. Going to mediation means that both parties are prepared to talk, but the health board has decided that it does not want to talk about the issue—it wants to make decisions. The stay of execution until 2012 is just a stay of execution. My concern is that, once again, a health board is not listening to the views of the public that it is supposed to represent.
It is clear that the board is not prepared to go to mediation, so our only course of action is to keep the petition open and ask the cabinet secretary to set up an independent review body to review the board's decision and hold the board to account for that decision. The health board's decision has implications down the line that the board and others need to be aware of. Asking the cabinet secretary to set up the review body may take us some way towards having a full examination of the issues that are involved. At the moment, we seem to be having a one-sided debate in relation to the decision-making process.
Like other members, I believe that we should keep the petition open, write to the cabinet secretary to ask her to set up the independent review body, and wait for her decision on that. With luck, she will look favourably on the setting up of the review body and we will then await its findings.
I think that there is support among committee members for that suggestion.
I would not want this to be lost, although I do not think that it has been. I think that, for the purpose of giving me comfort, in our letter we should also urge the cabinet secretary to set up an inquiry into the funding of palliative care throughout Scotland.
I think that we are all okay with that.
I thank members for their contributions. I know that we have taken a long time over the petition, but that is down to the nature of the issue. I am becoming frustrated at the number of issues that are coming before the committee in relation to the way in which the health board handles matters. I therefore suggest that I write a letter to the health board, on behalf of the committee, indicating our concern about that. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
A82 Upgrade (PE1140)
PE1140, from Alasdair Ferguson, on behalf of the A82 Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to immediately begin phased improvements to the A82 Tarbet to Fort William road to improve safety and to bring that trans-European lifeline route to a standard that is fit for the 21st century. I understand that Jackie Baillie wishes to comment on the petition.
Yes, on the basis that I get the same amount of time as my two colleagues who spoke in support of earlier petitions. No—I will be brief.
If you took as much time as your colleagues, we could drive the length of the A82 in less time.
Not without breaking the speed limit. In all seriousness, I recall sitting in Dumbarton burgh hall when the committee first discussed the petition. Without a doubt, improving the A82 involves substantial challenges, not the least of which is that in some parts there is a loch on one side and hills on the other. However, I recall suggesting that if we are capable of putting a man on the moon, it should not be beyond us to effect an engineering solution to that.
The A82 is included in the strategic transport projects review, but I—and, I suspect, the petitioners—have questions about the details. Before the committee considers closing the petition, it would be helpful to know what priority is afforded to the A82 in the strategic transport plan; what resources are in place; what the likely timescale is for improvements and whether they will be phased; and how much more than the £16 million that is already committed for changes at Pulpit Rock and the Crianlarich bypass will be provided. I recognise and salute the work that the campaigners have done to bring the petition before us. I hope that the committee will keep the petition open until we bottom out the details that are required.
I agree with Jackie Baillie, because the strategic transport projects review could have done with a bit more detail. Before we consider closing the petition, it would be helpful to find out what priority the Government will afford to the project. We should also seek assurances about the resources that are to be provided and elicit from the Government information on the timescale and whether the project will be phased. If it is to be phased, we should find out the Government's thoughts on how that will proceed. We need a little more detail from the Government. I am sure that Stewart Stevenson will be helpful in that regard—at least, I hope that he will be.
Des McNulty wants to comment. You have one minute, Des.
I support Jackie Baillie's comments, and I have two further points. One is that the project in the strategic transport projects review that relates to the A82 is about targeted improvements to particular stretches of road that are bad. The issue is not only about congestion; it is about the significant economic disadvantage to people who have to use the road because there is no alternative.
The second point is that the incidence of serious accidents, including fatalities, on the A82 is probably the worst for any Scottish road. Given the criteria that have been set and the way in which they must be applied, a special case can be made for the A82. It is at the extreme end of the spectrum, so we need early action on it.
There is not much disagreement from committee members on pursuing those matters. I thank Jackie Baillie and Des McNulty for expressing an interest in the petition. Are members happy to keep the petition open and to pursue the issues that have been raised?
