Official Report 279KB pdf
Audiology Services (Modernisation) (PE502)
I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from John Farquhar Munro and Rhoda Grant, both of whom are attending a meeting of the Rural Development Committee. Mike Rumbles MSP has joined us this afternoon to support our first group of petitioners.
Thank you for allowing us to attend today's meeting, as it presents a good opportunity for the RNID to make the committee aware of its concerns about audiology services and digital hearing aids. The committee will be aware of such hearing aids from various parliamentary questions and will have received campaign reports and other material on the issue.
I invite Mike Rumbles to speak in support of the petitioner.
Thank you for inviting me to do so, convener. I support the petition. As Fiona Stewart said, thousands of members of the RNID will benefit from action on this matter. Social inclusion is important for us all in the Parliament. For relatively little cost, people's lives can be revolutionised by accessing digital hearing aid technology.
Before I open up the meeting to questions, I remind members that there will be a delay between their asking a question and the sign language interpreter conveying the question to the petitioner. I ask members to speak slowly and clearly. I know that I am the last person who should be telling committee members to speak slowly and clearly, because I am not good at that myself.
Fiona Stewart suggested that the cost was around £100 per digital hearing aid south of the border. However, when I followed the issue up with my local health trust, I was told that the capital cost of the equipment is not the sole charge—costs for training, technical back-up and other aspects go with it. Could you compare the overall costs of the digital hearing aids with those of the analogue hearing aids that are currently in use?
You are correct that digital hearing aids incur investment costs in training staff and in some of the equipment, but many hospitals already have the equipment and the software packages are supplied by the manufacturers. There are additional costs, but they would be incurred in any case, because the modernisation of audiology will bring a need to increase the effectiveness of audiologists.
You did not mention the cost of analogue systems. Will you do that, so that we can have a comparison?
The cost of a top-range analogue hearing aid would be comparable to that of a digital hearing aid.
What quality of analogue hearing aid does the national health service issue?
Detailed research was conducted on analogue hearing aids about five years ago. There has not been any subsequent detail on them.
What percentage of NHS patients would find digital hearing aids useful?
Cathie Craigie has made comments—based on the findings of audiologists—suggesting that 85 per cent of people would benefit from digital hearing aids. If you will bear with me, I can give you the reference to her comments.
If Cathie Craigie said it, it must be true.
I am not so sure about that, but never mind.
A fundamental question is what degree of deafness benefits from the digital hearing aid. Would a person who had been stone deaf from birth benefit or would only those who are hard of hearing benefit? Is it a question of degree? You said that 85 per cent of people would benefit. I would like to understand that fully.
Cathie Craigie said:
This morning, I, like Mike Rumbles, signed letters on behalf of constituents who have made representations about hearing aids. I have received responses that are similar to those that he has received. Reviews by various health boards are taking place throughout Scotland.
Yes. In England, the RNID co-manages the project with the NHS. In Wales, the RNID is on the project team, although it does not co-manage it. There is no doubt that a lot of information, facilities and expertise are available of which the NHS in Scotland could avail itself. Indeed, I serve on a number of audiology committees, such as the audit committee needs assessment group, with other voluntary organisations. We could certainly take advantage of the RNID's experience in Wales and England. I am sure that we would be prepared to consider that. I hope that doing so would lead to faster implementation.
Do you think that the RNID would have the capacity to deliver the programme exclusively? Would that route be better? Should there be partnership with existing NHS audiologists throughout Scotland? Is there some other way that might facilitate quick action? This case is not the first that I have had to deal with today. The worst case was at Christmas. I had to say no to a constituent who was going to suffer from broken equipment over the Christmas holiday. The person was old and was going to be excluded during that period. That did not make me feel good.
The way forward is through partnership working. We have worked in partnership and on project management teams in England and Wales and we believe that a similar model should be followed here. Certainly, we have experience, skills and staff who can give a lot of input and support, but a partnership approach is the best way forward.
I totally agree with Fiona Stewart. Partnership has been a key success story in England. One must work with the health boards, the health trusts and audiology staff. By doing so, parties can gain from one another's experiences.
You say that the £150 cost to the NHS in England is
The percentage is high. Many deaf and hard-of-hearing people have difficulty finding employment. People have approached me asking for digital hearing aids to assist them in their employment; they believe that such aids would help them in their employment. Many people who would like the assistance that digital hearing aids bring are suffering in silence.
Do you have an estimate of the extent of the problem in the community? I was once at an event at which I heard that an estimated 60 per cent of people in Strathclyde had difficulties with hearing and that the problem was on the increase. Perhaps it is just that the diagnostic tests are better, but 60 per cent seemed a very high figure. What would your estimate be?
We suggest that one in five adults in Scotland suffer from some hearing loss, which is about 730,000 people. At least one in five of the people in this room will have some degree of hearing loss.
Is not there a Government scheme, called access to work, which allows people to draw on digital facilities if they have the need?
Yes, but the access to work scheme does not cover private use. Digital aids are purchased privately through the access to work scheme, costing between £1,000 and £2,000, but why not give us digital hearing aids regardless, instead of giving out analogue hearing aids? Why must I and other people who pay taxes have to apply for eligibility for digital hearing aids? Why should we not be given the opportunity to get digital hearing aids, which can radically change people's lives, in the first place? Access to work will not help people who have retired and who require digital hearing aids. Because those people are not eligible for them, they will suffer and will be worse off.
I totally accept that, but I was really referring to Dorothy-Grace Elder's comment about employment. Is it in the hands of individual health boards to supply digital hearing aids if they feel that to be appropriate? Is the problem not so much about the provision of the equipment as about staff expertise and the expertise of those who deal with digital facilities?
