Official Report 255KB pdf
Let us make a start on the third meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in the second session of the Scottish Parliament. I apologise to the committee, petitioners and members of the public for the late start. Sadly, Michael McMahon is unable to come this morning; he wishes his apologies to be recorded. I also welcome Frances Curran, who is attending the committee in place of Carolyn Leckie who is unable to attend today's meeting. We will bash on.
Rail Network (Local Railway Stations) (PE629)
Although our first new petition this morning is PE618, the petitioner is not yet here. Therefore, I suggest that we move straight on to consideration of petition PE629.
Thank you. I will use Laurencekirk as an example throughout my statement on the petition.
Thank you for making such a clear presentation. I invite David Davidson to make a comment in support of the petition.
The important point is that made by Mr Banski at the end of his presentation: the petition should be sent to the Local Government and Transport Committee.
I ask Mr Rumbles, who is the MSP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, to say his piece.
As Norman Banski made clear, the campaign is of long standing. It is interesting to note that it is of such long standing that Nicol Stephen was involved in it when he was the Westminster MP for Kincardine and Deeside. He is now the Minister for Transport and will decide on various transport issues. Does Norman Banski feel that it would help if the petition were referred to the Scottish Executive and the minister, so that he would be made aware of the petition and the strength of local feeling formally? That would be in addition to the informal representations that have been made.
It is essential that the campaign is taken to that level. Mr Stephen is aware of the campaign, but it would do no harm to refresh his memory. The proposition is eco-friendly and sound.
We will ask questions later. I ask Mike Rumbles to make his statement now.
I am sorry; I thought that I was following the procedure. I did not know that I could speak to the committee.
Mr Banski, in listening to you and others, it struck me that the proposal is supported by Aberdeenshire Council and by the Executive, although it is right to say that the issue is a local transport matter and needs to be resolved locally. Given all that support—including that of your constituency MSP, Mike Rumbles, and of David Davidson—what is the obstacle? Where does the logjam occur?
The obstacle is in convincing the operating companies. Questions are asked about the effect on the travel time between Aberdeen and Glasgow or, primarily, between Aberdeen and Edinburgh. We estimate that it would take two to four minutes to stop a train at Laurencekirk, which should not affect the two-hour journey from Aberdeen to Edinburgh. The operating companies make a major argument about the journey time.
The petition raises two clear issues: the reopening of Laurencekirk station and the reopening of suitable railway stations throughout Scotland. Should the Local Government and Transport Committee take up the wider issue of railway facility use?
Undoubtedly it should. In listening to morning radio programmes, for example, we hear about hold-ups on the road network at Admiralty on the way into Edinburgh or on the A90 between Aberdeen and Stonehaven or between Aberdeen and Ellon. The horrendous hold-ups are primarily round the conurbations. I respectfully submit that that nettle must be grasped. We must have a properly integrated public transport system.
I, too, am pleased to welcome you to the meeting, Mr Banski. I am interested in the point that Jackie Baillie raised about the obstacles that you face. I am aware of the example of Camelon station and Dalgety Bay, which is in my constituency, was only the second new railway station to be opened in Scotland for many years—[Interruption.]
We will pause for a minute because that microphone noise indicates that somebody must have a mobile phone switched on. Could everybody please ensure that their mobiles are switched off?
I know that you have political support from the local level to the national. As Jackie Baillie said, the matter is clearly one for your action group and your local council. Has your group visited the powers that be in the Camelon area, the central region and the Falkirk and Fife areas to assess how they went about achieving the establishment of their railway stations? My understanding is that Camelon and Dalgety Bay stations were established with help from the then Scottish Office in the days of challenge fund bids. I think that the public transport fund is now the means for achieving the aim of establishing a new station.
Of the two stations to which you referred, we considered Dalgety Bay in particular, which I think cost about £1.8 million. That station was built on a greenfield site through land acquisition, whereas we have no land acquisition to worry about. However, we did not dismiss the Dalgety Bay example and in conjunction with NESTRANS we have been exploring several aspects of that example. It was suggested that the cost of that station might put us off considering a similar station. We have not considered the example of Camelon station.
I am interested in your views on disability access. One reason why Dalgety Bay station was so expensive is that politicians insisted on the station having disability access. Do you plan to insist on such access for Laurencekirk?
We have included disability access within the architect's plans. There will be long ramps on both sides of the station. We do not need to build a bridge over the railway because there is already a road bridge and from it both sides of the railway line could be accessed via long ramps.
