Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Official Report 376KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

Item 2 is consideration of current petitions, which are petitions that we have considered before. We have 13 of them today. The first is PE504, by Mr and Mrs James Watson, which is on not allowing individuals who have been involved in crimes to make profits by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.

The petition has been in the system for a considerable time; it is one of our oldest petitions. We have had a kind of tennis match, backwards and forwards, with discussion of legal processes with the United Kingdom Home Office and authorities in Scotland, to try to clarify the matter. There are still some outstanding issues for us to explore, so I do not think that we would wish to close the petition today. We are still waiting for a final resolution by getting agreement for the minister perhaps to take some action. Are members happy for us to continue to explore the outstanding issues?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open and ask the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government how they will deal with the publication of criminal memoirs following the libel working group report.

---

High-voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)

We have also considered PE812 on a number of occasions. The petition, by Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to acknowledge the potential health hazards that possibly emanate from high-voltage transmission lines. We have had substantial discussions about the petition and a number of elected members have expressed interest in it. I know that Dr Richard Simpson, who is unable to be here today, is still very supportive of exploring the issues. Do members have views on how we should proceed?

We have explored many issues in connection with the petition and there might not be much further to go, but I would not like to close the petition today because the Stirling mitigation scheme is due to go to the minister next month. I would like to keep the petition open until we hear how that addresses the petitioner’s concerns.

I am fairly relaxed about that, but given that behind the scenes the clerk is keen to remind me that we have a number of petitions that we have perhaps taken as far as we can, I hope that we will make a conclusive decision on the petition next time we consider it. That will almost keep the clerk happy. I have thrown a bone across the table to try to appease him.

---

Blood Donation (PE1135)

PE1135, from Rob McDowall, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review existing guidelines and risk assessment procedures to allow healthy gay and bisexual men to donate blood. We have had a chance to hear directly from petitioners on the matter. We are still waiting for information. I suggest that we continue the petition until the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs has completed its review and that we ask the advisory committee whether it will include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups in the membership of its working group. This is a sensitive issue because of the procedures that have been applied in the past, but there is a genuine issue of engagement. Let us try to explore that. Do members agree to continue the petition on those grounds?

Members indicated agreement.

---

War Veterans (Health Care) (PE1159)

PE1159, from Mrs S Kozak, calls on the Parliament to look at providing NHS Scotland and other relevant organisations and individuals, including veterans of the Gulf war in 1991, with all necessary information and facilities to ensure that veterans who have been exposed to nerve agents and their preventive medications are assessed, advised and treated appropriately and fatalities are prevented. How do members wish to deal with the petition?

We should continue it. There are a range of issues that we need to explore further with the Scottish Government.

We should seek comments on a number of points, such as the inclusion of web addresses in guidance and the medical alert card, that the petitioner has drawn to our attention. We should ask what structure has been put in place to address those concerns. Do members agree to continue the petition until we have received responses on those points?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)

PE1179, from Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of acquired brain injury to ensure that people with such injuries are given the proper support and services that they require.

I would be reluctant to close the petition at the moment. We should keep it open, because comments have been made about the proposal to develop the clinical network into a managed care network. I would like to hear what the Association of Directors of Social Work has to say about that, because there is concern about the care of people with acquired brain injury.

Do members agree to continue the petition on those grounds? Once we have received the response that has been requested, we can consider the petition again and make a conclusive comment.

The Scottish Government says that it believes that having a separate ABI care category is contrary to its work on long-term conditions and the central aim of treating people as people and not defining them by their condition. That needs some explanation if there are concerns about the level of care that is available for ABI patients.

We will take those points on board.

---

Social Rented Housing (Standards) (PE1189)

PE1189, from Anne Lear, on behalf of Govanhill Housing Association, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to conduct an inquiry into the responsibilities of private landlords, the levels of social housing below tolerable standard and the impact that slum living conditions have on the health and wellbeing of both residents and the wider community. As the elected member for the constituency, I declare an interest in the petition. I made that known when we considered the petition previously.

We have a letter from the director of Govanhill Housing Association in response to the letter from the Minister for Housing and Communities. I put on record the appreciation of all committee members for the positive engagement that we have had with the minister. A genuine attempt is being made to resolve the issues that the petition raises, but all of us recognise that that has as much to do with resources and budgets as it has to do with the willingness of all of us to engage with the issues. In this instance, my experience with the minister has been very positive. He did not ask me to say that, but I thought that I should put it on the record.

