Good afternoon. Welcome to the third meeting in 2011 of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received no apologies for today’s meeting. I ask everyone to ensure that their mobile phones and any other electronic devices are switched off; I must switch off mine.
Transport Strategies (PE1115)
PE1115, from Caroline Moore, on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway-station Again, concerns national and regional transport strategies. I have received a note from Elizabeth Smith, which states:
This has been a well-run petition. Do we have any knowledge of when the next high-level output specifications are likely to appear? Is it sensible for us to keep the petition open until that time? Are we talking months or years?
We have no information on a timetable.
The additional papers provide some additional information, but not on a timetable. They state:
All that we have is a reference to 2014 to 2019, which is a considerable period of time.
There is no information on how soon the report will appear.
I suggest that we hold over the petition until such time as we get a definite date on which we will receive more information.
Did Elizabeth Smith mention a feasibility study?
Yes. She asked
It would certainly be tidier, if we have to close or to hand over the petition.
Does the committee agree to bring back the petition on 8 March?
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
The next petition is from Louise Robertson on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue Trust, on a ban on snares. I seek the committee’s views on how we should proceed.
It would be productive for us to write again to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to seek an update on when the research will be published. We can bring the petition back on 8 March, which is the committee’s final meeting, when we have received that update from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Hopefully, we will then be able to come to a reasonable conclusion of the petition.
Yes. We understand that the report has been completed but must still be peer reviewed. A date for its publication has not been set. Do members agree that it would be sensible for us to get back to DEFRA on the matter? The process has been under way for a long time, so it may be useful for us to express some frustration about that.
We have been waiting for the report for a long time.
Absolutely. Do we agree to continue the petition?
A92 Upgrade (PE1175)
PE1175, from Dr Robert Grant, is on the A92 upgrade. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
This is another petition on which we are awaiting information. Officials are considering the Scottish transport appraisal guidance report at this time. It would be sensible to hear what they have to say about it. Perhaps a letter would chivvy them up to produce their conclusions.
For which report are we still waiting?
It is a feasibility study.
Ah yes, we have spoken about that. Let us find out what is going to happen. Do we have any information on when the report will be forthcoming?
No, but we can ask for some.
I am not sure what difference our seeing the report will make. Transport Scotland has carried out short-term improvement works and says that any recommendations in the report will have to compete for funding alongside other priorities, even if the report recommends what the petitioner seeks. I am not entirely sure what we can do other than tell the petitioner to look at the report and that they will have to compete with everyone else. I am not sure that there is any point in our keeping the petition open.
There may or may not be a point. Some colleagues are saying that if we have the fullest information, we can come to a conclusion. The conclusion may very well be that we will have to close the petition, as Anne McLaughlin has just said. However, I do not see any harm in getting the fullest amount of information possible: that is the way in which the committee has always worked. I suspect that if we do not have that information or it is inconclusive, Anne McLaughlin may very well be right and we will have to close the petition at that point.
We could stress that because our next meeting is the last for this committee, a report or even some interim feedback would be helpful. That might enable us to make a decision on whether to close the petition.
I am not going to cause a big stushie over it; I am just not entirely sure what we as a committee will do if the report says, “Yes, they should” or “No, they shouldn’t”. I am happy to go along with everyone else if they want to keep the petition open.
Okay. We will get the report to the committee by the next meeting if it is available, and we will take it from there.
Succession Law (PE1210)
PE1210, from I Chambers, is on beneficiaries under succession law. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with it.
I do not know what else the committee can do in a practical fashion on this one, so we are left with no option but to close it.
Do members agree that the petition should be closed?
Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1254)
PE1254, by Mark Laidlaw, seeks to amend section 51 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
I noticed that the Government said that it was willing to consider the legislation as part of its overall review. It might be worth writing to the Government to ask it to state that rather than just being willing to consider the legislation, it will actually amend it.
Yes. There is also the possibility of adding the petition to our legacy paper. The option is that we continue the petition. Is that agreed by the committee?
Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1263)
PE1263, by Evelyn Mundell, on behalf of Ben Mundell, is on human rights for dairy farmers. Jamie McGrigor MSP is here.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short statement in support of my constituents Mr and Mrs Mundell. I share their concerns and disappointment that the Scottish Government has failed to answer adequately the questions that the committee has put to it.
Jamie McGrigor makes fair points. I am trying to think where we can go from here, given that we have just one meeting left. Could we recommend in our legacy paper that the future committee should invite the cabinet secretary along? I am not sure where we stand on that—perhaps the clerk can help.
If the committee decides to make that suggestion, it can be part of the legacy arrangements for the session 4 committee, which might want to consider inviting the cabinet secretary to give evidence. It would be up to that committee to decide what action—if any—it took on the petition. Procedurally, the committee could leave the petition under the legacy arrangements.
If we kept the petition open and wanted to invite the cabinet secretary along, the only alternative would be to invite him to our next meeting. Given diary commitments, his attendance might not be feasible.
After today, the committee has three meetings—on 22 February and on 1 and 8 March. If the committee wanted to invite the cabinet secretary to give evidence, we could check his availability and timetable in his evidence.
We have not clarified the human rights issue and whether the Government had advice on that.
I was going to make that point. The additional correspondence that we received today—the communication between Peter Peacock and Mr and Mrs Mundell—asks whether ministers ever received legal advice on the human rights issue. I am sure that I read in the papers that qualified officials were conversant with the matter. I suggest that we clarify whether ministers received such advice and, if so, that we ask them to share it with us. They would be unlikely to share all the information with us, but whether they sought advice would be useful to know before we decide what to do with the petition.
A question of timing might be involved. Do you suggest that we should obtain a further response before deciding whether to invite the minister, or do you think that the actions are not mutually exclusive?
If we invited the minister to give evidence, he would know that we wanted to ask him the legal advice question, so he should be conversant with the issue and have an answer.
I agree with both my colleagues. We can continue the petition by making a suggestion to our successor committee, but we should also have the minister in front of the committee to ask him one or two pertinent questions, if the timetable allows for that. That is only fair.
I notice that we are putting off many things until 8 March. Is it being suggested that we should leave the matter for a legacy paper and also bring in the minister for an evidence session during one of our final two meetings?
I think that it has been suggested that we should ask the minister to come along to the committee and attempt to clarify some matters. There may or may not be a resolution that the committee can progress; we do not know whether there is.
Okay, but given that we do not have much time, could we not just write to the minister and get clarification rather than bring him in? With the best will in the world, when we bring people in—particularly politicians—the consideration tends to last much longer than it needs to, as everybody wants to ask them questions and people like to repeat themselves. Would not it be better just to write to the minister and ask for a response before our final meeting?
I am in the hands of the committee.
Heaven forfend that a politician should be accused of being verbose.
I agree with most members that we need to pursue the matter further, but I respectfully suggest that, if the petition is to be included in our legacy paper for the committee in the fourth session, rather than asking the minister to give evidence to this committee prior to dissolution, it may be better for the new committee to interrogate the minister on the issues that this committee has identified. We would get one opportunity to interrogate the minister before the Parliament dissolves. A new committee will be formed after 5 May, and I would prefer it to pick up on the work that has been done on the petition and to have the opportunity to interrogate whoever the minister is on the advice that was given to the Government when decisions were made on the issue. If we interrogate the minister, we will get some responses, but the question is how we can then fit things into a legacy paper and allow the new committee to take the petition forward.
I think that the intention was that bringing the minister to the committee might mean that we would not have to include the petition in a legacy paper. It seems to me that the petition is one of those in respect of which there may or may not be a resolution. At the moment, we are trying to get the clarification that we have not yet been able to get, specifically on human rights issues. However, as I have said, I am in the hands of the committee.
I will make two points.