As we have heard, there seems to be a tremendous amount of support locally and from the Executive for the proposal to open a station at Laurencekirk, so it is surprising that it has not happened. Are you aware of any competing interests at other stations in the north-east rail network that might be exercising the local authority's mind and which could explain why it has not moved on Laurencekirk?
Yes. The crossrail system from Stonehaven to Inverurie, which David Davidson referred to, has been occupying Aberdeenshire Council's mind. However, it recently agreed that a station at Laurencekirk should be attached to the end of the NESTRANS system to create what I would like to call a metro-style system for the north-east, to provide commutability to Aberdeen for the south Mearns. I do not think that that proposal challenges Montrose, so it is not an issue for Angus Council.
You said that the estimated cost would be £500,000. What would that be for and from where would the money be found?
About two years ago, we estimated that the plain building costs to reinstate the station platforms and buildings—which are now listed—would have been around £130,000. However, if we take into account the restrictions—perhaps constrictions is a better word—and the health and safety issues, which necessitate the work being done at nights and at weekends, the cost would be roughly trebled. It is fair to say that the cost would be nearer £500,000.
You have already touched on two of the issues that I intended to ask about. The station would be part of an integrated transport system and would bring economic benefits and regeneration. Do you have a projected figure for the number of passengers who would use the station if it were to be reopened?
The issue seems to hinge around the figure of 20 per cent of the population. There is a definite will among the people. Laurencekirk is due to expand by another 200 houses in the near future. A figure of 10 passengers per stop has been mentioned as a break-even point, but I envisage far higher numbers than that. I am sorry if that is vague, but it is the best I can do.
Around eight years ago, Aberdeenshire Council commissioned a student survey on the issue. The information from that survey indicated the level of support for the project at that time. I am sure that support has magnified because of the increase in housing and the fact that people are now much more mobile.
If you would be so kind, perhaps you could make that information available to the committee.
Certainly.
We must now decide what to do with the petition from Mr Banski.
At one stage or another, the entire Parliament has supported the principle of increasing the number of railway stations in Scotland. Even Nicol Stephen, Lewis Macdonald and various other ministers have said on the record that they want to extend the railway system.
We should also ask the Local Government and Transport Committee to consider the wider issue separately from the Laurencekirk issue.
The clerk has suggested that we refer the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee for its information. That committee might perhaps consider the general issue later.
I would be happy with that approach. Without asking the Scottish Executive to do something, as it is not within its power to do anything about this, we might also send a gentle reminder to the Minister for Transport that the petition is still around, as the petitioner has specifically requested that.
Are committee members happy with those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much for attending the meeting, Mr Banski. We wish you a safe journey back to Aberdeen. I also thank David Davidson and Mike Rumbles for their attendance.
NHS Prescribed Drugs (Effects on Children) (PE631, PE638, PE639 and PE640)
We will now consider PE631, PE638, PE639 and PE640. The petitioner is James Mackie, on behalf of Overload Network. He is accompanied by Janice Hill, the director of Overload Network.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to address the committee. Some members know me already, through my support of other petitions on psychiatric services and treatment. Janice Hill is the founder member and managing director of Overload Network, a United Kingdom charity that is based in Edinburgh. Overload is an independent, non-profit-making organisation now in its 20th year. Its role is to provide information to parents so that they can make informed choices when deciding on action to help children who have learning difficulties and/or behavioural problems.
Thank you, Mr Mackie. That was wonderfully short. I will now open up the meeting to questions from committee members.
Like most MSPs, I have been involved in children's health issues throughout Scotland and so I read your report with interest. You said that there were 28,000 phone calls to your agency. Were those calls from people throughout the UK or just Scotland? You also said that parents are not properly informed about the side effects and long-term effects of the drugs. Are parents given counselling when they are told to put their children on such drugs? Are they offered any alternative medication?
Either or both of you can answer the question, if you like.
As Overload Network is a UK national agency, the figure of 28,000 is based on national figures. However, for Scotland, we have an approximate figure of 15,000 inquiries. There seems to be a lack of disclosure. Parents receive only selective information after a child is diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. If that happens, how can parents give their full consent to the use of drugs?
Are parents offered any form of alternative medicine or treatment for their children?
Although the guidelines stipulate that medication should be used only as a last resort, our data suggest that medication is being used as the first approach. Medication should be used as part of a package; after all, other treatments can be used with it. However, because there are major deficiencies in the system, especially in relation to psychologists, most children are left to take the medication without any further input.