Members indicated agreement.
Community Prisons (PE1150)
PE1150, from David Wemyss, on behalf of the Aberdeen prison visiting committee, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider the issue of the scale and size of larger prisons and their location. We had the opportunity to discuss the petition with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice when he appeared before the committee recently.
I know that a couple of members who represent Aberdeen or Aberdeenshire constituencies have expressed an interest in speaking to the petition. I will invite Lewis Macdonald and then Nanette Milne to give their views on the matter.
Thank you very much, convener. Briefly, there are three points that I want to draw to the committee's attention to help it to decide whether to seek further evidence on the petition.
First, in his response to questions from committee members, the cabinet secretary talked about the importance of community-facing prisons—which is what the petition seeks—and he recognised the importance of families in the rehabilitation of prisoners. However, he also appeared to be adamant that the current prison in Aberdeen will close and that its replacement will open in another town. Therefore, it seems to me that the committee would be justified in pursuing matters further, particularly on the role of families in rehabilitation. Given that Families Outside has already provided a written response, committee members might wish to hear from that agency directly.
Secondly, in response to the suggestion that most prisoners at Aberdeen prison come from Aberdeen, the cabinet secretary cast up some different statistics about other prisons. However, since the cabinet secretary appeared before the committee, his response to my question S3W-20849 confirms that, as at 20 February, 133 of the 221 prisoners held in Aberdeen prison were from the city of Aberdeen as distinct from Aberdeenshire. That confirms that a community-facing prison for Aberdeen should indeed be situated in Aberdeen. That is not what is currently proposed.
Thirdly, the cabinet secretary suggested that the concerns that Grampian Police and others raised about security and transport were "absurd". That seemed to me a surprising comment. I suggest that Grampian Police might be invited to respond to that.
I do not have much to add to what Lewis Macdonald has said. I agree that we should invite Grampian Police so that we can hear its viewpoint. Peterhead is a significant distance from Aberdeen. If the police have expressed concern about safety, we should follow that up. I also back up Lewis Macdonald's suggestion that we should invite Families Outside to give evidence as it is important that we hear from the experts on rehabilitation. We could perhaps have an evidence-taking session with those two groups.
I do not disagree with anything that has been said. The case for a community prison has been well made. Plainly, rehabilitating offenders is what we need to do, but we do not seem to be good at doing that at the moment. I am entirely supportive of the idea of community prisons.
What bothers me about the petition and the argument about Aberdeen prison is that we have already been round the houses on the issue. We have established that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no money in the budget to do what we would like to do. It is entirely clear that the money has been committed to the prison in Peterhead. Peterhead is further away than any of us would like, but that money is already committed. Despite the comments that have been made from all sides, no one has come up with an alternative location within Aberdeen. In his evidence to the committee, the cabinet secretary pointed out that remand jails and custodial jails are very different, so there is no question of being able to substitute one for the other.
There is no money for a solution in the short term. I point out to the other parties—forgive me for going slightly against the grain in making a political point—that no one suggested a budget that would have provided more money to deal with the problem. The budget priorities were clearly laid out and accepted. The situation is that, for the foreseeable future—certainly, that means for a few years—we are where we are and where we know we are. I sincerely hope that it will not be many years before we can reconsider the issue, because I agree that Aberdeen needs a community jail. However, that is clearly a few years down the road.
It is not entirely clear to me what point there is in keeping the petition open for what will be several years. If members are happy to do that, let us do so by all means, but we should not pretend that anything will be done in the short term, because plans exist but funds do not.
I hesitate, as my colleague Nigel Don did, to say anything that could be construed as being party political, but I must start by saying that money is always a problem for Governments. I say to Nigel Don that that is the price of electoral success.