We have had two specific proposals. One is that we should ask the minister for some answers and the other is that the petition should become part of our legacy paper.
The problem is the timescale. If we could get appropriate answers during the current committee’s existence, that would be fine. However, we might get a more thorough response if we put the petition in the legacy paper. I am open to suggestions.
My concern is that if the committee in the next parliamentary session asks the questions, that does not mean that it will necessarily get different answers. I do not know whether there are any other answers to be had. I do not know how many letters have gone back and forth on the petition, but there is a considerable number of them.
I believe that we have three options before us. The first is to leave the petition to our successor committee and make a recommendation in the legacy paper. The second is to write to the minister with questions. The third is to invite the minister to come to the committee for an oral evidence session.
One point to keep in mind is that we do not know who will be the minister during the next parliamentary session.
Yes, but we know who will be the minister at our next meeting. You are quite right to say that we do not know what the electorate is going to decide on the first Thursday in May, but whatever information we can get from the current minister, whether in written form or from an oral evidence session—or both—that will inform the deliberations of our successor committee. That would be useful and helpful to that committee.
We seem to be presupposing that we will not close the petition before the next parliamentary session if we follow all three of Mr Butler’s suggestions. If we get a written response from the minister, he agrees to come before the committee and we get conclusive answers from him, the petition might not form part of the legacy paper and we could close it on 1 or 8 March. Even if we get a written response, we may have the opportunity to discuss the petition fully if the minister is available to come to the committee. My concern is whether we will have an opportunity to examine the petition fully if we have a ministerial evidence session on 1 or 8 March.
That is up to the committee. If we think that such an evidence session is sufficiently important, we will make time for it.
There is a fourth issue for the committee to take into account: our timetable and the number of petitions that we are trying to cover on 1 and 8 March. We have set ourselves a timetable to try to clear up as much of the backlog of petitions as possible. Today, we have continued two petitions that had been recommended for closure. We have to consider whether or not we have an opportunity to fully examine—I repeat fully examine—the minister on this matter within the committee’s remaining meetings this session.
When suggestions are being made about what happens with petitions, it is incumbent on us all to consider seriously whether we will be able to give them adequate time. However, if we take a decision to bring petitions back, the committee has a responsibility to make adequate time to discuss them.
I am having a look at the forward planner that clerks use. The way I saw things happening, petitions coming out of today’s meeting would roll forward to 1 March, and petitions coming out of the next meeting, on 22 February, would roll forward to 8 March if possible. However, that is an extremely tight timetable for getting responses from organisations to any questions that you have.
There is another petition in relation to which it would be good to hear from the minister. I had decided not to suggest it because of the committee’s timetable and other members might have been thinking the same thing. I now feel a bit more strongly about this other matter, so I possibly will make the suggestion. We need to be aware of how much time we have and of doing justice to particular petitions. John Wilson was asking whether we can do the matter justice. Would the next Public Petitions Committee not be best placed to give it the full attention that it deserves? That is what I had been thinking about the other petition to which I have alluded.
The committee has to do justice to every single petition that comes before us. We have to treat all of them equally.
The questions will be on whether human rights issues have been considered—what about other issues that should be asked of the Government?
Mr McGrigor was making the point about the ring fencing of the quota, and why it applies only in the area concerned.
Yes—there is the issue of the geographical anomaly.
The point is that many people in this particular area were disadvantaged unfairly. It is a human rights issue. In response to Mr Don, I know that other dairy farmers have contacted the Public Petitions Committee, but at this point in time only 20 per cent of those farmers are supplying milk. I venture to suggest that the idea was not very good in the first place and that, as a result, a lot of people have gone down the tubes.
So we should write to the Government, asking, first, whether human rights have been breached and what advice it received on the matter and, secondly, about the unfairness of ring fencing.
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Safe Guardian Law (PE1294)
PE1294, by Allan Petrie, is on safe guardian law. I seek members’ views on how to deal with this petition.