We are aware of the shortage of staff, which is why the RNID has commissioned research. We are not criticising health boards. The subject needs more research. We have approached the Scottish Executive and the Parliament to commit more to improving audiology services—we are not focusing solely on digital hearing aids. We need to consider audiology services overall and digital hearing aids form part of that service. Unless there are improvements in the next year or two, we will fall further behind England and Wales, which are making strides forward.
I have spent the past two years sending many letters to and getting many letters from ministers and I know that Susan Deacon was, and that Malcolm Chisholm and Mary Mulligan are, very sympathetic to the idea of modernising audiology services. What is your perception of the problem? I know from the members' business debate on the matter last November, from all the responses to parliamentary questions and from informal contact that ministers seem to be very positive on the matter.
I definitely think that the issue should go to the Health and Community Care Committee. The problem is money in the first instance, but it is not just a question of money and budgets. Before the recent allocation of £750,000 to audiology services, money was not ring fenced. It is said that audiology is the cinderella service of the health service.
I will pursue the issue of ring fencing. The briefing paper says that the £750,000 was
No, I said that the allocation of £750,000 was the Scottish Executive's first ever allocation of money specifically for audiology. Such an allocation has never taken place before. The press release that accompanied the announcement of the £750,000 stated that the sum was non-recurring—it was for one year only.
So the deaf are the Cinderellas of the whole situation.
Absolutely.
I escorted a blind man who won me as a prize—the prize was to spend a day with me going around Edinburgh. He had a marvellous time. Everyone was wonderful to him and his dog. Even though it was a busy July, everyone made way for him when we went into a pub. He said to me that everyone is kind to the blind. No one is kind to the deaf, however, because people are not aware of deafness.
You are right—there are great challenges. People like me need an interpreter to access all kinds of things. A deaf person needs access and an interpreter enables such access. It is essential to have communication—and therefore to have an interpreter present—in many situations. The shortage makes that difficult. One often goes to places and is not given information until afterwards—one is kept waiting to receive information.
Thank you. I was sorry to digress a little, but I could not resist the opportunity to ask the question.
This morning I wrote to my constituents to say that Fife NHS Board was undertaking a review and that that review was feeding into a national Scottish Executive-level review. The letter also set out that the review process would come to a culmination in September. Are you involved in the review? Is there any way that we can push the RNID to head up a task force that would be charged with delivery?
I am involved in three sub-groups of the review group: the audit, needs assessment and needs assessment of adults sub-groups. The report will be ready by September or October. I have offered members of the review group and the Scottish Executive the opportunity to visit the modernisation programme in Wales in which the RNID is involved. I am pleased to say that, in two weeks' time, members of the Scottish Executive and the review group are coming with me to visit Wales.
I have a final question about the comparison of Scotland, Wales and England. The audiology services in 65 hospitals are to be completely modernised. Do you know the cost of that?
I do. If the convener will give me a minute, I will dig through my papers and give the committee a breakdown of the costs.
I am interested in the £750,000 that has been made available by the Scottish Executive. How does that figure compare to the amount that the NHS in England is making available?
If the convener gives me a second, I will go through my papers. The funds are additional funds that have been invested in England and Wales. A figure of £30.6 million has been invested in England, of which £10.6 million went in the first wave to 20 hospitals. That figure was followed up with a £20 million allocation. In Wales, the figures are broken down over a three-year period with £2.25 million in 2001-02 and £3.5 million spread over the following two years. The moneys were ring fenced specifically for audiology and were to be spent on modernisation and digital hearing aids.
If we were to set an equivalent figure for Scotland, would it be somewhere between those two?
An equivalent is difficult to set. That is because England and Wales were ahead of us even before they started and because of the introduction of what is called the universal neonatal hearing screening, which will add additional costs to the audiology services. However, if a comparison were made between the figures, a rough estimate of the starting position, on which I would not wish to be quoted, would be of a figure between £10 million to £12 million.
Can I add some information to that? Of the £750,000 that has been allocated in Scotland, £60,000 has come to Grampian NHS Board. That sum has to be used simply to purchase software that will enable the database to be established. No money is coming to Grampian NHS Board to assist patients once they are assessed. Patients can have an assessment, but no commitment can be made to give digital hearing aids to patients.
In order for us to be clear on the subject, will the £750,000 make a difference to the number of Scots who will be given access to digital hearing aids?
No.
This is not a question, but I would like to raise the issue of waiting lists. In Edinburgh, for example, after a person has appeared before his general practitioner, it takes 73 weeks for him to be fitted with a hearing aid.
Seventy-three weeks?
Seventy-three weeks.
I can give a personal viewpoint on that, as I have a little bit of a problem with my hearing. I am sure that I was not treated with any privilege, but only eight or nine weeks elapsed between the time when I saw my GP and the time when I should have been fitted with a hearing aid, which was yesterday. That was in Ayrshire. Does that suggest that there is a great disparity between the various health boards?
No, it was because you are Phil Gallie.
No, I am quite sure that it was not. I am aware that other people have been treated similarly quickly.
I do not have the figures for every health board area, but the waiting time in Edinburgh was quoted to me as 73 weeks. The situation in Kirkcaldy is also fairly bad, although not as bad as that. I do not have figures for other health board areas but, from what Phil Gallie is saying, it appears that there is a disparity between treatments in different health board areas.
Thank you very much. That was valuable information. I hope that the committee has acknowledged it. You are welcome to listen to the committee's discussion of what it wants to do with the petition.
We should include in our comments to the Executive some of the points that have come out of today's debate. The waiting time that has been quoted is horrendous, although Phil Gallie gave a better account.
We can ask for confirmation of all the waiting times.
We are also told that
We will ask the Executive for clarification of the status of the guidance and whether following it is mandatory.