Everyone knows the problems that Valium caused 20 or 30 years ago. However, I have found that many general practitioners are still prescribing the drug without providing any follow-on support. Certainly there is no acceptance within psychiatric services that Valium causes major addiction problems and therefore no programme or procedure to help people to withdraw from it. We have also had similar findings for Ritalin and some other medications.
I have two specific questions on two of the petitions. In PE638, on the prescribing of vitamin supplements by the national health service, you say that certain vitamin supplements should be prescribed to help children with a nutritional imbalance caused by an addiction to prescribed drugs. How does that situation currently stand?
Many alternatives are available. Indeed, we have more than 200 pedigrees in psychotherapy. However, most children do not get access to psychotherapy or counselling, or even access to standard medical tests before they are prescribed psychiatric drugs. As a result, a large proportion of children have eyesight and hearing problems.
What about the current position with doctors prescribing supplements to children to treat nutritional deficiency?
An abundance of safe alternatives has become available over the past 50 years. For instance, many children who have been diagnosed with ADHD have an inborn error caused by kryptopyrrole, which has an affinity for and strips children of vitamin B6 and zinc. Zinc is important in more than 200 enzymes, including those in the brain; vitamin B6 is important in the production of serotonin. As those children cannot make serotonin, they have major problems with neurotransmitters. With a simple, non-invasive urine test—which is available only in the private sector and costs parents £12—we can find one of the root causes of the problem. Most of the children who come to Overload do not have just one or two nutritional deficiencies, but might have five or six things going wrong.
Your petition calls for doctors to be able to prescribe such supplements through the NHS. Is it your understanding that they are not allowed to do so at the moment?
As Janice Hill said, 98 per cent of clients who come through our system and work with our consultants end up on a nutritional programme that is based partly on diet and partly on supplements. Our understanding is that, under the forthcoming European directive on supplements, many supplements will no longer be available. On top of that, many children require omega 3 fish oil capsules, which play an important role in their diet. Parents are finding that a GP can prescribe omega 3 to a mother if she complains about having tender breasts but cannot prescribe the same product to her child. A GP has the power to prescribe amphetamines to children, yet the Executive is saying to children that they should not take amphetamines on the street because they are bad for them.
So you are saying that, at the moment, GPs are prescribing nutritional supplements.
The problem is that few GPs have training in the use of vitamins, nutrients and amino acids. They receive an average of four hours' training; only if they have a particular interest will they take that training further.
In the second part of your question, you referred to the prescribing of drugs such as Ritalin to children under six. Currently, no such medication has a marketing authorisation to be given to a child under six. The youngest age for Ritalin is six. We are finding with GPs and, more commonly, psychiatrists that, once a drug has a marketing authorisation, a GP or prescribing physician has the power to prescribe it for anything that they want and not only for what it says in the marketing authorisation. We have found that children as young as two are regularly being prescribed drugs, and Ritalin in particular. Ritalin is an amphetamine and we all know what the street use of speed does. In the past two or three months, the UK Government has decided to enforce a ban on the use of Seroxat outwith the label recommendations. Our experience has shown that drugs are not the only route to go down. Other avenues should be explored long before a child of two is prescribed amphetamines, which will have a major impact on that individual for the rest of their days.
I have two questions. First, are you aware of any guidelines that are issued to GPs on the prescribing of vitamins and minerals? Secondly, much of the evidence is anecdotal, so can you cite any national reports that provide evidence of the issues that you raise?
I would not know where to start. We have an abundance of data. I am sure that a study was carried out in England to consider the benefits of vitamins and nutrients and the link to juvenile crime and delinquency.
Was a report issued last month about the use of vitamins and minerals in prisons?
I am not fully up to date. I believe that, in England, Bernard Gesh carried out a study on vitamins and nutrients in young offenders and in relation to juvenile crime and delinquency; I think that he will also be working with Polmont young offenders. There is an abundance of evidence on the benefits of vitamins, minerals and amino acids to children.
I could forward you a copy of the report that was carried out in an English prison where, through the control of nutrition and diet, violence was reduced by almost 30 per cent. One of our consultants is a retired police officer. When he was in charge of the Shipley subdivision in Yorkshire, he did a lot of work with juvenile offenders. Following on from the work that Overload is doing, we know that, if the diet of young offenders is assessed, crime can be cut almost completely.
One study—a crossover double-blind trial—was carried out in psychiatry just over 20 years ago. It compared methylphenidate—Ritalin—with vitamin B6. The evidence was that vitamin B6 was better, safer and cheaper. However, you cannot patent vitamin B6, and Ritalin is part of a multibillion pound industry.
I do not think that the witnesses have answered the question on guidelines for GPs.