Given that the Scottish Government has confirmed that the current law provides for family members to take care of children who might be at risk; given that new guidance on looked-after children has been issued; given that, despite a “favourable” report on the protection of children published in 2009 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, the Government has stated that there is no room for complacency; and given that, under the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, kinship carers are recognised as a separate category, I think that we can safely close the petition.
Are members agreed?
Low-dose Naltrexone (PE1296)
PE1296, by Robert Thomson, on behalf of LDN Now is on national health service availability of low-dose naltrexone.
This is the petition that I mentioned earlier. I know that the committee has facilitated a meeting involving the petitioners, the chief pharmaceutical officer and the deputy chief medical officer, which, from the note we have received, seems to have been fairly positive. However, we asked the Scottish Government whether it could put the petitioners in touch with researchers who might be interested in LDN research, but all it seems to have said is that that should happen without giving any advice, guidance, support or contacts to go on. As the petitioners have pointed out, most of the people involved are quite sick and all that they are looking for is a change in the approach to such matters.
I note that the Scottish Government’s health services research committee has received an outline application for a research project into the use of LDN, but no full application has yet been submitted. The Government has contacted the individual concerned to ask where matters stand. In a sense, the door is not closed to possible Government support for a research project on LDN. However, we need to know what stage the process is at. Time might be against us.
That is what I was referring to. The Government spoke to the doctor who sent in the outline application and assured him that he could use a partner from anywhere in Scotland, and he now thinks that he might have one. However, the point that the petitioners are making is about more than just LDN; it is about medical research as a whole, the motivation for carrying out such research and the barriers to it. One barrier was that the doctor had to get an academic partner. The petitioners are saying that if GPs, patients and patient groups believe that there is clinical evidence, there must be a way of enabling research to be carried out without having to depend on the big pharmaceutical companies, which might have no interest in doing such research.
I assume that that is where the Government’s health services research committee comes in, but it would be interesting to clarify that. I ask the clerk to clarify how wide the terms of the petition are.
The petition is specific to LDN, although I hear what Anne McLaughlin says. It talks about making LDN
The new evidence that Anne McLaughlin has mentioned should allow us to continue the petition so that we get updated information. I accept Fergus Cochrane’s point about straying into a wider remit than the petition allows. However, new information has arisen so, before we close the petition, we should look at all aspects that are worthy of consideration.
I ask Anne McLaughlin to clarify her suggestion. Is it that we should ask the minister about the matter in person?
This is the petition that I was referring to earlier, when I said that I would like to invite a minister to appear before the committee to answer some questions on certain issues. I would like to know what would stop research being done. I do not think that this Government or the previous Executive would have any difficulty with the principle of enabling research regardless of whether it is profitable for pharmaceutical companies.
It certainly raises huge issues, which other people have come up against in respect of drug therapies that they have found helpful.
That would be ideal, but I am aware that we do not have a lot of time and that there are many other petitions to deal with.
It depends on the priority that the committee wants to give the issue.
I think that it would be helpful to talk to the cabinet secretary about the issue as it would enable us to include some useful evidence in our legacy paper. The petition has raised wider issues that will become more important in the coming years, as the financial cuts dig in.
Anne McLaughlin is right. We should try to fit in a brief oral evidence session that we can use to inform the deliberations of our successor committee.
Currently, seven petitions are scheduled to be discussed on 1 March. As I said, our intention was to include anything that comes out of today’s meeting in that meeting. You have an oral evidence-taking session with the commissioners on PE1351 and, possibly, two sessions with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. It is entirely a decision for the committee if it wants to have three evidence sessions. In the past, you have allocated time slots in which each petition can be dealt with.
That is a sensible suggestion. Indeed, it might well be better to speak to them than to a minister, but I would not presume to know whether that is the case.
Do we agree to follow the suggested course of action?
Myoclonic Dystonia (Care Standards) (PE1299)
The next petition, by Geraldine MacDonald, concerns services for myoclonic dystonia sufferers.