It might have been issued by SIGN—the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network.
In addition, we should point out that it has been exposed to us that the ring-fenced £750,000 is not likely to put a single hearing aid in a single ear. In case the Executive gets the idea that that is a large sum of money and that the Executive is doing a good job, we should point out the fact that has arisen out of today's debate, which is that that money is not going to do the job. We should also point out that there is a big need for money and make the contrast with expenditure in Wales and England.
It has been suggested that we could send the Executive a copy of the Official Report of this part of today's meeting and ask it to respond to the points that the petitioners have made.
I do not know where the good practice guidance comes from. I do not know who issued it.
We will ask the Executive for the statistics.
In the members' business debate that took place in November, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Mary Mulligan, said that the good practice guidance had been issued about 18 months previously. That is why the confusion has arisen. I referred earlier to the letter that I received from Susan Deacon two years ago, in which she was quite adamant that digital hearing aids were available and that the Executive assumed that they were being issued. At the end of the members' business debate in November, Mary Mulligan said that the chief executive of the NHS in Scotland had written to the chief executives of all 15 health boards in Scotland to ask them to adhere to the good practice guidance.
I suggest that we should also ask the Executive to report back to the Public Petitions Committee on its initiative in writing to the 15 health boards and to tell us what response it received from them.
Could you also make a strong recommendation in that letter, convener? I do not know whether we have the right to make recommendations and I do not know whether members would agree with me, but I have a strong view that we should set up a task group to bring people together as a matter of urgency. We should not wait for a review in September, October, November or December. Let us get started and sort out the problem now. Let us bring together all the audiology services in Scotland under the directorship of some capable person—possibly the RNID—and pool resources. In my experience, there is nothing better than getting people who have mutual interests and the drive and determination to succeed to make collective endeavours.
I remind members that our ultimate decision will be to refer the petition formally to the Health and Community Care Committee. That committee will make recommendations, although we can ask the Scottish Executive to respond to the proposal to set up a task group, so that progress can be made, as part of a partnership between the RNID and the audiology service.
In the light of the letter that Mike Rumbles mentioned, could we not declare our dissatisfaction with the situation?
We could do that, but it will be for the Health and Community Care Committee, rather than the Public Petitions Committee, to make firm recommendations about the way forward. We are simply trying to shortcut the system. The Health and Community Care Committee would have to write to the Executive anyway and it would be better for us to do that first.
As members of the Health and Community Care Committee, the convener and I know better than anyone that the big problem is having a reporter available to do a report on the petition. I should explain that the Health and Community Care Committee appoints reporters from among the members of the committee. The stronger our letter to the Executive is the better. As I glance at the figures, I notice that England gets £30 million for English services for the deaf. It is clear that, with £750,000, the Scottish deaf are being short-changed. The £30.6 million is ring fenced, as Fiona Stewart pointed out. That information is incredibly valuable and should be included on your publicity leaflets.
It is perfectly in order for the Public Petitions Committee to make clear our strong views that we expect the Executive to treat the petition as an urgent matter and our disappointment and anger that Scotland should be lagging so far behind the other parts of the UK in the provision that is made for deaf people.
My attention goes back to the letter that Mike Rumbles received. I am quite sure that other members who wrote to the Executive got exactly the same response. We were reassured by the Executive, but it seems that, two years on, no progress has been made. That is particularly the case in respect of the digital apparatus that was the initial target of the petition. I want to back up Mike Rumbles's comment about getting the Executive to concentrate on that point. Given that the letter was sent out two years ago, why are the health boards not delivering on this?
The letter is starting to turn into "War and Peace"—it has everything in it—and we have to be careful. The clerks have taken down most of the points that we have made and they will be put to the Executive. I was interested to hear that Phil Gallie thinks that devolution means that we spend less on public services.
Devolution does not mean that. The Executive makes that choice and perhaps it has made the wrong choice in this case.
Is it agreed that all those points will be incorporated in the letter that we will send? When we get the responses in, we can formally refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee. I hope that that committee will get down to taking action on it immediately after the recess.
May we thank the signer?
Yes, we give a sincere thanks to the signer, without whom this discussion could not have happened. The lack of signers in the Parliament is another example of how it is not living up to claims of openness, transparency and accessibility. The Parliament is not accessible for deaf people and we have seen that vividly this afternoon.
I hope that you will see more of us in the future.
At its next meeting the committee will deal with a petition on education for deaf people. Such issues are on the Parliament's agenda. Thank you.
Smoking in Public Places (PE503)
Our second petition is from the pupils of Firrhill High School. Simon Hunter, a pupil at the school, is here to make a brief presentation to the committee. He is accompanied by Mr Ron Waddell, who is a teacher at the school. The normal practice is that you get three minutes to make a presentation and, after you have made it, members of the committee can ask questions. I notice that other pupils are with you. Perhaps you could begin by introducing them.
Shona Hogg and Lea Tsui are with me. We are from Firrhill High School in Edinburgh and we are part of the after-school club called peer mediation. We discussed various issues and eventually agreed that the most important issue was the banning of smoking in public places. Shona, Lea and I were chosen from the class to present the petition to the committee.
Thank you very much, Simon.
I am going to be the big bad questioner. I congratulate you on a good presentation, which was very slick, as the ladies were giving assistance on the side. Among young people today, there seems to be great pressure to legalise cannabis. How do you feel that your ban on smoking in public places fits in with the cannabis issue, and will you assure me that the pupils of Firrhill would write in to say that we should not legalise cannabis?