Although things seem to point to a community jail in Aberdeen being some way down the road, it would do no harm to hear from Grampian Police and suggested experts about rehabilitation and how community-facing prisons are more than probably better at progressing the rehabilitation of offenders. My colleagues Nanette Milne and Lewis Macdonald have made reasonable suggestions. Costs have been talked about. The approach that has been suggested will cost the committee some time, but it would be helpful. If we agree to hear evidence, that evidence may inform us and the Government in the short to medium term or even the long term.
There is a degree of urgency in dealing with the matter. The recent report on Craiginches prison shows that it really is not fit for purpose, and it is clear that there is no money around to do anything about that at this time. However, it is important that we hear from the police, because no one has said that there is nowhere available in Aberdeen if it is decided that there should be a community prison in Aberdeen. I think that we have time to take evidence, as there is not even planning permission yet for the prison at Peterhead. There is time in the process to have another look at Aberdeen. I know that the cabinet secretary has set his mind against that, but hearing further evidence would be worth while.
I am not averse to hearing further evidence, but I have concerns about the issue of community-facing prisons and the rehabilitation of offenders who have been sentenced. I will make a political point. A number of parties that are represented in the Parliament have criticised the Government for going soft on locking up people for committing offences, but we have before us a petition that says that we must have community-facing prisons to allow people to have access to their families and the communities that they come from. There is a dichotomy in respect of what we are doing with the prison service and what it is there to deliver in relation to crimes and offences. The cabinet secretary gave us examples when he gave evidence to us. Polmont young offenders institution and Cornton Vale are based in central Scotland, but they have catchments throughout Scotland. The logic of the discussion is that there should be a community-facing prison in every community from which large numbers of people are being sent to prison. If that were the case, we would have to tear up the existing Scottish Prison Service rulebook and start again, but the resources that are available to the SPS to provide its service act as a reality check.
As Nanette Milne has said, it is clear that there are problems with Peterhead prison that we must resolve. It is antiquated and outdated. We must also consider what is happening elsewhere for Aberdeen. We must consider the best use of resources and balance that against what we are trying to do in prisons and what prisons deliver for society. As I have said, I would welcome opening up the debate and taking further evidence from those with opposing views on how our prisons can best be used in the criminal justice system. In particular, I would welcome evidence from Grampian Police.
It is perhaps time to move on, but I will first take comments from Bill Butler and Robin Harper. We will finish on that, I hope.
I will be brief, convener—less than a minute I think.
I am glad that John Wilson is not against hearing the further evidence that colleagues have suggested. I would like to say, just for the record, that I have always been careful not to say that this Government, or any other Government, is going soft on crime. John Wilson and I would agree that soundbites do not produce real solutions. Our approach must always be balanced and rational.
Consensus is breaking out all over. We will need to stop it.
Also just for the record, I would like to say that I was glad to hear John Wilson proposing tearing up the rule book and having community-facing prisons. However, we are where we are. In this country, we jail more people per head of population than anywhere else in Europe does and we do less to rehabilitate them. We have to address that point.
The petition raises broad issues; it does not concern only the location of prisons in the north-east. However, at the end of March the committee will visit Fraserburgh, which is a bit closer for individuals to come and give evidence. We can consider the issues that members have raised—the role of families in the rehabilitation process, and community-facing prisons in which the residents are from the local area. Constructive suggestions have been made. We will take evidence at our meeting in Fraserburgh on 30 March. We will invite evidence from a couple of the organisations that have been mentioned.
I thank committee members for their patience. Other members have been patiently waiting as well.
Young Offenders (PE1155)
Our next petition is PE1155. I welcome Margaret Curran to the committee. The petition is from Elizabeth Cooper and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law to ensure that young people aged between 10 and 18 who are charged with serious offences are tried by the criminal justice system rather than the children's hearings system. We have considered the petition before, but Margaret Curran may want to add her views on behalf of the petitioner.
Thank you, convener—and I applaud your stamina in going through issues of substance. I will speed up.
We had better watch for what is known as a Des moment.
I promise to be brief and to the point.
I thank you for your focus on the petition. My constituents want me to communicate a few simple points. They appreciate what the Public Petitions Committee has done so far, in facilitating a meeting with a civil servant working with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, it is fair to say that my constituents have been left frustrated by the current position.