I will speak to you about that later, convener.

The minister has responded to the petition and indicated what action he proposes to take in the private sector housing bill that has gone out to consultation. We need to continue the petition, because we need more detail on what will be in the bill. I say that as a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, which is considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill and is likely to consider the proposed private sector housing bill. We need more detail on how what is proposed will not only resolve the issues that Govanhill currently faces in the private rented sector, because of the conditions in which people are expected to live and the landlords who operate the properties, but address other wider responsibilities around social rented housing in the area. We have to write to the minister to ask how the discussions with Glasgow City Council and the other agencies that are involved are going and how the issues that committee members witnessed at first hand in Govanhill are being resolved, so that we can see what progress is being made. The proposed private sector housing bill might take several months to go through the parliamentary process. We have to try to allay the fears of residents in the area that nothing will happen. We need to see some positive signs. I suggest that we write to the minister and Glasgow City Council to ask for an update on discussions, particularly in light of the response from Govanhill Housing Association.

Are members happy to keep the petition open and to explore those issues?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Bone Marrow Services (PE1204)

PE1204, by Jessie Colson, on behalf of the Richard Colson Severe Aplastic Anemia Fund, is on support for bone marrow services and the encouragement of more donors, particularly in light of the situation faced by Richard Colson over the years. I invite comments from members. We have explored the petition previously to a lengthy degree. I hope that we can now consider closing it. Are members willing to close it on the ground of the dialogue that has been opened up on the issue, which will hopefully mean that there is something more for individuals who are facing what Jessie Colson had to face?

We have had responses back from the Government on actions that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is taking forward. There is a willingness to look at approaches taken in other European countries. I hope that there will be continuing dialogue between the petitioner and the SNBTS.

If the petitioner still has concerns a number of years down the track, what would be the position on bringing the petition back? Would that be possible? What is the timeframe involved?

The petition could be brought back. There are limitations on bringing it back within a year, unless there is something substantially different in it. We would be quite happy to work with the petitioner if she wanted to bring it back.

That information could be given to the petitioner.

It is worth saying that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, along with the Anthony Nolan Trust, is doing a lot of work on a number of the issues that the petitioner raised. The issue is moving forward and we should commend the work that those organisations are doing. That is part of the reason why we can close the petition.

The Government is actively studying a means of increasing recruitment to the bone marrow bank. It has stated that it will continue to encourage work to raise awareness of it and increase registration, through its support of SNBTS.

Thanks for that. We will close the petition on the grounds indicated. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Courts (McKenzie Friends) (PE1247)

PE1247, from Stewart Mackenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency. We have repeatedly had a chance to discuss the petition, for which elected members have previously expressed their support. Again, I am in the hands of the committee on how best to deal with the petition.

I am probably not the only one who feels slightly confused about where we have got to. The issue seems to be moving so fast that I am not sure on which side of the net the ball has ended up. However, we should commend the Lord President for getting on with things and for explaining, in his most recent letter, some points that we did not get round to discussing during our previous meeting due to shortness of time.

I want to raise two points about the suggested rules in the Lord President’s letter of 19 February, which predates our previous meeting. Paragraph 5 of that letter states:

“The certificate should ... confirm that the lay assistant has no interest in the case”.

I get the impression from the Lord President’s subsequent letter that he sees no problem with the lay assistant being a family member or friend of the litigant. Therefore, I draw the conclusion that the suggestion that the lay assistant should have “no interest” should be translated as “no greater interest than the litigant”. That is what I would have expected, so I have no problem with that. However, I thought that I had better put that on record in case I am wrong.

Secondly, the Lord President’s letter of 19 February states immediately thereafter that the McKenzie friend—or lay assistant, as we should perhaps now describe him—is

“to receive no remuneration for his or her services in any form”.

I can quite understand why the Lord President should take that view, but there is good reason to believe that that might not be the best view. Given that many of those who might act as lay assistants might be paid by a charity such as a citizens advice bureau to help those who need help, it seems a step too far to assert that the lay assistant should receive no remuneration from anywhere. I can well understand that the Lord President and his colleagues do not want, as it were, second-class lawyers hawking themselves around as McKenzie friends, but I am slightly concerned that the suggested rules go a bit too far. Can we ask the Lord President to consider that point, so that those with experience of the subject who could well help people are not required to act completely for nothing when a charity might support them?