Perhaps I can say a few words about that. The group discussed the issue of drugs, and although most of the teachers thought that it would be the sexiest issue for the kids, it was not. They did not think that it was the most important issue. They were aware that there were problems with drugs in the community but, as far as they were concerned, the problems were minor in comparison with smoking. It was an eye-opener for us all that the more basic issue of being in a smoky atmosphere, seeing people smoking round the corner and the image that somehow that was a cool thing to do was more important for them. The real shock for us was that so many of the kids were against smoking in public places.
Thanks very much. You are looking for a legislative ban, but one of the things that perturbs me is that I see a heck of a lot of youngsters—and, I have to say, particularly young girls—smoking on the streets today. That is already against the law, so what good would legislation do? If that question is a wee bit too hard, I will ask something else. Do you think that there is an element of personal choice in this matter? Do you agree that people should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they go to pubs and restaurants where there is a ban on smoking or where there is not a ban on smoking?
I think that there should be different restaurants for people who want to smoke and people who do not want to smoke. Some restaurants have non-smoking areas, but you are still affected by passive smoking if you sit in them because the two areas are not that far apart. If there were separate restaurants for smokers and non-smokers, that might cut down the number of people dying of passive smoking.
Having restaurants with smoking sections and non-smoking sections is worthless because the smoke circulates throughout the room. The Belgians make great play of having separate sections, but it makes no difference. Either you have a ban or you do not. The voluntary code is all very well and it works in a lot of places, but there are a lot of factories, for instance, where the code is not adhered to, even though people are there all day. Some factories probably now have a separate smoking area but, if the air is circulating, what is the difference?
I do not think that they work. The smoke simply circulates around the room. In some places, the fact that you are in a non-smoking section makes no difference at all because you have to sit right beside the smoking section.
The pupils came across an interesting piece of research from the United States of America. In some states, the anti-smoking lobby had managed to have put in place a number of draconian measures. I am a non-smoker but my wife smokes and, when we were there, she found that there was enormous social pressure not to smoke. We are going to the US again this summer and my wife has given up because she knows that she will not be able to smoke there. Such measures can be effective. In answer to Phil Gallie's point about what measures we can put in place, perhaps we should look to the American experience to find out how such bans can be legally administered.
Some of the anti-smoking measures in the US came about as a consequence of what are known as class actions, in which a group of people come together to instruct the legal profession to represent them in courts. Should that happen in this country? I know that Leigh, Day & Co, a London legal company, was interested in tackling this issue but I believe that, against its will, the company entered an agreement with the powers that be in America that it would not go down that route. However, other companies might think about that.
In the US there were a number of test cases in which passive smokers challenged tobacco companies, saying that those companies were indirectly responsible for the deterioration in their health. That frightened many of the tobacco companies and the authorities, which feared a huge legal bill. If individuals were to take court action, that might be a trigger for movement.
I have another question for the pupils. Like Phil Gallie, I congratulate you on the research that you are doing. Have you prepared leaflets to share that research with your friends in the school? Are there leaflets available that teach you what it is like to smoke and what people feel like when they smoke and that describe the adverse effects of smoking on people who have been in places such as smoky bars and are left with a smell on their clothes?
In one class we are taught what can happen if we start to smoke or to take drugs. Everyone learns about that in first or second year.
In one lesson my class talked about smoking—at whom it is targeted, what can be done about it and how we should be educated about it. It has been suggested that some former smokers should be invited to speak to us, but we do not know whether that will happen.
Have you seen any videos or plays about smoking?
A few pupils performed a show called "Sex, drugs and rock and roll", which showed what can happen if people start to smoke.
My parents smoked Woodbines, great little cigarettes from the earliest days that I can remember. We lived in a council house in Stenhousemuir. In the winter, my parents would sit in our small living room with the electric fire on, smoking Woodbines. At that time, I was probably a victim of passive smoking, so I know exactly how the petitioners feel.
What do you think about the fact that the Government has accepted cash donations from tobacco companies?
I think that it should use that money to build places for smokers so that they have a place to smoke without harming non-smokers.
Could I put you on the spot and ask what success you have had at Firrhill High School? Have you been able to get through to the teachers? Do they have a smoking area in the school? Are they allowed to smoke in the grounds or do they have to go outside the grounds if they want a cigarette?
The staff are almost all non-smoking and there are no designated smoking areas in the school. I have been in other schools where there is a smokers' staff room that people enter at their peril—it is just a wall of fug. There are no smoking areas in Firrhill High School, although I am sure that the odd teacher has a fly smoke.
The pupils and staff at Firrhill High School deserve to be congratulated on that.
Kenny Gibson MSP is pursuing a member's bill to impose a total ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. Are you going further? Would you ban smoking in open-air restaurants?
When we asked people, they seemed reassured by the idea that we would build other places—enclosed or not—in which they could smoke. The knowledge that they would not be harming other people when they were smoking reassured other people in the school. That is why many people signed the petition. They wanted people to have somewhere to go.
That is interesting. Norway is about to ban smoking in all restaurants and pubs. That is a harder line than you are taking. Norway would not allow special smoking pubs or restaurants—it would ban smoking as an activity. Do you think that the Norwegians are too extreme and that some scope should be given to smokers?
Yes. There needs to be choice. People should be able to smoke if they want to, but they should not hurt other people. Smoking should not be banned in all places—special places should be built for smokers. If tobacco is legal and available, people should be able to choose whether they want to smoke. However, people should not have the choice of killing other people through passive smoking.
Of course, the owners of restaurants, discos and bars would oppose that proposal because they would have to build twice as much to accommodate two different types of customers. Those owners are likely to tell the Government not to support your proposal.
There are always vested interests that will stymie such proposals. That does not mean that the principle is not good.
There is a huge vested interest against what you are suggesting, but that does not mean that you should not suggest it. The Parliament should listen to you and I hope that it will.