As I am sure the committee knows, the civil servant said that the Government does not want these attackers to go to adult prisons. My constituents do not want them to go to adult prisons either. They do not think that that would be appropriate. However, what is unacceptable to my constituents is that nothing happens. I will quote from a letter that was written to me. It says that the people
"who attacked my 13-year-old autistic son asked him for a kick of his ball and, because he asked for his ball back, they hit him with a brick. The oldest of the two who attacked him smashed his face against a slatted fence and then dragged his face along the fence, breaking his nose and then fracturing his cheekbone. They jumped on his back and his head. When he shielded himself under a fallen tree, they dragged him out and whipped him up and down his body with a rubber hose."
That attack has had serious consequences, as I am sure committee members will appreciate. For example, the victim now spends all his time in his room and never goes out. The attack has had lasting and appalling effects.
All that my constituents are saying is that something should be done. They are saying not that the young people who perpetrated the attack should go to an adult prison or that we should lock them up and throw away the key, but that, in the interests of both the attackers and the victim, we cannot walk away from this crime and we must do something about it. Essentially, my constituents have been told, "Sorry, but there is not much that we can do." They ask the committee, through me, to agree with them that that is not acceptable and something should be done about it.
I have every sympathy with the family of the victim of this appalling attack and share their concern about the fact that nothing was done.
We need to be clear about the terminology. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law to ensure that young people aged between 10 and 18 who are charged with serious offences are tried by the criminal justice system rather than the children's hearings system. However, people are not tried by the children's hearings system—they come to a hearing and are asked whether they accept the reasons for their referral to the panel. If they do not accept the terms of the referral, they should automatically be sent to court for trial.
It is not the place of any member of the committee to make observations on the case that Margaret Curran described or to suggest why certain things did not happen. However, I hope that one or two issues will be addressed in the children's hearings bill that is to be introduced in June. My experience on a children's panel comes from more than 20 years ago, but the situation is still the same. Because of a paucity of social workers, children's panels have a continual problem finding social workers to take up cases. There is also a shortage of good secure accommodation. Sometimes panels would like to send someone to secure accommodation but find that there are no spaces. That is why some young people end up in jails, which should not happen.
The issue is about more than legislation—we need to find the money that is required. I am sure that the Government will have been reminded time and again of the problems that I have highlighted. The question is, will those problems be addressed in the discussions leading up to the introduction of the children's hearings bill?
Robin Harper has made some serious and significant points. I understand that it is not for us to prejudge what a children's panel heard. We understand why ministers do not get involved in individual cases—we cannot have politicians deciding the outcome of cases. However, the family in this case thinks that it is illustrative of a bigger problem in the system. That is the context in which they view the petition. Their frustration comes from the fact that, without providing a proper explanation for its decision, a children's panel can decide to take no further action in a case that has been referred to it. All of us would challenge the decision to take no further action in such instances.
Like Robin Harper, I would like children's panels to have many disposal options. I am not saying that the young people who carried out the attack that I have described should necessarily go to secure accommodation—that may or may not be appropriate—but doing nothing is certainly not appropriate, because that attack has had many ramifications locally. The Cooper family want the court system to examine such cases, because if it did they would not have felt abandoned. That is a real issue.
I know that all members are appalled by the serious assault that was carried out on the young man in this case, as described by our colleague Margaret Curran.
Was any reason given that can be alluded to why the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service did not proceed with a criminal charge? Of course, young people who are charged with serious offences can be tried by the courts and not dealt with by the children's hearings system.
I have not been given a proper reason. The only reason that I was given was that it was deemed appropriate that the referral was made to the children's panel. When I tried to work out why the children's panel took the decision not to instigate any further action, I was told that that was confidential.
Would it be useful to ask the Government whether it has any plans to instruct the COPFS in extreme cases such as the one in the petition to give reasons why it feels that it is inappropriate to proceed through the criminal justice system and instead to deal with them—or not, as the case may be—through the children's hearings system? The Government is entitled to consider that and perhaps even to ask the Crown Office to act in that way.
