Current Petitions
Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE841)
Our first current petition is PE841, which was submitted by the Curran family. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to make provision for a mandatory inquiry in the case of a road death that is caused by careless drivers.
At its meeting on 11 May, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Law Commission, the Lord Advocate, the Minister for Justice and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Responses from all of them have now been received and have been circulated to members. The position of the Scottish Law Commission in relation to the 1976 act is set out in its response to PE767, which is on the same subject. Further correspondence has been received from Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, which has been circulated to members.
I have received a substantial number of letters in support of the petition from other families that have suffered bereavement in similar circumstances to those of the Curran family. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who have taken the time to write to the committee on the issue, and I offer my sympathy to the individuals and families concerned.
Petition PE767 is also on our agenda as it, too, deals with the 1976 act. Are members content that we link the two petitions together?
I do not think that we would do either of the petitions justice if we were to link them. Although both are on the subject of FAIs, they deal with quite different aspects. Out of fairness to both sets of petitioners, we should keep them separate.
That is fine. I will follow your advice on that.
Do members have any comments on PE841? The local MSP, Elaine Smith, is unavailable due to ill health, but she has sent a letter that has been circulated to members. She has offered her support for the Curran family and for the petition. Tom Clarke, the local MP, has also indicated his support for the issue.
I welcome the response that we have received from the Lord Advocate. In essence, it contains an admission that the matter could have been handled much better and more sympathetically. I am pleased that he has made that clear. It is absolutely vital that such matters are handled sympathetically. If that has not happened, it is a great shame; however, if the situation can be rectified in the future, that is progress. In such dreadful situations, it is important that matters are handled sympathetically.
I concur with John Scott's comments. It is helpful that there has been an acknowledgement that the procurator fiscal did not do everything that they could have done in the circumstances. That said, the responses from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate essentially say that they think that the current flexibility is sufficient. The letter from Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers puts a different view. Before we make any decisions about the petition—and to facilitate our hearing the views of the local MSP, who is ill—I would like to hear from the petitioners. Can we send the responses that we have received to them for their comments before we make any decisions?
Yes, I suggest that we do that. Alex Neil has something to add.
I have two or three points to make, convener. Thank you for allowing me to participate in the meeting, along with other members. It is fair to say that there is wide cross-party support for the petition among MSPs. Although we recognise that the law covering dangerous and careless driving is not a devolved responsibility, a change or a toughening up in the law on careless and dangerous driving is a desirable aim, and it is the aim of the campaign.
Elaine Smith sums up the situation when she says in her letter to you:
"This is an inevitable by-product of a justice system which puts the onus on the prosecutor to prove guilt. When sufficient evidence cannot be found procurator fiscals often face the frustrating task of pursuing a lesser charge."
That is why a mandatory FAI is required in such cases. I accept the apology from the Lord Advocate and the admission that the procurator fiscal did not handle the matter in the most professional way. However, frankly, I do not think that that goes anything like far enough, in policy terms, towards addressing the need for a change in the law.
My colleagues and I will speak up with the firm view that, at the least, the Scottish Parliament should give the petitioners' request serious consideration. In my opinion, the Parliament should implement in legislation the suggestion contained in the petition.
Other MSPs are here, but, before I come to them, I will offer other committee members, who have read all the correspondence, the opportunity to comment.
We gave our comments when the matter was discussed previously. As Alex Neil said, Elaine Smith's letter explains the issues. We should consider some form of legislation on the issue. I cannot propose such legislation, but I hope that the Executive will take the issue on board.
As Jackie Baillie said, it would be interesting to find out what the petitioners feel about the correspondence, so I would be happy if we sent it to them before we progress the matter further. However, there should be legislation on the issue.
I will take brief comments from Donald Gorrie and Linda Fabiani before we conclude our discussion.