I endorse what the convener said. You should be congratulated on sticking to your guns. I think that you are right to give people choice and to ensure that they have real choice.
I do not think that the Government is doing enough to publicise non-smoking areas. I am sure that many people have not heard of the website to which you refer—I had not heard of it either. There have been a lot of Health Education Board for Scotland adverts, but that is about all the publicity in relation to passive smoking. There should be more publicity to increase awareness of passive smoking.
That concludes the questions. Thank you for your presentation. The petition was presented in partnership with the Parliament's education service and a video of the petition was made. We are talking to the pioneers of a future generation of petitioners. By the time that they come to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, I hope that the public petitions process will be fully established in the Parliament and that most citizens of Scotland will take advantage of it.
There is not a smoker among them.
Yes. There is no doubt that if smoking cannabis can be banned, smoking tobacco in restaurants can be banned. I thank the petitioners for their presentation and for their able answers to the questions. The committee will now discuss what to do with the petition and the petitioners are free to listen to that discussion.
I thought that the first statement in the suggested actions, that an outright ban "cannot be justified", was rather controversial.
That is the UK Government and Executive position. We can question that position.
That is the Government's view, but given the amount of money that the Government receives in donations from organisations with an interest in tobacco, we should comment on that view. Perhaps the Government should not take that attitude.
When we send a copy of the petition to Kenny, we will ask him to write back to explain the position of his bill and to say what the chances are of it becoming legislation.
I support the suggested actions, which are reasonable. I say to Winnie Ewing that the issue is not whether a ban can be justified. There is a strong climate of opinion in Scotland that people have the right to smoke. People whom I represent say to me strongly that they want the right to continue to smoke. The young people who spoke to us say that they want to have a smoke-free environment and to allow smokers to continue to smoke. Politicians must recognise that all people have rights. The question is how to balance those rights.
When the Executive responds, it will have to give a justification for its opposition to a total ban.
Winnie Ewing mentioned the Executive's view that a ban cannot be justified. Can we ask the Executive outright whether that view has any relation to the £10 billion a year that HM Treasury makes from tobacco? Might that be a tiny clue to the reason behind the Executive's view?
I suspect that we would have to write to the Treasury to confirm that figure.
It is around £10 billion, although sometimes it is as low as £7 billion, which is when the Treasury gets worried.
I do not think that the Executive will have that information. We would have to ask the Treasury how much it receives from the sale of tobacco.
The Executive claims that it gets the money from the Treasury. I am sure that the Executive has that information because, as members will remember, it gave millions of pounds from tobacco revenue to health.
We can ask the Executive whether it is able to comment on the amount of money that the UK Treasury receives from tobacco tax.
We could ask for an update. Perhaps a figure for the past five years would be more relevant. The amount has gone up and down because of the number of illegal cigarettes that have been imported. I wonder why the Government is terribly concerned about illegal cigarettes—perhaps because it means that it is losing tax. What a dreadful thought.
We could certainly ask for that information.
To be honest, I think that we would be wasting our time and the youngsters' time if we wrote to the Scottish Executive. All we need to do is to consider some of the areas that are now smoke free. For example, when one airline decided to become smoke free, others followed. Because of passenger choice and pressure from the industry, it is now almost impossible to find an airline that allows anyone to smoke.
I am unhappy to say that going to the Executive would be a waste of time. The petitioners have asked for a legal ban, which only the Executive and the Parliament can impose.
But how far would such a legal ban go?
There is no problem in writing to the four main representative bodies of the hospitality industry.
It has already been done. A charter was introduced in 2000 with the support of the main representative bodies for the licensed, tourism and hospitality sectors in the UK and has been adopted by 1300 businesses in Scotland.
Well, we could still write to those bodies for their response to the petition. That might be useful.
I should also point out that tobacco is a legal substance. How can the Scottish Executive or the UK Government say that it is all right to have tobacco and—as Dorothy-Grace Elder pointed out—take money from it and at the same time not allow anyone to smoke it anywhere?
We are not saying that people cannot smoke it anywhere. We are just saying that they cannot smoke it in restaurants or places where others might be affected by passive smoking.
What is the definition of a public place?
A pub, restaurant, disco, café and so on.
A park?
No. That is not an enclosed public place.
Phil Gallie has answered his own question. The point is all about persuading people and highlighting the fact that 6 million people across Europe have died from cancer.
The point is also about giving the petition the priority that it deserves. In order to progress it, we will ask the Executive—as suggested—and the hospitality industry for their comments. Are members agreed?
I thank the petitioners for their attendance and for submitting a very good petition.
Crime Accounts (Publication) (PE504)
The third petition is PE504 from Mr and Mrs James Watson, on convicted murderers profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of them for publication. I welcome Mr and Mrs Watson and Wendy Robinson to the meeting and apologise for the great delay in reaching this petition. I believe that Margaret Watson will make an opening statement.
I thank the Public Petitions Committee for giving us this opportunity to highlight the lack of legal rights within the judicial system when convicted families or members of their families sell accounts of their crimes for publication. Having read our submission, the committee will be more than aware of the horrendous effect that such publications have had and are still having on our families.
I mentioned three names—I did not notice that there were four of you.
The fourth person is Sandra Sullivan.
Thank you—it is important to say that so that the official reporters can get it on the record.
I declare an interest in that I have been quite closely involved with Mr and Mrs Watson and I know the tragic circumstances that arose.
We actually call it the European convention on offenders' rights because it takes no notice of the needs of victims of crime.
Given that the convention exists, and that the Parliament is signed up to it, how should the Scottish Executive act to curb the activities of convicted criminals—people who may have committed the most horrendous of crimes—making life worse for the people who were nearest to the victim?