The difficulty is that the prosecutorial system is independent of the political system—it absolutely has to be. However, as a bare minimum, we should ask for an explanation of the route taken by the COPFS to be conveyed to the person who has been assaulted and their family, if at all possible.
As we all know, the Lord Advocate has discretionary powers in deciding whether to prosecute children—they have been prosecuted before, usually in relation to sexual offences. I agree that that discretion should be retained—it should not be changed.
My only suggestion is that we write to the Government to ask whether it has the power to seek such a response from the Lord Advocate and, if it does not have the power, whether it is contemplating changes that would require the COPFS to provide an explanation. I do not know whether that matter is intra vires, but we should at least ask the question. After hearing what Margaret Curran said, I am sure that we are all appalled by what the victim and his family have had to go through. The least we can do is ask the question.
I echo what Bill Butler said. We should write to the Government to ask it to consider the options for requesting, requiring or advising the Lord Advocate to explain her decision in cases that are perceived to be serious, and to consider whether, in serious cases—all sorts of definition problems spring to mind—the children's panel should be required to give reasons for its decisions.
As a parent, I sympathise deeply with the petitioners. We cannot turn the clock back and we cannot change our children, but we want to know why people did or did not do the things that we would think were appropriate. It does not seem entirely unreasonable to ask and to expect an answer, given that we are talking about very serious cases. That does not take away from the people who have to use their discretion, and who have the right to use their discretion. That is absolutely fair, because it is one of our protections. However, it is important that reasons are given when they can sensibly be given.
I want to look at the other side of this. Should victim support be examined? Was any help offered? Could we do anything locally to give the young person support now?
We will wrap up in a minute. Are there any final points from committee members? There is broad agreement that we want to keep the petition open and pursue issues relating to the guidelines or the understanding of the Procurator Fiscal Service and the relationship with the children's hearings system. Most of us want a children's hearings system that works well, that is credible and that has the consent of the public. We recognise that it is the most appropriate place to handle most issues relating to youngsters. However, in this case of extreme violence, there is a worry that something seems to have slipped through the net and that there was a lack of appropriate sanctions to give a strong message to the perpetrator that their conduct was unacceptable and to reassure the family that the system dealt with the case sensibly. There will be an opportunity to raise issues about the principles and the philosophy of the children's hearings system in our debates in the chamber on the proposed children's hearings bill.
I would be happy to keep the petition open if only to allow us to have more discussion about the role that the children's panel plays. It has been an important part of the system that the deliberations are kept confidential, but it is important to stress that it is not just the decision of the three panel members. They try to reach their decision with the agreement of the parents, the young people concerned, social workers and anyone else who is involved in the case. The decision is not the responsibility of one person or the three panel members.
There are other things to consider about the way in which panels come to their decisions. Because panels are not courts and do not try people, the victims do not necessarily appear before panels. In fact, I would be surprised if that happened. The cases are considered in isolation. The panels on which I sat never met a victim.
I support what you said in summing up the debate, convener, but I would like to reiterate a point that other committee members have raised.
In the case that Margaret Curran has highlighted, the victim's parents sought assurances about the action that had been taken but were told that they could not be given that information because it was confidential. If we are to have an open and transparent system, there must be transparency about the outcomes of the children's hearings system. Victims and their parents should be able to find out why children's panels reach certain decisions. Not being allowed to know why a decision was made has implications for the victim, which relate to whether they should take further action—a private prosecution or whatever—against the individuals concerned in order to highlight their situation.
There is also an issue about openness and transparency in reaching decisions. I would like that point to be reinforced when we write to the cabinet secretary or whoever on the issue. Also, in drafting the proposed bill that will set up the children's hearings agency, we must ensure that that issue is addressed in the agency's guidelines, so that information is forthcoming and the decision-making process is not closed.
Okay. I think that there is broad agreement on that. Do you want to add any final points, Margaret?