The situation with regard to this petition is in contrast to the situation with the previous petition. We have done what the petitioner asked for and the petitioner has written to us to say that she recognises the launch of the neurological implementation and improvement support plan, notes that the national advisory group is in place and welcomes the provision of funding.
The issue will be monitored by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. Are members happy to close the petition?
Planning Circular 3/2009 (PE1320)
PE1320, by Douglas McKenzie on behalf of Communities Against Airfield Open Cast, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend planning circular 3/2009. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
I declare an interest. I have been involved in the airfield issue.
With the committee’s forbearance, I will add to what Robin Harper has said. The issue affected people in my constituency and in East Lothian, and Robin Harper was involved as a regional member. The issue has been problematic and the Royal Town Planning Institute has recognised the issue of competing interests when a planning application is made for a development that is virtually on the border of another local authority.
Dance (Schools and Colleges) (PE1322)
PE1322, by Jacqueline Campbell, on behalf of the residential provision parents group, is about dance teaching and coaching in schools and colleges. I seek members’ views on how we deal with the petition.
As members will recall, the Dance School of Scotland is located in my constituency, Glasgow Anniesland. I have been heartened by recent developments on the future of residential provision in relation to the school, and I put on record my approval of Glasgow City Council’s clearly stated intention to continue to lease Dalrymple hall from the University of Glasgow in the school year 2011-12. The clarity is helpful, because it gives the council time to work as closely as possible with parents and students to develop a viable, long-term alternative to Dalrymple hall for future years.
I have had on-going contact with the parents of some students at the school. It is true that the council has said that it will build new accommodation. However, in terms of adequate accommodation, a problem has emerged since the announcement last week of the £224,000. At a meeting in December, the parents were told that there would be 80 rooms. We should bear it in mind that the argument about whether it is a national dance school is partly based on the number of children who can be resident. If the number of children who can be accommodated is sliced, children from around Scotland will not be able to come, which will mean that the school will no longer be a national one.
Okay. The proposal is to suspend the petition and to leave it for the next committee. Are members happy with that?
Like Anne McLaughlin, I accept that there are real apprehensions out there, but I am convinced that the way to progress the matter is for everybody involved—all stakeholders, to use the jargon—to realise that, metaphorically, they all have a stake in it, to work together to address concerns and to overcome considerable challenges. I fully accept that the Government has given a welcome indication of its support, with £224,000. Although that falls short of what the council asked for, I welcome it and I think the council does, too.
Anne, do you want to come in again?
Yes. There has been a lack of clarity. We have been told, “We applied for this amount but we got only this amount,” but it turns out that that was not quite the case. People were told that there would be a certain number of rooms, but that has changed. The petition is based on the school being a national dance school and having enough accommodation for children from around Scotland. Would it be worth writing to Glasgow City Council and asking it what it will do now? It talked about 80 rooms, then 60 rooms, then it said, “We don’t know. We might give rooms to Douglas academy.” Would it be worth writing and asking what the story is?
I have absolutely no problem with that. This issue has gone on for a couple of years. I was in close contact with parents up until October or November of last year, when they consulted other folk. That is fair play—it is all right. They have now got back in touch with me, because they have apprehensions. I have been in close touch with the council.
So is the committee agreed that we will write to the council and get an update from it about its commitment to the national school?
With your indulgence, convener, we should ask about adequate residential accommodation.
Okay. We will seek some clarification about that, and we will recommend that the petition be suspended so that the future Public Petitions Committee can take it up.
We can bring the petition back on 8 March.
We will bring the petition back on 8 March. Is that agreed?
Emergency Services (Rural Patients) (PE1327)
The next petition is by Maria Murray, on behalf of Asthma Support in Rural Scotland on helping the emergency services to save the lives of at-risk rural patients. I seek members’ view on how to deal with the petition.
I do not think that we can take the petition any further. It has been pretty well researched and the best option is closing the petition.