Article 2 of the convention states clearly that everyone has the "right to life". When people write stories that are not true or are factually incorrect, we are powerless to combat them through the courts—mostly for financial reasons. We are the ones who suffer again, and deaths are being caused in innocent murdered victims' families. As members know, I have given plenty of details to each MSP. I have e-mailed them and written to them. I am disappointed to say that not many have responded, but those who have responded fully support what I am saying. Unfortunately, supporting us is not good enough; we need legislation that will allow special courts to be set up. That is not for profit, because we are not looking for personal gain.
One purpose of sending people to prison is to try to rehabilitate them. The prison authorities therefore have a responsibility to give prisoners training and to encourage them to do something useful when they come out of prison. If someone is set on being a writer, prison authorities will help them to do that. Should there be strict guidelines to ensure that any writings by someone still in prison steer well away from the crime or crimes that that person has committed?
They are helped with their writing. Paul Ferris's social worker, whose services are paid for by the public, helped him to write three books, one or two of which have been published. The social worker in question has been able to retire on profits earned from the sale of those books. The public money that is spent in such cases should be used to help victims of crime to rehabilitate themselves.
Will you say more about how the legislation in America that prevents convicted murderers and members of their families from profiting from their crimes was introduced?
I do not know the exact date on which the legislation was introduced.
That does not matter.
I know that in some states, when a book or magazine from which an offender will profit has been published, a special committee that has been set up to help victims writes to victims' families to inform them of that. If they wish, victims' families may pursue the offender, their publisher and anyone who is involved in writing the book or story for the resulting profits. I believe that in America victims' families are allowed to benefit personally from such situations and are given funds to sue the offender. We do not want such powers. We seek not blood money but justice.
This is a very impressive and carefully worked-out petition. It would not stop someone speaking or writing.
We know that we cannot do that.
Yes—that is a tragedy. You have worked out that you have a right to vet the copy of articles in advance and that offenders have no right to benefit monetarily from writing about their crimes.
She was 16 years old.
It is unusually vile for a villain to write about a crime committed against a 16-year-old. I am a journalist of long standing, and I would not touch a story of that sort with an extension barge pole.
The report should have been published, because I, along with the other witnesses present today, have had two meetings with the Home Office on that subject.
The fact that a working group has been set up does not prevent us from considering the issue in a Scottish context.
I am aware of that. Our previous meeting was with Mrs Keating, who is now in charge of the working party.
The original working party, which was chaired by Betty Moxon, was disbanded and she was supposed to report to ministers. The working group accepted a statement from Victims' Voice, the organisation to which all of us belong. We were told that Victims' Voice was the only organisation to submit a statement, but because we were persistent the group accepted that statement from us. When I phoned up to ask what the working party would recommend to the ministers, people refused to tell me. I could no longer speak to any of its members or to Betty Moxon because, I was told, the working party had disbanded.
After a meeting that I had with the Home Office in 1991, I received a letter from a Mr John Gilbert. In his letter, Mr Gilbert made it perfectly clear that, by January of this year, I should get a personal reply from the Home Office on the progress of the working party on offenders who profit from their crime. I have heard no word from the Home Office, despite having repeatedly e-mailed and written to it. Unfortunately, Mr Gilbert has moved on to another department and no one seems available or willing to tell us how far the working party has proceeded. However, we are not interested in the Home Office case at the moment. We think that it is time that Scotland took a stand on rights for victims. Scotland should make us proud by showing the Home Office how things should be done.
Perhaps I should apologise, but we already have good judges and good sheriffs in the courts. However, they need a law that they can administer. The judges and sheriffs do not have the law that you want. I do not want to be a wet blanket, but special courts just will not happen. We already have courts. All that we need is a law to implement the things that you want. Why should we need special courts? They will never happen because they would require a whole lot of new judges. I think that you should direct your energy to campaigning for a victims' charter, especially on the points that you have raised.
A victims' charter has been established in England for quite a few years now. At the end of the day, the matter boils down to this: we do not have the funds to take legal action if things are left as they are. We cannot pursue the matter without a special court. No one can take legal action unless they are the Prime Minister or royalty or someone with money behind them.
I sympathise with you on that. I did not mean a voluntary charter but a law that would provide rights. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. If the law gave victims specific rights, you would not need money to go to court. You may have misinterpreted what I said.
That would not apply in many of the cases that we have dealt with over the years. We have dealt with other people who have unfortunately suffered at the hands of the press, but we have usually managed to sort out the matter by speaking to the editor of the paper. In such circumstances, the press want another angle so that they can print another story rather than an apology.
The situation is made worse.
It makes families defend their loved ones, because the press want another angle. The newspaper obtains another story at the expense of the victim.
It is unclear when the working party that has been established in England will report and whether that will be timeous. We have a copy of an unsatisfactory letter that was sent to you. It does not even say when proposals will be made. Even when they are, they will go to consultation and we will not know whether a separate Scottish consultation will be held. That is unsatisfactory.
We are trying to make progress. We have a mass of petitions to deal with after this one. We must make reasonable progress and ask questions.
I will dwell on the letter from the Home Office, which is important. According to all the correspondence, the working party met six times and involved representatives of the Scottish Executive. It produced a final draft document, which is with Home Office ministers. Do you know what position the Scottish Executive has reached? The civil servants have done their job. It is now for politicians to make a political decision.
No. We have repeatedly contacted the Home Office. Obviously, we want to be informed at every stage, but we understand from our meeting on 14 May with Mrs Keating that the working party is not discussing offenders profiting from selling accounts of their crimes. It is more concerned with drugs issues. Mrs Keating made that clear when we spoke to her, because she kept referring to the European Court of Human Rights. We wish to refer to that court's case law on victims' rights—our rights to live free from aggression and from being revictimised. It is clear in the European convention on human rights that we should be allowed that. I believe that the Scottish Executive has agreed to that. Legislation to uphold those rights should have been introduced at the beginning of the year. I have a copy of the convention here.