We have no knowledge about that. We refer our clients to their GPs to ask for supplements, but they consistently come back to us to say that GPs will not issue a prescription, so that the parents end up buying the supplements themselves. It is a double-edged sword. The poorest in the community, the ones who need supplements the most, do not have the finances to buy them.
There is a lack of continuity and structure within the services. There may be four or five consultants looking after one child, but nobody takes the lead in making decisions.
More and more parents are refusing to give their children these drugs, but what alternatives do GPs offer? If we agree with your proposal to ban the prescription of those drugs, we would have to argue for alternatives.
There are many safe solutions. Overload works with the University of Teesside in Middlesbrough, where we have a drug withdrawal clinic. We offer a many-pronged approach. First, we believe that we must look inside the body to see whether anything is going wrong. All children have access to standard basic medical tests, including eyesight and hearing tests. Secondly, the child and the family may need counselling or psychotherapy. We are working with Professor David Stein, a leading psychologist in America, who has developed a skill programme for parents—the care giver's skill programme. That programme gives parents continuity and direction in disciplining their children. The subject is complicated and it is not my area of expertise, but there are a number of safe alternatives. Sadly, however, parents are not getting the choice.
Would you expect a GP to refer people to a programme or to have some kind of test related to vitamins and minerals in the body?
Overload accepts NHS referrals. We have been very successful in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Banff and London. However, for whatever reason, we are not in communication with the health board in Lothian, although we have approached it over the past three or four years. The issue has been raised with Malcolm Chisholm. There is a big deficit and there is a postcode lottery; where you live affects the services that are available.
What I want to find out about is the alternative for GPs, who may even agree with your views.
The alternative is to refer children on and to give them the choice. GPs must ensure that parents have full access to all the information.
We will have one brief final question from Jackie Baillie.
It will be very brief, I promise. A number of the issues that are covered by the four petitions are, to a greater or lesser extent, issues for Westminster. For the sake of clarity, may I ask how you are promoting your campaign at the Westminster level? We cannot deal with some of the issues that you raise, such as those relating to employment insurance and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
We have regular contact with members of all parties in Westminster, where we lobby. Some of the major decisions could be made at Westminster, but some of the points that we raise could be taken up by the Scottish Executive, which gives guidelines to the NHS in Scotland. That is particularly the case on the major issues such as the prescribing of drugs to children under the age of six.
That brings us to the end of questioning; I think that everyone has had a chance to ask a question. Thank you for your presentation. The committee will now discuss what to do with the petitions, bearing in mind that, as Jackie Baillie said, many of the concerns that they touch on are Westminster issues.
Jackie Baillie and the convener have both mentioned Westminster issues, but the biggest issue is children's health and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for health. Given how many issues the petitions raise, I would like us to write to the Executive and seek its views on them. I think that that would be fair.
Is everybody happy with that suggestion?
It is perfectly legitimate for us to write to the Executive, but it would be improper for the committee to pretend that it could seek changes in areas for which the Parliament has no responsibility. I am happy to support the recommendation on that basis.
Perhaps it would be wise for us to ask the Executive to clarify which matters are reserved. That might bring clarity to the situation.
I agree with what is being proposed. If we write to the Executive, we will help to put on the public record the answers to the questions that the petitioners have asked. That would be a useful step forward for everybody.
We will proceed on that basis. If the Executive takes into account the Official Report of the meeting as well as all the literature, it will certainly have plenty to ponder. I thank Janice Hill and Jim Mackie for presenting the petitions to us. We are very grateful.
Violence (PE621)
PE621, which is from Mr Christopher Yorkston, calls on the committee to urge the Scottish Executive to address violence in Scotland by providing violence-intervention programmes and anger-management courses to anyone who feels that such provision would improve their quality of life. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's belief that the Executive should promote actively intervention in all types of violence and aggression that exist in Scotland, particularly in the forms of domestic, social, racial, sectarian and international violence, cases of which he claims are increasing at an alarming rate. What do members want to do with the petition?
The petition makes a lot of sensible points. We should ask the Executive to comment on the issues that it raises and we should find out what kinds of programmes exist. I understand from what Jackie Baillie has told me that general practitioners are able to refer patients to anger-management sessions; I would like to know a bit more about that.
Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Ethical Standards in Public Life (PE622)<br />National Lottery Funding (Listed Buildings) (PE630)
Buildings of Architectural Merit (Preservation) (PE634)
We move to petitions PE622, PE630 and PE634, which are all from David Wilson. PE622 calls on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to issue guidance to local authorities and Government agencies on ethical standards in public life, with particular emphasis on honesty, especially before the courts. PE630 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to publish advice and guidance regarding the eligibility of listed buildings in Scotland for national lottery funding. PE634 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take the necessary steps to ensure that every effort is made to ensure the preservation of buildings of architectural merit.
I confess to having a lot of sympathy with the petitioner's main aims, which concern Museum Hall at Bridge of Allan, but equally I confess that we cannot interfere in a matter that has been debated and deliberated on by the Court of Session. At the heart of PE622 is a dispute about the validity of statements that were made in the Court of Session, and as such it is a matter for the Court of Session. The only lifeline that can be offered to Mr Wilson is that he can take the issue to the standards commissioner if he feels that there has been a breach of standards by the local government official concerned.
Does anyone else have anything to contribute? Is everyone happy with that view?
Members indicated agreement.
We will proceed on that basis.
Education (Self-defence and Swimming) (PE626)
The next petition is from Frank Harvey, and is about the self-defence of teenage girls. The petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that all teenage girls are taught how to defend themselves from attackers, and how to swim, while they attend secondary school in Scotland.
At the same time?
I am not immediately sure what the link is. Perhaps we can discuss the matter further.
I know Frank Harvey very well. I wonder whether the allusion to swimming lessons is because of the number of burst pipes in the area of Partick area that Frank comes from.
In response to your comments, should we perhaps write to Scottish Water as well?
I have already written to Scottish Water.
I agree with Sandra White's recommendation that we should ask the Executive for its position. We should highlight the fact that not enough local authorities provide swimming lessons. That is an important aspect. I understand that Glasgow City Council now provides free swimming lessons for every primary school child and is moving towards extending that to secondary schools. I hope that other local authorities will do that. If writing to the Executive serves no purpose other than to highlight that aspect, albeit that the other aspect of the petition is important as well, it would be worth doing.
I would support such a programme whole-heartedly, but it should be available to all teenagers, male and female. Otherwise, the outcome is likely to be that the playground will be full of girls who are skilled in the martial arts and at putting a half nelson round some of the loons to pull them into a shady corner. Spread the net.
I think just girls is fine.
Perhaps the matter will subsequently need to be referred to the Equal Opportunities Commission. We may, or may not, take that view subsequently. In the meantime, we will proceed on the basis that Sandra White and Mike Watson have suggested. In addition, obviously, we will take note of what John Farquhar Munro has said. We will write to the Executive on the matter. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Solar Power (PE637)
PE637, from J Russell Thomson, calls for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to amend the planning and building regulations to ensure that each new building is fitted with sufficient solar panels to provide an adequate hot water system for the building.
The substance of the petition is that there have been technological advances. I am conscious of that and of the fact that a more cost-effective method has been identified. We should write to the Executive to establish what its view is on a number of fronts.
Are members happy with that worthwhile recommendation?
I have just one wee rider to add. The petitioner asks the Executive to make the inclusion of solar heating compulsory under the building regulations. Is Jackie Baillie suggesting that we should ask for the Executive's general view on amending building regulations, but not necessarily request compulsory solar measures?
I will clarify what I said. Building regulations could make solar power compulsory, but I wondered whether there could be guidance. That question would be worth exploring further.
Thank you for your clarification. We will proceed on that basis.
Scottish Judiciary<br />(Membership of Faculty of Advocates) (PE641)
PE641 is from Eirlys Lloyd. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to investigate whether the Scottish judiciary's membership of the Faculty of Advocates is compatible with its required independence and impartiality. It is prompted by the petitioner's belief that judges who retain membership of the Faculty of Advocates cannot appear to be independent and impartial, particularly when presiding over cases in which individuals represent themselves against advocates.
I do not see the merits of the petition's case. I should state for the Official Report that I am not a lawyer and do not have an individual interest in the matter.
Do members agree that the committee should take no further action on the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Equal Opportunities (PE618)
We will now return to PE618, which we had intended to deal with first this morning. The petition is from Aitor Endemaño Isasi, who does not appear to have made it to the meeting.
I understand that a United Kingdom white paper is due to be published that would establish exactly what the gentleman seeks—there would be a UK-wide equality commission and single equality body.
I agree in general with Jackie Baillie's suggestion, but perhaps we should also ask the Executive when it intends to report on the consultation on the single equalities body.
As I am on the Equal Opportunities Committee, I know that that matter will be on the agenda for that committee's next meeting or the following one.
That should mean that we get a report on the matter relatively soon.
Next
Current Petitions