I will be brief. It is important that I clarify that the family and I were told that they could not be given information because the perpetrators were already subject to supervision orders. However, the point remains valid. The family could not be told the reasons behind the decision, and nor could I. I asked to be told privately, but that was not permitted. We could not be told whether the existing supervision orders would be increased or otherwise influenced. We had no indication at all of what effect the crime would have on the activities—I would not use the word punishment—that were to be undertaken or even any knowledge of what interventions were being made. They were deemed to be social work interventions and therefore private and confidential.
It was a thorny issue for me, which is why, ultimately, we came to the committee—we could not grapple with the situation at all. The reality on the streets is that Martin, the young man in question, is in his room every night and the young lads who did this to him are out on the streets showing great bravado. The consequences for the community and for the credibility of the children's panel are significant. It would be fair to say that Mrs Cooper has lost confidence in the children's panel, and in any intervention in this serious case. Perhaps that would not be the case in a less serious situation.
Mrs Cooper will appreciate the committee's reaction to the petition because you have taken it so seriously. Victim Support Scotland was involved, but it is fair to say that it was not of enormous benefit. If people want to pursue that point, I would be happy to speak to them about it.
If we do not get a reaction from the children's panel or the adult system, we need to come to terms with the fact that there is a gap for which our communities are paying the price.
There is broad agreement among committee members on how to pursue the matter. I thank Margaret Curran for her contribution on behalf of the family, who have come today. I know that they were not able to speak to the committee directly, but I hope that their MSP has articulated their concerns.
War Veterans (Health Care) (PE1159)
PE1159, by Mrs S Kozak, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide veterans of the 1991 gulf war with all necessary information and facilities in order that veterans exposed to nerve agents and their preventative medications are assessed, advised and treated appropriately and fatalities are prevented.
When we had the petition in front of us before, we expressed concern about some of the issues raised in it and said that we wanted to try to resolve them for the petitioner. I am happy to take views from members on how to tackle the situation.
In view of recent publicity and discussion of the issue in the media, we should write to the Scottish Government to seek a response to several specific points. We could ask it whether it will create a dedicated section on the NHS Scotland website that will contain all relevant guidelines and publications relating to the treatment of armed forces veterans—in other words, advice for health professionals on gulf health, information on accessing services and a list of those hospitals and doctors with experience of or expertise in treating gulf war associated illnesses. Making such information available would be a good start.
I have been in conversation with people whom I know in the military who have returned from the gulf and Afghanistan. Many of them are of the view that we could do with another dedicated hospital or institution that relates generally and openly with the public—in other words, not somewhere private but an institution centred in Edinburgh or Glasgow where people can go to get the specialised and specific assistance that they need. Others might like to mention a few other things.
We should also ask the Government whether it supports the creation of a gulf war veterans card. The information that it could contain is proposed by the petitioner. It would be useful to ask about that.
It is interesting that there is not enough knowledge among practising professionals in the NHS. Perhaps information and advice could be disseminated by some of the colleges, such as the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Anaesthetists.
If we can pull together that level of research and detail, it might be useful to have some sort of web access point as well, as Robin Harper suggested. In that way, people will have an opportunity to engage wherever they live in Scotland. They will not have to come to the capital city or another large city.
We will keep the petition open and pursue the issues with the Government and the agencies that are responsible.
Befriending Services (PE1167)
PE1167, by Christine McNally on behalf of Clydesdale Befriending Group, is on support and positive impacts for individuals relating to befriending services, and also the issue of support for people with learning disabilities through the "The same as you?" strategy. When we considered the petition before, we heard directly from the petitioners.
Are there other issues that we still wish to pursue?
We should pursue a number of issues with the Scottish Government. We should ask it, rather than reiterating councils' responsibilities under the historic concordat, to state what its specific plans are to promote and fund befriending services as part of "The same as you?" and other strategies for people with learning disabilities. We should also ask the Government what constructive comments it has on the petitioners' submission, and particularly their conclusions. In what way would the Scottish Government say that the funding of befriending services in Scotland is stable, long term and not precarious?