I take it that the working group is considering criminal memoirs. It says:
We have gone over that with Mrs Keating at great length and I can assure you that she kept on about the drugs issue. That seems to be the main issue for the Home Office.
It was thrown back at us that, to get what we wanted, we must strive harder, we must go and see the minister and we must do more. Mrs Keating said that criminal memoirs were not covered by the Proceeds of Crime Bill and would not be. The legislation is not there. She said that the Home Office had discussed adding a clause to existing legislation, but she did not say which legislation and would not go into further details. However, she said that it was up to us to continue to put the pressure on. We have worked so hard, but we are sent away and told to do some more work, which is why we are here today. We came to you because we felt that you were listening.
No member of the committee is qualified to answer that question directly, but we can get the answer for you from the Scottish Executive. I assure you that we shall do that.
In Margaret Watson's case, the person had a story published within a year. In my case, the period was about three or four years.
We cannot answer your query off the top of our heads, although we can have the issue clarified for you. The line that we were getting from the Scottish Executive was that the working group had concluded its work and had made recommendations to ministers in the Home Office, who were considering the recommendations. We understood that an announcement would be made and that there would then be a public consultation, followed by changes to the law. You are suggesting that that is not the case.
We understood from our meeting with Mrs Keating that the Government had decided not to do that. She could not tell us anything. She was not saying, "Yes, this is it." All she said was that the Government had thought about adding a clause. It was thrown back at us that we should do something more.
It is perfectly clear to us that the Proceeds of Crime Bill does not cover memoirs and that there is no intention that it should. However, there is a separate process to introduce another bill to deal with the issue at some point in the future.
We have nothing in writing.
We are extremely disappointed, as Mrs Keating said that we would be.
I was told that we could not know what the working party was recommending to the ministers. All that we were told was that we would be disappointed. We were not told any more and we did not get any more out of the meeting with Mrs Keating.
How long have you all been working individually on the issue?
Since a year after I lost my daughter.
That was April 1991.
In my case, since 1993.
I have been working on the issue since 1992.
All of you are parents and relatives of victims and you have been working on the memoirs issue all that time.
Yes.
I would just like to add one thing that has not been mentioned. There is press interest in the publications because of the notoriety of the crime, not because the people are good writers or have any particular talent. They may have talent, but that is not what is selling their books—their books are selling because of the notoriety. Our theory is that, although we cannot prevent them from writing, they will be more reluctant to write if we can take away any profits.
Some of them will be more reluctant.
That is a good point. Thank you. That was harrowing but excellent evidence. It certainly opened my eyes and gave a different spin from the line that we are getting from the Scottish Executive. When we receive petitions, we naturally make initial investigations. We will pursue the matter with the Scottish Executive. You are welcome to stay and listen to what the committee decides to do with the petition.
We could write to the Home Office directly, asking it about—among the other things that you have suggested—the clause that has been mentioned. Which legislation would that clause be added to? How would it be worded? That stuff seems to have fallen away completely.
We could do that. However, the information seems to be in an internal working document that is not for the public. The group will not even give it to us.
We could try and see how secretive and fudgy the group is.
The best way would be to approach the group through the Scottish Executive, asking the Executive to use its leverage to get information.
The matter is devolved.
Yes, but the Home Office document is an internal working document for England and Wales.
Do you not think that, because of the time delay, we should demand that we get on with our own document?
Yes. That is a separate issue from the one that Dorothy-Grace Elder was raising.
The Home Office mentions the law in Scotland. If it was not willing to let us know the broad outline of the document, that would be shocking. I suspect that nothing is happening—that the Home Office is not progressing the issue at all.
I agree that we should write to the Scottish Executive. We should also ask it whether it has seen the draft consultation document. The paper that the clerks have prepared says that the Home Office
The ministers are always talking about joint ministerial meetings. We can ask whether the issue has been on the agenda of any joint ministerial meeting between ministers of the Scottish Executive and the Home Office and, if so, when the documents will be made available to the committee and other committees of the Parliament.
Yes. That would be good.
If the issue has not been on the agenda of a joint ministerial meeting, we can ask why not.
We are told by the Home Office:
That refers to the civil servants. We are talking about whether ministers have discussed the issue.
The letter tells us that that part of the work is completed.
We must use our influence with the Executive—such as it is—to get as much information as we can and return to the issue when we have got a reply. It would be remiss of the Scottish Parliament to wait for the Westminster Parliament to make progress, because it is clearly not making progress on the issue and does not seem to intend to.
You always say that we should give ministers the benefit of the doubt, convener. Let us establish the facts. The papers indicate that a lot of work has been done and that it is now just a matter of clarifying where we are in the time scale.
Absolutely. Is it agreed that we write to the Executive in those terms?
We will keep the petitioners informed; as soon as we get a reply, we will let you know what it is. Thank you for your evidence.
William Wallace (Statue) (PE506)
We move to the rest of the new petitions, for which the petitioners are not present. The first is from Mr Frank Harvey, on the subject of a statue of William Wallace. He asks the Parliament to take steps to erect a statue of William Wallace, Scotland's national hero, outside the new Parliament building in Edinburgh.
Could we also send the petition to John Home Robertson, Linda Fabiani and Jamie Stone, who are the drivers of that project?
Yes. Is that agreed?
Roads and Pavements (Adoption by Local Authorities) (PE507)
The next petition is from Mr Dan McRae on behalf of the Menzieshill action group. The petitioners are calling for the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to review the current system for the adoption of roads and pavements by local authorities and to consider whether the system needs to be modernised.