I appreciate being allowed to comment, convener. The committee should bear it in mind that the petitioners' case is one of a series of distressing cases of the same sort, which all seem to me to arise from the plea bargaining issue. As the part of Elaine Smith's letter that Alex Neil read out states, the problem arises because the person who has done the bad driving is accused of only careless driving. As I understand it, the result is that the fact that somebody has died in the incident cannot even be mentioned and the person who has done the bad driving, apart from giving their name and address, says nothing to the court at all—the case is just swept through. Naturally, the family of the person who has been killed feel aggrieved.
I accept that procurators fiscal have problems, but from what I have been told, it seems that the police and the prosecutors are remarkably feeble in pursuing some cases. For example, they say that they cannot give the specific speed of the vehicle that is at fault. I would have thought that any competent person in the police or the prosecution service would have a fair idea from the degree of scrunched-upness of the damaged car of the speed at which the car that hit it was going. In this case, the car that was hit was stationary and in a queue of traffic.
The committee should either urge the Parliament to pursue the request in the petition, or, at the very least, press the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice to take the issue about people being charged with careless driving much more seriously.
I agree with everything that has been said. I am sure that the petitioners would welcome the opportunity to respond to the letters that the committee has received from the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice, about which I have a couple of points.
First, the letter from the Minister for Justice states that there is no breach of the requirement under article 13 of the European convention on human rights. Could the committee ask the minister to amplify that comment, expand on her reasoning and say what evidence there is for that conclusion?
Secondly, as has been said, the law in England and Wales is different—that is as it should be and is perfectly understandable. However, the Lord Advocate's letter states that
"comparisons with the situation in England and Wales are … unhelpful",
but then notes something about the situation in England and Wales that is helpful to the Executive's position. That is a bit inconsiderate—that particular element of his letter should be disregarded.
I am not saying that that part should be disregarded, but it baffled me. I read the minister and the Lord Advocate's letters. The minister makes the point that the Department for Transport report into coroners' inquests in England and Wales
"found that the process often gave little comfort to families and can give rise to expectations which cannot be fulfilled."
The minister
"cannot see the case for following an English model which has caused those difficulties."
However, the petitioners clearly said that the difficulty was that they could not even get to the position in which an FAI may or may not let them down. I do not follow the logic of that argument.
The Lord Advocate's letter states:
"even where FAI's have been held, many families still feel aggrieved that the process has in some way ‘let them down'."
Giving the family the opportunity to hear the evidence in an FAI would give them something that otherwise would be missed. In the petition, the family asked for recognition that their daughter was a victim, and an FAI would at least provide that—whether or not a family is satisfied with the outcome, it would be recognised that their loved one had died in an accident. If nothing else, that would deal with one aspect of the petition. The minister and the Lord Advocate missed that and I would like that illogicality to be addressed.
The minister's response mentions coroners' inquests giving "little comfort to families". That was not the point of the petition. Families might be looking for justice rather than comfort, and they need an FAI to get justice.
As Linda Fabiani mentioned, the minister does not think that the current law is in breach of article 13 of the European convention on human rights. I would like the minister to explain why she thinks that, rather than simply stating it.
Everybody has had the opportunity to comment on the responses that we have received, but the petitioners are the important people from whom we need to hear. It has been suggested that we should send all the information that we have collected to the Curran family and await their response to the points that have been made. We will address the matter again when the petition comes back to us at a future committee meeting and keep the petition open until we get a chance to do so.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)
PE767, in the name of Norman Dunning, on behalf of Enable, is also on the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation and effectiveness of that act.
At its meeting on 2 March 2005, the committee considered responses from the Lord Advocate, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Minister for Justice. The committee agreed to write again to the Minister for Justice to invite her views on whether it would be useful to conduct research into whether the fatal accident inquiry system is operating satisfactorily.
A response has been received from the Minister for Justice, which has been circulated to members. Do members have views on it?
I apologise in advance: after I have commented, I will leave, taking Helen Eadie with me. For my sins, I have a site visit for the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee.