John Farquhar Munro has suggested that we close the petition.
It is difficult to see what more the committee can do. I have phenomenal sympathy for Maria Murray. I have met the lady on more than one occasion and she has put a huge amount of personal effort into getting as far as she has got. She is quite close to rolling out the idea across Scotland, and that has been achieved by her sheer hard work with very little support from anyone else. Of course, the fire service and some parts of the Scottish Ambulance Service have been supportive.
Is the committee agreed that it does not think that it can take the petition any further forward at the moment, in light of what the Government has said?
At this stage, I welcome Constance Kilimo, from the National Assembly of Malawi, to the Public Petitions Committee.
Gypsy Travellers (Council Tax) (PE1333)
The next petition is by Shamus McPhee, on behalf of the Scottish Gypsy Traveller Law Reform Coalition, on disadvantaged Scottish Gypsy Travellers and members of the settled community. How should we deal with the petition?
I recommend that we continue the petition. Although the Scottish Government has made some positive moves by proposing to carry out a review later this year, a number of questions still have to be asked. I welcome the fact that the Government’s response tries to identify some areas that the review will consider, but there are still areas of concern. The Government has not indicated that it is going to consider the council tax bands for Gypsy Travellers, nor has it suggested that it is going to look at the water and sewerage charges.
Are there any other views?
I endorse what John Wilson said. I do not think that we have got to the bottom of the issue. Falling back on what the law has been for a while is fair enough when one is answering the question, but it is not altogether fair enough in the political world. We need to ask whether this really is the right way to be doing things now.
Is it agreed that the petition will be continued, and that information will be sought on the terms that John Wilson has suggested?
Wild Salmon and Sea Trout (Protection) (PE1336)
PE1336, from Lawson Devery, on behalf of the Salmon and Trout Association, is on saving our west Highland wild salmon and sea trout. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
I recommend very strongly that the petition be suspended and put on the legacy paper for the next committee to consider.
I endorse Robin Harper’s comments. We do not seem to have worked out how to get information from commercial organisations. It is a real problem that we need to crack. After all, the Government has to publish data, but commercial organisations do not want to publish data. There is no point, though, in trying to do anything with the petition now. To be perfectly honest, I think that we have got all that we are going to get from the Government in this session, and I tend towards what I think was Robin Harper’s view that we hold on to the petition and suggest to our successors that they refer it to the appropriate subject committee in the next parliamentary session. It certainly raises a number of underlying issues that will have to be addressed in the longer term.
Is that agreed?
Public Bodies (Accountability) (PE1337)
PE1337, by James Campbell, is on public body accountability to third parties in the private sector. I seek members’ views.
It would be worth asking the Scottish Government to respond to a number of points that the petitioner has raised in his latest correspondence. He also asks three questions, one of which is:
I agree. As the petitioner has put a phenomenal amount of work into these issues and deserves answers to his questions, I recommend that we ask them of the Government.
Are members agreed?
Young Homeless People (Quarriers Charter) (PE1356)
PE1356, by Rebecca Docherty, is on supporting our charter—the Quarriers charter for young homeless people. How should we deal with this petition?
I do not think that there is more that the Public Petitions Committee can usefully do. The Government provided local authorities with a funding package that led to the creation of five regional housing options hubs that were designed to share examples of good practice and common areas of positive development in homeless prevention. In addition, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 imposes a duty on local authorities to provide wider support to households who have been made homeless or have been threatened with homelessness. The committee has done all that it can, and I suggest that we close the petition.
The petitioners have suggested that we ask the Scottish Government to ask local authorities whether they are adhering to statutory guidance and, if so, which. I assume from that that the young people in question do not think that all of them are. Can we close the petition but write to the Government with that suggestion?
There is nothing to stop you doing that, but there would be no facility for the Scottish Government to report back.
We could suggest that it respond directly to the petitioner.
That could certainly happen. The committee would not need to facilitate that.