I support that. Having been the roads and transportation spokesperson for Fife Council, I know that the problem was common. The council's budget to deal with the problem was £60,000 a year. The council divvied up that money by inviting owners and residents to make applications for 25 per cent grants towards the cost of the upgrading to an approved council standard before the road would be adopted. That would not happen in new developments, because a bond has to be laid down.
Helen Eadie referred to owners. There is a problem, which dates back some time, on unadopted roads, particularly in respect of private properties. However, in this case, we are talking about a local authority housing estate. Is that right?
Yes.
Is that common practice?
The unadopted roads are owned by the council's housing division.
That is very unusual.
We need to establish whether all the houses are still owned by the council or whether individuals have bought some of them.
Dundee City Council can make that clear in its response.
If individuals have bought properties, that would complicate matters further. People who have bought their property from the council have responsibility for the roads.
When you write to COSLA, could you find out the extent of the problem? How many such roads are there in Scotland?
We have said that we will ask whether COSLA is aware of other cases in which local authorities have experienced financial difficulties when they wanted to upgrade unadopted roads and pavements.
The situation is unusual. One of the major problems with privately owned unadopted roads is abandonment of cars and fly tipping. If that is happening on council unadopted roads, why are the councils doing nothing about it? Is it costing them extra money not to adopt those roads?
I know the petitioner, so perhaps I should declare an interest. Dan McRae is a friend of mine.
Planning Legislation (PE509)
Petition PE509 is from Mr Russell Craig and is on planning procedures. The petitioner is calling for the Parliament to take the necessary steps to change planning procedures and review the legislation affecting certain types of development such as crematoria. The petition has been prompted by the petitioner's experiences of the planning process regarding an application by the crematorium company for the erection of a crematorium car park, gardens of remembrance and off-site roadworks at land at Greenhall Estate in Blantyre.
As a former MP for Blantyre, I have been lobbied extensively about the matter, although it is no longer in my area. The petitioners dispute all the points that South Lanarkshire Council has made. We cannot intervene, as the convener has said. However, there are few public parks in Blantyre, which is a pretty depressed area. The development intends to take away part of a public park. There must be legislation that protects the public park. Could we put that into any letter that we write to the Executive? There is a real shortage of space in Blantyre. South Lanarkshire Council says that the remaining land would continue as it is, but the park is very valuable and much used. The issue is very sad.
When we write to the Executive about its position on not reforming the Cremation Act 1902, we could ask it to state its position on legislation protecting public parks.
There is legislation to protect public parks.
Is there any way in which the petitioners could get access to some legal right to challenge what is going on?
The petitioner disputes that there is a need for the crematorium. He bases his argument on statistics. There are two crematoria already. The petitioner also states that the development would affect residential properties. That has all been said already. However, we might consider the public parks aspect.
Yes, we can ask for that information.
The notes that the clerks prepared mention the environmental impact of crematoria. Did anything in the documentation that we received raise specific health concerns? I am not aware of anything, but I wondered whether there might be something in that.
A lot of the advice touched on the health aspect. That advice is available to any member who wants to see it. Of course, we can see it before we get a response back from the Executive. Is the proposed course of action agreed to?
Cape Wrath (Military Exercises) (PE510)
The next petition is from Ms Monica Ross on the Cape Wrath bombing range. The petitioner is calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive not to agree, during its consultations with the Ministry of Defence in July 2002, to the use of Cape Wrath ranges for large-scale military exercises. Apparently, a concordat exists between the Scottish Executive and the Ministry of Defence listing the areas of mutual interest about which they consult. The concordat is attached to members' papers.
I was involved in this matter when the United States Navy was first asked in, two years ago, after it had been kicked out of Puerto Rico. That was not just to do with the dreadful fact that somebody was killed following a misfiring; the navy managed to flatten a range of hills in Puerto Rico. The shell cases contained various very dangerous substances that they should not have contained.
Yes—it was referred to as an island.
For the record, I should say that Jamie Stone MSP wanted to be here to lend his support to the petition. He is unable to attend, but wanted his support to be noted. I am also asked to point out that Dorothy-Grace Elder's views on Puerto Rico and the transfer of activities to Cape Wrath have been challenged by the Ministry of Defence.
Naturally it would challenge them.
The MOD takes a different line.
I have a point to make on tourism. A military exercise is to be held off the cape in July. Tourism is not big in that part of Scotland as it is. July is the worst possible month to pick. Could the exercise not be held in some other month if the US Navy has to hold it?
We could also ask the Executive to comment on the likely impact of the exercises on the tourism industry.
And on the environment.
There is some irony in the fact that one of the ministers in the Ministry of Defence had to cancel a consultation meeting with members of the Scottish Parliament because of a lack of interest on the part of members of the Scottish Parliament. Such issues could have been discussed with the MOD then.
How do we know that? When was that?
It was just before Christmas.
What does that mean? Did we get an e-mail or something?
No. Every member of the Scottish Parliament got a glossy letter, inviting them to that consultation meeting.
If I had seen that letter, I would been at the meeting like a ferret up a drainpipe. I am convener of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament—so I would have thought that I might have been excluded.
I do not remember the letter.
Were you referring to Adam Ingram MP, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces?
Yes—Adam Ingram.
I think that I got that letter. There was also a second one.
Yes, the second letter has gone out.
The summer months are probably used because we are talking about the American navy and not the Royal Navy, which is capable of going to sea in rougher weather.
That is a very anti-American comment from someone in the Conservative party.
We must object to the use of Cape Wrath. It is a serious matter.
We have agreed the action, so we will move to current petitions.
Next
Current Petitions