The minister's letter is helpful on two counts. First, she states:
"The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been reviewing their practice and procedure … and will be issuing new guidance and training to procurators fiscal."
Secondly, she is exploring
"the possibility of setting up a system for recording recommendations centrally"
and ensuring that the implementation of those recommendations is monitored.
I would like the committee to keep the petition open for two reasons. First, we should receive a copy of the guidance that is issued so that we can ensure that it covers the points that the petitioner has raised. Secondly, the proposal to consider a central monitoring of recommendations is to be welcomed and the minister said that she would write to us on that matter. I suggest that we welcome the minister's response and keep the petition open.
Do members concur with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I hope that Jackie Bailie and Helen Eadie enjoy their visit.
NHS Scotland (National Specialist Services) (PE791)
PE791, from Brian McAlorum, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the criteria and funding mechanisms for national specialist services that are provided to NHS Scotland by individual health boards, as currently they are neither transparent nor effective, as witnessed by the situation that has arisen with regard to the centre for integrative care at Glasgow homeopathic hospital.
At its meeting on 28 June 2005, the committee considered responses from the Minister for Health and Community Care and NHS National Services Scotland and agreed to approach NHS Greater Glasgow to express concern at its lack of response. The committee also agreed to seek the views of the chief medical officer.
A response has now been received from NHS Greater Glasgow, which has been circulated to members. Do members have any views?
I appreciate your allowing me to comment on the petition, convener.
If members have read Greater Glasgow NHS Board's reply, they will know that there is a great deal of satisfaction that the campaign to save the hospital has been successful. However, the matter still raises the general policy issue of the criteria for designation as a national specialist service.
In his letter, Mr Divers makes the point that 85 per cent of the patients who use the homoeopathic hospital in Glasgow are from west-central Scotland. However, we do not know whether that is because only people from west-central Scotland have access to the hospital and the rest of the population does not, or because such services are also available elsewhere in Scotland. My information is that such services are not available elsewhere in Scotland. The fact that 85 per cent of patients are from west-central Scotland does not justify the existing criteria. The criteria for designating national specialist services units need to be reviewed to see whether they are appropriate.
Mr Divers does not mention the fairly significant capping of funding for the hospital that has taken place since May. It is fine to say that we will keep the hospital open, but if it is not to be properly funded, the situation will become difficult and potentially unsustainable in the long term.
A number of issues remain to be resolved. The main one is the policy issue of what the criteria should be. There is a need to review the criteria to see whether they meet the needs of a modern health service in Scotland.
Alex Neil may have a point. It had been my intention to propose that we should close the petition, but we might wish to write to the Executive again to ask whether it is content with the current criteria. I do not know what other committee members' views might be.
We will find out
I congratulate Brian McAlorum and his group, who have managed to save the 15-bed homoeopathic hospital at Gartnavel. I also welcome Andy Kerr's statement when he visited the facility; he said that he wanted similar care to be available elsewhere—that backs up what Alex Neil was saying. Andy Kerr also said that a holistic approach helps people to care for themselves and went on to praise the homoeopathic hospital at Gartnavel. It has been a victory for the Public Petitions Committee that we have managed to save the 15 in-patient beds.
However, the petition asks for a review of the criteria; it is a big problem that we have not had such a review. It has been said that 85 per cent of the patients come from the west of Scotland, but I have been at various public meetings to save the homoeopathic hospital and, although some would say that Rothesay was in the west of Scotland, others in Glasgow and parts of the west would say that Rothesay was slightly further out. There are patients who come from outwith what I would call the west of Scotland region. I am not entirely convinced that only 15 per cent of the hospital's patients come from outwith that region. Alex Neil says that the services may not be known about elsewhere, but a woman from Newcastle who came to one of the public meetings had gained access to the facilities.