I have two points. First, it would be appropriate for us to commend Quarriers for the work that it has been doing for young people and children. Secondly, following on from Anne McLaughlin’s remarks, we might like to recommend to our future Government that, if it enters into outcome agreements, it robustly pursue them, including agreements on regional housing options.
The Scottish Government’s response seems to be that everything in the garden is rosy and that all the guidance has been followed. However, the young people are wiser than that and have asked pertinent questions. The Government can say that everything is happening, but the question is whether local authorities are delivering on the ground. I support the suggestion that we write to the Government and contact the petitioners to say that we are closing the petition but give them encouragement to continue to monitor the situation.
At the risk of repeating myself, and without disagreeing with what my colleagues have said, I point out that we are not a national audit committee for everything that comes through to us. We must stop at some point and say, “We’ve done our bit. It is up to other people to do their statutory bits.”
It may be worth while contacting the Government to ask how it intends to monitor how local authorities are taking forward this work.
That is fair, so long as the Government understand that it is its job to do that, not ours.
So where does that leave us? We have a proposal that the petition be closed but that we seek further information from the Government on how this work will be taken forward. The information would not come back to this committee; it would go to the petitioners.
We could just pass the petitioners’ suggestion to the Government and suggest that it respond to the petitioners.
I am not sure whether Robin Harper was suggesting that we contact the petitioners about the work that they have done. Can you just remind me, Robin?
I just suggested that we close the petition.
Okay. The petition will be closed and a letter will be sent to the Government asking how local authorities’ work in this regard will be monitored and for it to communicate that information to the petitioners.
Access to Justice (Environment) (PE1372)
PE1372, by Duncan McLaren on behalf of Friends of the Earth Scotland, is on access to justice in environmental matters. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
A number of interesting judgments are going through the Scottish courts at the moment on the Aarhus convention, so I suggest that we continue the petition.
It is an interesting petition and I agree that we should continue it. The petitioners made a lot of sensible points in their submission. I suggest that we continue the petition by asking the Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to send us a response to the petitioners’ points. I am not sure what timescale we have for continuing the petition, but we should not let go of it.
Do members agree to continue the petition?
Kangaroo Meat (Ban) (PE1375)
PE1375, by Philip Woolley and Collette Campbell on behalf of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, is on banning kangaroo meat and products from Scotland. I seek members’ views on how to deal with the petition.
Irrespective of the very real concerns of the petitioners, it is clear that the banning of the importation of kangaroo meat or other kangaroo products into Scotland or the European Union on animal welfare grounds would be illegal under World Trade Organisation rules. We may not like those rules, but we are signed up to them. The Government has made it perfectly clear to us that it has no powers whatsoever to ban the importation of kangaroo meat or kangaroo products. Sadly for the petitioners, I feel that that answers the petition, and that there is nothing more that we can do.
Is that agreed?
The petition is closed.
Free Methanol (Ban) (PE1376)
PE1376, by James McDonald, is on banning the presence of free methanol in all manufactured products in our diets. What are members’ views on how to deal with the petition?
We could usefully write to ask the Scottish Government whether it will run an awareness campaign among health professionals to alert them to the presence of free methanol in our diets. We could also ask it to substantiate its response to the petition and to elaborate on the basis for its answer of “No” on 5 January 2011.
For the record, NHS Highland’s response is interesting. It says that it
I suggest that we write to ask the Food Standards Agency to respond to the issues that the petitioner has raised. I particularly like the petitioner’s point about the “curtness” of Mr Millan’s response. The petitioner also says:
So we agree to continue the petition.
I studied some chemistry once upon a time—I sometimes wonder how far back that was. Having read the papers, I am still confused about the significance in our bodies of what is described as “free methanol”. Some of the biological pathways that are referred to do not seem to relate to free methanol. Could one of the bodies—pardon the pun; I mean organisations—to which we are writing address the chemical issue that is being spoken about? I have no idea who is right and I do not know whether those words are even appropriate, but people might be talking at cross-purposes and I would like to understand that.
