Current Petitions
Allergy Clinics (PE276)
The first of the current petitions is PE276 from Lothian Allergy Support Group, which calls for the establishment of specialist NHS allergy clinics in Scotland. At our meeting on 23 October, we considered a response from the Executive and agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee and the petitioners on that response. We have received a response from the advisory committee, although members may notice that it came from the Scottish Executive health department, which administers the advisory committee.
The response refers to the fact that the Executive has made available £60,000 to each of two trusts to fund two posts—one in North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust and one in Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust—but that Lothian has been unable to take up that offer. North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust has recently been able to add another £77,000 to move the situation on.
The advisory committee examined the situation again, and has suggested that Aberdeen should be encouraged to apply for funding to establish a managed clinical network for the north of Scotland, that Lothian should be encouraged to set aside funding for the same kind of network for the south of Scotland, and that the networks should restrict tertiary referrals to complex cases only; less complex cases should be dealt with in the normal way through primary care. The advisory committee also suggested that the two managed clinical networks should pool resources and prepare a handbook or guide on the provision of immunology and allergy services in Scotland.
The petitioners responded directly to the Executive, rather than to the committee. A copy of their letter has been obtained, and copies are attached to members' papers. The petitioners want a fact sheet to be distributed to all medical practices and hospitals, listing allergy symptoms, the location of allergy clinics and details of reference material. They also commented on the need to take particular care when dealing with patients with multiple allergies, and expressed the view that new clinics should be set up in Tayside, Oban and the Borders.
We have a confused picture. On the one hand, two tranches of £60,000 were made available to trusts in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but only one of those trusts has taken up the money. We also have a suggestion from the advisory committee that other trusts could provide a north-of-Scotland service and a south-of-Scotland service, but the relevant trusts have not responded to that suggestion. Finally, the petitioners are asking that other issues be taken into consideration, such as the provision of a fact sheet and three separate clinics in Tayside, Oban and the Borders.
We can either take the view that the Executive has started to move on this issue and that no further action is required, or we can take the view that the issue has still not been resolved and that it should be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee. It is up to members.
Lothian Allergy Support Group states that there is an allergies professor at the University of London. Can we suggest that the Executive provide funds for an allergies professor? Would that be one way to get the process moving? People could take his opinion, and he could give guidance and fact sheets.
The only problem that I have with that suggestion is that we would be dealing with the petition, rather than handing it on. The subject committees deal with such issues.
But the point is that we do not have such a professor.
I sympathise with Winnie Ewing's comments, but the convener is correct too. We have not received an adequate answer. I know that there is a long list of work to be done, but the system should pay more attention to the petition. I have had an interest in the subject of the petition for some time. Steve Farrell kindly sent me a copy of a report on this matter. A lot more should be done with regard to allergies and food intolerances, because there is no doubt that they make a dramatic difference to people's lives. We should pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, even if it has to wait in a queue.
There is another alternative. We could write back to the Executive pointing out the contradictions that have emerged between the information that we have received about the tranche of funding that has been made available to Glasgow and Lothian, the recommendations of the advisory committee and the views of the petitioners. None of that seems to gel, so we could ask the Executive how it will clarify the situation.
It is encouraging that the Executive offered £60,000 to each trust immediately after the report came out, so it must be discouraging to the Executive that that offer was not taken up. Quite often, money is not taken up if it is only half what is needed for a consultant and there is not enough for a medical secretary. One wonders what on earth the trusts spent the money on, if they accepted it. Where has it gone? This is a good piece of research—
The trusts did not get the money. They would get the money only on the condition that they made other money available.
Fair enough.
Is it agreed that we write back to the Executive asking it to clarify the situation?
Members indicated agreement.
Sewerage and Industrial Waste Water Industry (PE473)
Our next petition, from Mr Brian Turner, is on the subject of airborne bacterial contamination. At our meeting on 12 March 2002, we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and East of Scotland Water. We subsequently learned, through the clerks, that we would be better writing to the Health and Safety Executive than to SEPA, because the HSE has direct responsibility for this issue. We now have responses from the Executive, East of Scotland Water and the Health and Safety Executive.
The critical thing to note, from both the Executive and East of Scotland Water, is that five claims from former employees who were based at Seafield, which relate to health problems, are before the courts. For that reason, neither the Executive nor East of Scotland Water is willing to comment on the detail of the petition. The Health and Safety Executive sets out a detailed description of its role in trying to ensure that workplaces are safe for the work force.
Given the fact that those court cases are pending, it is possible that any view that the committee expresses would be interpreted as prejudicial to them. It is suggested that we agree to defer further consideration of the petition until the courts have ruled on the cases that are before them. I do not think that we can do anything other than that. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Heavy Metal Poisoning (PE474)
The next petition, from Mr James Mackie, is on the subject of heavy metal poisoning. The petition calls for a study into the links between heavy metal poisoning and childhood illnesses. The Executive's response expresses the view that there is no compelling scientific evidence either for the contention that there is an increase in the incidences of the conditions to which the petition refers—such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—or for the implication that the alleged increase is linked to heavy metal poisoning in children. The Executive's response explains why it thinks that that is the case.
The Executive does not think that there is any value in going ahead with an inquiry at this time, because bodies are continually reviewing the use of heavy metal. It does not support the action that the petitioner proposes. We have two options. We can either agree with the Executive's argument, say that the position that it has taken is reasonable and take no further action on the petition, or we can take the view that the issues that the petition raises merit further investigation and refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee.