I have written to the Greater Glasgow NHS Board about funding and how much money the board received from other health boards to fund the homoeopathic hospital. However, I have been unable to get an answer to that question. The information I am looking at says that we have not had a response from the chief medical officer, so we will have to look into why that is the case—unless I am looking at the wrong piece of paper. The minister has said in black and white that he wants similar care to be available elsewhere, so we should ask him what is meant by funding for a national service as opposed to funding for a local service.
We have received a letter from the Minister for Health and Community Care, who concludes that
"it would be inappropriate to designate the Homoeopathic Hospital as a national service."
We know the minister's view. It may be that we have to write to Greater Glasgow NHS Board again, to raise the points that Alex Neil has raised, before we take up the issue again with the minister.
There are two separate issues. One is the designation of the homoeopathic hospital under the current criteria. It is quite clear, under the current criteria, that the minister is strongly of the view—as is the health board—that the service cannot be designated as a national service. However, the petition calls for something much wider—a review of the criteria. It may be that, if the criteria were modernised and made more appropriate, the homoeopathic hospital would indeed qualify.
I see no harm in writing back to the minister to ask that specific question. We will keep our consideration of the petition open until we get a response, by which time we should have heard from the CMO.
National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE805)
PE805, which was submitted by Ian Watson and Peter Brucelow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct an urgent review of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and, in particular, to assess the performance of each national park authority in meeting the four aims of a national park as defined in the act.
At its meeting on 2 February 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. A response has been received and circulated. Do members have any views on the matter?
In the petition, the petitioners asked that an MSP speak on their behalf; I have only just received a letter about that. Would it be all right for me to make a short statement?
That is up to you.
The petitioners are worried that the brown trout fishings in Loch Arklet and the surrounding lochs, which are an important asset of the park, are not being managed in the way in which they were managed when they were in the hands of the water board. They consider that the national park authority should appoint someone to look after the brown trout fishings in the area. They also consider that the use of jet-skis, speedboats and other personal watercraft goes against the aim of keeping a tranquil area within the park and seek that such use be controlled to some extent.
On the fisheries side, I agree that there should be someone on the board of the park authority who at least understands the fisheries in the area, which are an important asset. That is all that I have to say.
I have just a few observations. It is important to get the petitioners' reaction to the response that we have received from the national park authority, especially what it says about fishery management. The authority says that it is "not overly concerned" about who carries out that management and I would like to find out the petitioners' views on that. In addition, I point out to whoever typed up the briefing that "Lock Katrine" should be "Loch Katrine".
Well spotted. We will write back to the petitioners to seek their views and will discuss the petition further when we have received a reply from them.
Sylvia Jackson has an interest in the petition.
I will speak as the constituency member for Stirling because Loch Katrine comes within my area.
I have been involved in numerous discussions about Loch Katrine involving the community, Scottish Water, the national park authority and various other concerns. The aim of those discussions was to implement an integrated management plan for the Loch Katrine area. Most members will be aware that our chief aim was to save the Sir Walter Scott, but that was not the only part of the plan. As the letter that the committee received from the convener of the national park authority suggests, that plan and the Loch Katrine trust that has been set up will be concerned with the issues that Jamie McGrigor and, of course, the petitioners are worried about.
As I think Sandra White said, it would be good to obtain reassurance that the necessary expertise will be available, not only in the national park authority, which has just produced a park plan for consultation, but in the new Loch Katrine trust, if it takes over responsibility for fishery management.
We will get the petitioners' views about the responses that we have received and will discuss the issue again.
GSM-R Communication Masts (Planning Permission) (PE811)
PE811 is from Mark Mulholland on behalf of Parents and Residents Against Masts, or PRAM. The petition calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the permitted development rights enjoyed by Network Rail in respect of the erection of 96ft global system for mobile communications railway—GSM-R—communication masts in residential areas.
At its meeting on 2 February 2005, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Communities, Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Office of Communications, the National Radiological Protection Board, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. With the exception of the response of the advisory committee, which no longer exists, responses have been received and circulated to members.