In addition, the petitioner obviously still has concerns about the terminology of “lay assistant” rather than “McKenzie friend”. Given that Which? magazine and Consumer Focus appear to use only the term “McKenzie friend”, can we perhaps press for the retention of that term?

We will continue with the petition and explore those suggestions. However, the clerk is keen to get clarification on whether we should push the Lord President to defer consideration of the issue.

My instinct is not to defer anything at all. I am sure that the Lord President has the good of the system at heart, as people do not get to be Lord President without having a pretty good idea of what goes on in the courts. I think that we should trust him to get on with it. If, one way or another, he and others come to the conclusion that they did not get it quite right first time round, I suspect that the speed with which he is now acting demonstrates that he will be swift to amend things. I do not think that we should defer anything for the sake of it.

Okay. We will continue with that petition.

---

Holiday and Party Flats (Regulation) (PE1249)

PE1249, from Stanley Player, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a statutory duty on landlords offering short-term holiday and party flat leases to register the property as such. We have discussed the petition before among committee members and several other members with an interest in the issue. I know that we have all received a letter from Sarah Boyack, whose Edinburgh Central constituency is sharply affected by holiday and party flat leases.

Do members have any comments on the petition? I think that there are some outstanding issues.

Yes, there are. We should put questions to the Scottish Government on what has happened since the meeting in March. In light of the latest letter from the petitioner, we also need to ask what is happening to the way in which antisocial behaviour in party flats is dealt with.

Okay.

We should try to find out from the Scottish Government what is happening to bring the law on party flats into line with that for houses in multiple occupation. I think that the current HMO legislation does not fully cover party flats. We need a response on whether party flats will be covered by the proposed new Government legislation.

Okay.

---

Police Officers (Convictions) (PE1252)

PE1252, from Angus Grant, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all legislation and guidelines that give chief constables discretion to retain police officers despite any convictions that they have. We have discussed the matter on a number of occasions.

I get the impression that we are in a position to close the petition. We have urged the Scottish Government to review the matter and it has done so. Whether everybody is happy with the result is another matter. Perhaps some people will never be happy with it—indeed, there may be logical reasons why they should not be. The case for having an external review can always be made, but it can also be argued that internal systems work well in practice. The evidence that we have before us suggests that in all serious cases of which we are aware, the officer concerned resigned. I am not sure where the balance should lie. I am sure that we will not satisfy everybody, but we have done what the petitioner asked us to do. The Government and police service have come to the conclusion that they are not inclined to change anything. On that basis, we should close the petition.

I agree with Nigel Don.

Okay. Committee members agree to close the petition.

---

Medical Negligence (Pre-NHS Treatment) (PE1253)

PE1253, from James McNeill, calls on the Scottish Parliament to compel the Scottish Government to establish a discretionary compensation scheme to provide redress to persons who suffered injury due to negligent medical treatment prior to the establishment of the national health service. Christine Grahame has an interest in the petition and joins us again.

I think that we are all agreed that my constituent, the petitioner, has suffered an injustice; yet no one will take responsibility for what happened to him in the system, historic though the case may be. As the committee knows, the damage to Mr McNeill’s hand was caused by exposure to radium as part of treatment for the simple matter of warts in childhood and has deteriorated over time. Of course, the treatment was pre the national health service, but it was done by what is now NHS Highland. I understand that under section 13 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, on its establishment the NHS took over all liabilities of its historic predecessors—or so it seems. Therefore, there is an obligation on the NHS to meet liabilities that have been incurred. I am not sure whether the Government has addressed that thus far, convener.

My constituent and I accept that the route of claiming medical negligence through litigation is long since closed. That is why he is calling for a discretionary, no-fault scheme. The no-fault compensation that the Government is examining will not be retrospective; so it will not apply in his case. My constituent has a prima facie case of negligence, which—in my view—requires remedy.

I will fly a couple of kites, if I may, convener. There are workable models that the committee may wish to look at. I am not saying that a crime is involved in this case, but the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority operates a set of tariffs for physical and mental injuries that are the result of criminal activity, which ranges from £1,000 to £0.25 million, with extensions for loss of earnings and so forth. The compensation follows rules and values that were established by Parliament. The committee may wish to consider that system, under which no person may be caught but compensation is made for injury.