I wonder whether it would be worth while to get in touch with COSLA. It is clear that the matter is not uppermost in councils' minds as far as the single outcome agreements are concerned. Is there a particular reason for that? Can councils be leaned on to consider the matter?
If members are happy with those observations, we will try to pursue the petition in relation to the opportunities for funding services for individuals with learning disabilities.
Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)
PE1169, by Margaret Forbes, has been in front of the committee before. The petition, which was lodged on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce and enforce measures that ensure that magazines and newspapers with sexually graphic covers are not displayed at children's eye level, or below or adjacent to children's titles and comics, and that they are screen-sleeved before being placed on the shelf.
We have had a response on some of the issues, but I think that there are issues that members still wish to pursue.
It is a pity that the petition is so far down our agenda—I am beginning to flag.
The petition raises an important issue, particularly as there is so little research on the area. To begin with, we should write to the Scottish Government and ask it to meet Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People to discuss the concerns that she expressed in her letter. I would like to find out what factual and statistical evidence the Government has that the voluntary code has been adhered to. Also, what is the experience of customers? We should ask the Scottish Government to initiate research on the matter. We have discussed the topic in the Equal Opportunities Committee, and there is a dearth of research. The concern can too easily be dismissed as one or two people complaining. In fact, the problem seems to be growing.
Gil Paterson has expressed an interest in the petition. I invite him to comment.
May I make a general comment first? I thank the committee for the way in which it handles all these petitions; I am impressed by the attention to detail and the work that you put into them. I have come in towards the end of your meeting, but you are still up there, punching heavily. I am grateful.
We are serving the people of Scotland.
I am quite serious about my comments. Coming from another committee, it is gratifying for me to see the work that you are doing. The public should feel comfortable about the way in which you handle the issues.
Enough of the flattery. On you go.
It is not flattery, I assure you.
Marilyn Livingstone's suggestion to engage with the Government and the commissioner is a good one. There is only one way to overcome the problem. People who work with victims of rape and sexual exploitation describe a constant lowering of the threshold. Things that should not happen, particularly when it comes to children, are being normalised.
The only answer—which is a simple one—is to put an opaque cover over the magazines. Most of the magazines already have a cover, but you can see through it. I do not understand why the cover is not opaque—the magazines would be out of sight and out of mind for children. With the normalisation process that is going on, and the lowering of thresholds, we are on a dangerous road. I ask the committee to keep the petition open, and I support Marilyn Livingstone's suggestion.
We have broad agreement in the committee about the next stage for the petition, which is to explore how to resolve those issues, and to enter into further discussion with those who can make the relevant decisions. We will keep the petition open and we will take forward the issues that have been identified by members. I thank Gil Paterson for his contribution.
Ferry Services (Road Equivalent Tariff) (PE1203)
The next petition is from Joan Richardson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commence a review of ferry services, to develop a long-term strategy for lifeline services to 2025, and to provide an immediate minimum discount of 40 per cent on ferry fares. We have considered the petition recently. Do members have any comments on how we should proceed?
I think that we can close the petition. The Government is reviewing lifeline ferry services and the issues that are raised in the petition are being dealt with.
The big sigh of relief you heard was from the clerk, because we have finally closed a petition. He does not want to go shamefacedly back to the office and say, "None closed today, boys and girls."
Sheriffhall Roundabout (PE1218)
PE1218, from Margot Russell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward a timed and costed programme of works for the grade separation of the Sheriffhall roundabout on the A720 to alleviate pressure and traffic problems on the new A68 Dalkeith bypass.
The petition has been in front of us before. Do members have any observations?
I think that we should close the petition on the ground that grade separation for the roundabout at Sheriffhall is part of the improvement to the A720 referred to in project 22 of the strategic transport projects review. It will be pursued as the delivery of the STPR moves forward, subject to other priorities and funding.
We will close the petition. In the words of our national rugby team coach,
"A roll always starts with one".