We will ask for clarification of that issue in the letters to the Government and the Food Standards Agency.
The petition will be continued.
Community Council Reform (PE1377)
PE1377, by Jack Turner and John Paterson, is on the reform of community council laws and procedures. What are members’ views on how to deal with the petition?
I do not think that the committee can usefully do anything more. The Scottish Government has submitted a detailed response to the petitioners’ points. It has set out the work that has been undertaken since 2005 to develop community councils’ capacity, capability and accountability.
Is that agreed by the committee?
We have a letter from Angela Constance, the MSP for the petitioners. She has made two suggestions. She writes:
Is it agreed by the committee that in closing the petition we will ask for such a meeting to take place?
Silicone Breast Implants (PE1378)
Our last petition is PE1378, by Mairi Johnston, on silicone breast implants and rupture awareness. Rhoda Grant is at the committee, and I invite her to say a few words on the petition.
Mairi Johnston is a constituent of mine, and she has come to see me regarding this matter on a number of occasions. From what I can tell, the committee has been given various thoughts on the issue. It is clear that medical devices do not face the same rigorous testing as medicines; it is also clear that Mairi Johnston has suffered really poor health because of the silicone that is within her system. She is not alone in that. Just because there appears to be no science to back it up, she is having to pay for treatment to alleviate her symptoms, whereas others would receive such treatment free on the NHS.
I seek views from committee members. We asked the question:
The Scottish Government has stated that it has no plans to raise the matter with the UK Government. I do not think that there is anything stopping the committee from raising the issue directly with the UK Government and finding out whether it has any plans to ban the use of silicone implants, or even just to have a campaign to raise the issues in the minds of anybody who has had such an implant and in those of women generally. I suggest that we write to the appropriate UK Government minister, asking whether there are any plans in that regard.
Do we have any knowledge of the timescale according to which the Scottish Government is preparing to consult on a proposal to change the time bar for medical injury claims from three years to five years? If that is going out to consultation, is it soon? Do we know?
Do we have any information on that?
We were told that it would be in the near future.
We could clarify that. Is it the committee’s view that there is more work to be done on the petition?
Convener, you raised the question of the Scottish Government saying that no information was held centrally on the number of incidents of ruptured silicone breast implants. It may be worth asking why the Scottish Government feels that it is not necessary to record the information centrally, whether it is aware of whether local health boards collect the information and, if health boards collect it, why the Government cannot collate it and create a national statistic for ruptures.
I agree with that. Mairi Johnston told me that she had numerous visits to her GP before she was referred to a plastic surgeon. I think that the patient pathway says that someone with a ruptured implant should see a plastic surgeon immediately.
The other issue that has been raised by Rhoda Grant’s question is whether the information that the local health boards gather, which we want the Scottish Government to gather, concerns cases in which an additional operation has taken place. The NHS used to carry out silicone implants in its own right, but a number of the issues have been raised by people who went to the private sector to have the initial implant and then had to rely on the NHS to deal with the aftermath of effects that the implant had.
That is useful. Perhaps the Government should also review what advice and guidance on the possible issues people are given before they have implants inserted into them. Mairi Johnston says in her petition that she had the implant without fully realising the risks that she was running.
I speak from personal experience when I say that it is really important that somebody sits down and takes time with the patient when they are faced with having a breast replacement or breast surgery, because it is a time of extreme distress for them. My recollection is that there was not a huge amount of that. At the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, I had the benefit of a breast cancer nurse sitting down with me and going through the various options, but that was more than 10 years ago and I do not know whether that service is available at all centres in Scotland.
It is significant that, as Rhoda Grant pointed out, implant surgery is banned in some of the major countries. There must be a justifiable reason for that blanket ban.
It may be worth finding out whether there is guidance from the World Health Organization and what other international health regulation and advice there is on the matter.
Previous
Attendance