There was no scientific evidence for BSE. In this case, there is only no "compelling scientific evidence", but there might be some evidence. You have made the point time and again in this committee that we are at the initial stages of investigations. It would be wrong for us not to pass the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for it to make a judgment.
I do not feel qualified to say whether the Executive or the petitioners are right. I just do not know.
It seems that we are talking about old lead pipes. There is legislation about new lead pipes, but that applies only to pipes from a certain date. We cannot do much about old lead pipes.
The petition also refers to old lead paint and contaminated land.
If we want to adopt the precautionary approach, we should refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee on the basis that—I heard this saying today and you were right to point it out, convener—absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Are we agreed that we should refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Aphasia (PE475)
The next current petition, from Cecilia Yardley, is on the recognition of aphasia. The petition calls on us to recognise that aphasia is a life-disabling condition; to develop and produce accurate measures to recognise, treat and support aphasic people; to improve the quality of service that is available to aphasia sufferers; and to support service development, based on accurate measures of need and performance.
We agreed to seek the Executive's views and have now received a response. The suggested action sums up the situation pretty well when it says that, unfortunately, the Executive's response does not fully address the issues that are raised in the petition and simply gives basic details of the current position, which it clearly considers to be satisfactory.
The Executive's response does not answer the specific questions that the committee asked about the accuracy of current data that are available on aphasics, nor does it address the committee's request for an indication as to whether the Executive has any plans for research on aphasia with a view to gaining an accurate picture of the number of people who suffer from the condition and how a treatment strategy might be developed. The Executive appears to respond to questions on the quality and consistency of treatment that is provided and the accessibility of speech therapy in primary and secondary care simply by saying that those matters are the responsibility of NHS health boards.
Therefore, it is suggested that the committee may wish to agree either to write back to the Executive to express its disappointment with the response and ask the Executive to provide full answers to the questions, or to refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee. I suggest that we should agree to the first option. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning System (PE479)
The next petition is PE479, from W E Campbell, which calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to allow local communities to become more involved in the planning process.
The petition was prompted by a sand and gravel quarry development at Strathnairn, near Inverness. The petitioners believe that the initial refusal to grant planning permission for the quarry development is likely to be overturned following an appeal by the site developers and a subsequent public inquiry.
The committee agreed to seek the Executive's views. A fairly detailed response has now been received on how the current planning process works, the role of the parliamentary ombudsman in the planning process and the role of ministers and their accountability to the Parliament for their final decisions. The response also gives details of procedures that are followed in respect of development near archaeological sites. The committee has been informed that the reporters are to re-open the inquiry to consider new material evidence that has come to light since they issued their letter of intention to grant the appeal.
It is not appropriate for us to become involved in individual planning cases and the petitioners' specific concerns about the planning application for a development in their local area can be taken into account only as part of the established planning process. That process is still on-going and if any party is concerned about the decision that is finally reached, they can take it before the courts.
The Executive has made it clear that the issue of improved community involvement in the planning process was addressed in its recent "Getting Involved in Planning" consultation, the results of which will be published in the summer. It appears satisfied that the current role of the ombudsman system in planning matters is satisfactory and that the procedures for dealing with development near archaeological sites are adequate.
In the light of the Executive's response, it is suggested that the committee may wish to agree to defer a final decision on the petition until the Executive's response to its recent planning consultation is published and its proposals for improved community involvement are announced. That may take some time, but it is suggested that it would not be appropriate for any further consideration to be given to the petition while the Executive is actively considering the key issue that has been raised about the involvement of individuals in the planning process.
I agree. I read the "Getting Involved in Planning" document the other week and am disappointed about the consultation process and some of the feedback from that. I was disappointed to read that the intention appears to be to continue with the plan not to have third-party rights of appeal.
That is true. We have received lots of petitions on that issue, but PE479 is not directly about that—it is about individuals becoming involved.
This morning, I was involved in a different case at the Transport and the Environment Committee. The words "involving the public" are a bit skewed. The poor public are involved and bother to go along to inquiries umpteen times. Is not the point that one person can overturn an elected council and the views of the public? That is happening in Glasgow at the moment. Representatives of every party, councillors and community councillors, are against the cattle incinerator at Carntyne and there is a similar situation in this case. The council does not want the development and turned it down four years ago. The case went to appeal at the Scottish Office. The same system exists. One reporter from Edinburgh can make a decision that goes against every public interest. The poor public are involved, but they are beating their heads against a brick wall.
A similar situation is on-going in Aberdour in my constituency. I agree that this is an important issue.
The Executive's response to its consultation is critical. The Executive claims that it wants to improve the system so we should wait to see what improvements are suggested. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Judicial Appointments (PE485)
The final current petition, PE485, from James Duff, is on the subject of judicial appointments. Members will recall that the petition called on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that a solicitor cannot be appointed a resident sheriff in the same court in which they practised law as a solicitor.
In its response to our letter, the Executive states, fairly, that it has made good progress in approving the membership of the judicial appointments board and that it hopes to announce the membership before the end of May, although that has not happened, to the best of our knowledge. Importantly, with regard to the petition, the Executive points out that, as a general rule, no new sheriff would be offered appointment to a court where he had practised as a solicitor. If the sheriff seeks to move to such a court, there are safeguards such as consultation with the sheriff principal and the Lord President and the fact that they cannot become involved in cases in which they were actively involved as solicitors. If it is found that they have done so, that is a ground for appeal.
The Executive's response appears to have met the petitioner's requirements. I suggest that we agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioner and take no further action. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.