There is also Motor Insurance Bureau compensation for injuries that result from the actions of an uninsured or untraceable driver. The bureau, which was established in 1946, places a levy on every insurer who provides motor insurance—an obligation that dates back to the Road Traffic Act 1930. The scheme gives remedy to those who would otherwise have none.

We are talking about a principle. People who have been injured through negligence—in my constituent’s case, the medical evidence substantiates that—and to whom no other remedy is available because the case is so historical, ought to be entitled to compensation. I am not talking about people who have gone to court and failed or people who have missed the triennium; I am talking about cases from way back, pre the NHS, which is a very narrow field. There is a principle that people in such circumstances deserve some compensation.

The next question, which is probably for the Government, is how much it would cost to provide such compensation and how that would be done. I know that the Government has said that there would be a substantial number of claimants, or words to that effect. I got in touch with the Scotland Patients Association and it could not tell me how many claimants there might be. I would like to know where the Government’s numbers come from so that we can talk about both the principle and the cost.

I hope that by mentioning the CICB and the MIB I have given the committee some ideas. There are ways of approaching the issue. I would like the petition to be continued.

Do members have any observations?

I think that we should continue the petition and raise with the Government the points that Christine Grahame has made. Given that the no-fault compensation review group is due to report in October 2010, it would be sensible to keep the petition open.

As there are no other suggestions, we will take on board the comments of Christine Grahame and Rhona Brankin and will explore the issue further.

---

Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1254)

PE1254, by Mark Laidlaw, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend section 51 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to allow flexibility so that an employee of a fire and rescue authority can also be employed as a special constable. We have discussed the petition on previous occasions but, as there are still issues that it is worth exploring, members might want us to continue our consideration of it. I invite comments on areas of particular concern or interest.

Mark Laidlaw is one of my constituents. I do not know how many special constables there are in Scotland or whether there is a deficit. Firefighters are excluded, even though there might be a practical need for special constables. It might be useful to know the numbers.

There are some other issues that the petitioner is concerned about, which he wants to be addressed. We could explore whether any action has been taken as a result of meetings that the Chief Fire Officers Association and the various other organisations that deal with such matters have had on the issue.

I suggest that the Government could organise a round-table meeting with the various interested parties, such as ACPOS, the Chief Fire Officers Association, the unions and the Scottish Police Federation, to discuss the issue.

I endorse Nanette Milne’s suggestion. The petition is one of those where I have reached the point at which I am struggling to get my mind around what the issue is and who objects to what the petitioner is asking for. I do not know whether it is a case of nit-picking or whether there is a point of principle at stake, whereby a problem could be caused when there was a fire or some other event in the real world. Perhaps we could get the appropriate parties, including all those who seem to object to what is proposed, around the table, give them a large jug of coffee and tell them to work out whether there is an issue. If there is, it would be good if they could put it in one sentence.

We can do all the other things, but I am not sure that we can guarantee coffee or one-sentence answers.

I suspect that coffee will be easier to provide than a one-sentence answer.

We will continue the petition and explore the suggestions that have been made.

---

Court Reporters (PE1257)

The final current petition is PE1257, by Mark Hutchison, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take measures to ensure that solicitors who act as court reporters and who knowingly supply false information to a sheriff are not immune from prosecution, and that their reports are amended to correct any inaccuracies before a decision by the court is made.

Do members have any comments on the petition, which we have discussed in detail? I suggest that we close it.

I fully understand where the petitioner is coming from. He clearly feels aggrieved and that the solutions that were available to him are inadequate.

I note that we have a copy of a letter from a sheriff principal explaining the lie of the land. It is clear that the courts are not at all interested in having their judgments impugned by other people, other than through the appropriate legal process. The letter states quite categorically where the courts are coming from. Solicitors acting as court reporters are immune from prosecution, and courts are not going to entertain that. We have explored the issue. Other remedies were available, but that is, quite simply, the law. We have done what we can. Again, the petitioner will not be happy, but I do not think that we can take the petition any further, and I suggest that we close it.

I think that the petition came to the committee before I became a member. From whom did we seek information in the interests of the complainant or the consumer in this kind of situation?

I cannot remember every organisation, but I know that the committee wrote to the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, Consumer Focus and two or three other organisations that I cannot remember off the top of my head. The petitioner has also had the opportunity to comment at each stage.

Was Consumer Focus’s response significantly different from those of the others?

I cannot remember the terms of the response.

I am not really in a position to comment, so I will go with what the rest of the committee thinks.

We will close the petition on the grounds that we have discussed.