I know that you had quite a lot to say when the petition first came to the committee, convener. I will throw in my tuppenceworth and perhaps you could sum it up.
I have always had concerns—as has everyone—about masts being put up just anywhere. We could change things only under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, but nothing seems to be happening. The minister has made one good move, in that he is encouraging Network Rail to talk to communities. I would like an update to see how far that has gone and what Network Rail is doing at the moment. That was all that I wanted to say; we should write to the Minister for Communities.
That would be useful. We could also ask how the minister thinks that this issue will fit in with the proposed new planning legislation.
The recommendation from COSLA is very sensible.
I have an example where Network Rail wrote to the local authority—North Ayrshire Council in this case—to advise where it wanted to put masts but the council made no representations. When I queried why it had not done so, it said that it was under the impression that it was just being notified for information and had not responded to any notices. However, other councils have responded to such notification and Network Rail has accommodated their concerns, moving masts in some cases. Therefore, there might be a problem with some councils and their understanding of Network Rail's permissions.
I hope that the proposed new planning legislation will give some clarity, especially in relation to the involvement of communities when such things are going to have an impact on them. If we ask the minister for his views on the proposed planning legislation and how it might be affected by such issues, that would be useful for clarification and we could then get back to the petitioners to see whether they think that that will be effective.
Global Campaign for Education (PE734)
PE734, which is by Angela O'Hagan on behalf of Oxfam in Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to endorse the aims of the global campaign for education in achieving the millennium development goals and making the United Nation convention on the rights of the child a reality in Scotland. It further calls on the Parliament to consider practical steps for the Scottish Parliament and Executive to promote those aims in Scotland.
At its meeting on 23 February 2005, the committee agreed to write to the petitioner and invite her views on the responses received from the Scottish Executive and the commissioner for children and young people. Her response has been received and circulated. We now need to ask the Executive to comment on the petitioner's views. We will take it from there when we get a response.
High Voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
PE812, from Caroline Paterson on behalf of Stirling Before Pylons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards that are associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines, and to introduce as a matter of urgency effective planning regulations to protect public health.
At its meeting on 23 February 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, Scottish Power, Scottish and Southern Energy and the human radiation effects group of the University of Bristol, and to seek independent advice on the implications of underground cables. Sylvia Jackson has an interest in the petition.
I do, as the constituency member for Stirling. The main thrust of the petition is about the health effects of the high voltage power lines. It concerns my constituents in the Kinbuck area, but also others outwith my constituency because of the huge area that the Beauly to Denny power line covers. A number of points in the material that has been received by the committee need to be restated because of their importance. The first is the important National Radiological Protection Board note, which
"recommended that Government consider the possible need for further precautionary measures."
As members will note, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Melanie Johnson MP, has set up SAGE, the stakeholders advisory group on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, in response to the problem. On that group is Professor Denis Henshaw from the University of Bristol; his letter, which is in the committee papers, makes a number of important points in his letter. Professor Henshaw says:
"I am a member of SAGE and the issue of siting power lines near existing homes as well as the build of new houses near existing power lines is one of the issues receiving urgent attention."
He also says that
"Specifically, more is known about EMF health effects than about passive smoking, than about viruses purportedly linked to the incidence of childhood leukaemia and about ionising radiation at normal background levels".
He continues:
I would throw down a challenge here to anyone who claims that there is not a strong link between EMF and increased risk of adverse health. I will offer to send them every week for the rest of their lives a good peer reviewed scientific paper in a respected international journal reporting clear evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic fields."
He goes on in his last paragraph to state:
"I urge the Scottish Parliament to consider immediate strict precaution against the siting of power lines near houses or the converse. I would remind the Parliament that we are well behind some other countries in this regard: In 1996, Sweden introduced a similar 0.2 microtesla exposure limit for new power line installations; Switzerland introduced a similar 1 microtesla limit in 1999 and three autonomous Italian regions (Toscana, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna) introduced a similar 0.2 microtesla limit in 2000."