We have got two in a row, so well done.
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—we broadened it out beyond 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.
Issues still arise from the petition. As part of its pathways into sport inquiry, the Health and Sport Committee is considering areas relevant to the petition.
I suggest that we refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee. If it is considering pathways into sport, it might be the best committee to consider the petition.
The evidence may already have been gathered. We should certainly draw the petition to the attention of the Health and Sport Committee. I will take members' views on whether we should keep it open at our end.
The letters that we got from various local authorities referred to the sums involved, which I think are probably significant for council budgets—for example, it was £25,000 for Aberdeen City Council and £38,000 for Aberdeenshire Council. Those amounts do not go an awful lot of miles, but they plainly go some distance to help some folk. I am not, of course, the only one here from the Aberdeen area, but I also note the development of a 50m swimming pool in Aberdeen, which will remove the necessity for people to travel to find a full-size pool, and the north-east regional sports facilities. We should therefore note that some things are being done, certainly in the Aberdeenshire area. I note that Highland Council's response was not so positive. I guess we should ask the Government whether it is satisfied that enough is being done and whether it has a view about how much more could and should be done.
I acknowledge what John Wilson said, but Nigel Don's suggestion is probably the best approach to take on the petition. That is partly because the evidence-gathering sessions on the pathways into sport inquiry have concluded and partly because, as the committee clerk has indicated to me, we previously chose not to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, so it would be inconsistent to do otherwise now. Nigel Don's suggestion is helpful, but are there any other suggestions?
I agree with Nigel Don's suggestion, but do we know the size of the problem? Do we know how many talented athletes apply for coaching, better facilities or whatever? It strikes me that many do so around the country. I wonder whether Scottish Athletics could give us an idea of the scale of the issue. I suspect that it is significant.
We do not know the size of the problem, but I think that there is a lot of untapped potential because of insufficient resources at different levels to support individuals. It is about breaking down barriers around who can allocate resources. It is also about whether there are enough resources in the system to begin with—that is a big challenge.
One of the big issues facing us all, including Glasgow City Council and the Government, is the debate on the legacy of the Commonwealth games. In many of the legacy consultations, people are asking, "If I have a talented young son or daughter, how can I get support to them at the time in their life when it really matters?" That is particularly the case for individuals from low-income families or families who do not have the resources to travel easily round the country.
We should keep the petition open and identify some of those issues to try to get broader responses.
General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)
PE1220, by Alan Kennedy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all relevant legislation to ensure the continuance of general practitioner dispensing practices in instances where commercial pharmaceutical practices apply to operate in the same local area. Again, the petition has been in front of us before. Do members have any comments?
The petitioners make a fair point about the lack of consultation when there is an application for a community pharmacy. As we have been talking today about patient involvement and openness in the NHS, it makes sense to me that existing dispensing GPs and patients should be consulted on such an application. If, unlike me, the Government is happy for such consultations not to take place, I would like to know why.
Are we broadly in agreement that we wish to raise the matter directly with the Government again?
I do not disagree with that. However, I have a little knowledge about the matter and I was under the impression—maybe it is a misapprehension—that dispensing GPs can make direct representations to various committees. However, is that only in certain areas? I do not know.
I do not know, but that is not what is said in the petition.
I know.
I would like that clarified.
Absolutely.
So we wish to keep the petition open and get further information.
Members indicated agreement.
BBC Alba (PE1222)
The final petition is PE1222, by John Macleod, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government, given its responsibilities to promote and support Gaelic culture, to make representations to the BBC trust to ensure that BBC Alba is made available on Freeview now, rather than wait for a planned review in 2010.
The First Minister has raised this matter directly with the chair of the BBC trust, Sir Michael Lyons. As always, I would trust his judgment and expertise on these matters.
Sir Michael Lyons's?
Obviously. You took away my punch line.
Given that the matter has been raised at the highest level, I think that we have taken the petition as far as we can. I hope that a satisfactory solution can be found. We will close the petition.