In addition, the Draper report has reported since then. It not only sets out concerns about childhood leukaemia, but mentions other issues relating to the power lines. It talks about depression, for example, and other mental health problems. I do not want to go on at length because all the information is in the papers.
I am glad that you said that—a lot of people still want to speak.
I suggest that because the cost to public health has not been a consideration in the routing of the power line—Scottish and Southern Energy states that—we should wait until we see the report from SAGE, which we are told is fairly imminent. We should recommend to the Scottish Executive that it take up Professor Henshaw's call for a precautionary approach.
Three members wish to speak. I hope that they will be brief, because we are not here to rehearse the discussion that took place when the petitioner came before us; rather, we have must discuss what we should do in the light of responses.
I assure you that I will be brief because Sylvia Jackson has given a good explanation of the case. Serious health issues have been underlined in both the Draper and Henshaw reports. I believe that William Stewart's phrase, the "precautionary principle", should be paramount and that the call for a moratorium, at least until we see what SAGE comes up with, has to be adhered to.
As a councillor, I wrestled with planning applications, and the environment sometimes took priority over human life. If bats are mentioned in a planning application, everybody dives for cover and the whole thing is sterilised. However, here is a situation in which human life is at risk but the planning process cannot deal with the matter. That is totally wrong. I attended a presentation by the applicants at which I was surprised by their total resistance to undergrounding. They virtually told me that it was technically impossible. I think that they were afraid to establish whether it is possible. They said that, even if that were done, their technology would require a 100m wide swathe across the countryside. I believe that that information was out of date and that the technology does exist to put the lines under the ground; however, that is a separate issue. I fully support what Sylvia Jackson said about calling for a moratorium.
I set Mark Ruskell the same challenge to speak briefly and to tell us something that we did not already know.
Okay—I will be brief. The committee has considered three petitions—PE650, PE728 and PE769—on EMF radiation, health and the planning system. To my mind, PE812 addresses the same issue, except that it relates to power lines rather than to terrestrial trunked radio communication masts. The Communities Committee has considered those three petitions on TETRA, but it appears to be reluctant to deal with the health issues that PE812 raises. I understand that that committee will consider the general issue of how health relates to the planning system, alongside its consideration of the imminent planning bill; however, that has resulted in a lot of disappointment among the petitioners. There is a need for the Health Committee to consider the broader issue of EMF and health.
Issues about TETRA are coming forward from communities throughout Scotland and issues about power lines are now coming forward. There is a need for a dispassionate examination of EMF and health to find out whether the guidelines are working appropriately across a range of different technologies. I also think that there is a need for the Communities Committee to revisit the three petitions on TETRA and to consider how health is dealt with in the planning system. That committee should add PE812 to that consideration, because the petitions are pretty much identical in raising issues about guidelines and whether health is a material consideration in the planning system.
I will try to be even briefer. The letter from Professor Henshaw is eloquent and strongly worded. The evidence from the industry seems to contradict what the professor says, although it does not talk about nocturnal impact. The letter from the National Radiological Protection Board talks about the need for further precautionary measures. That is a Government agency suggesting that we should go down that road. Therefore, there are strong and valid reasons for particular courses of action.
Sylvia Jackson suggested a moratorium and Mark Ruskell wants the petition to be passed to the Health Committee. Those are both valid suggestions. The committee will want to hear the minister's view of what SAGE is going to say and it will probably want to find out the minister's view on what Professor Henshaw's letter says, given the very powerful health evidence that is trailed there.
Additionally, given that the issue will become part of a planning application under the Electricity Act 1989, the committee might consider advising the minister who has responsibility for planning that there should, because of the strong conflicting evidence, be a public inquiry into the planning application from SSE that is before ministers at the moment. That planning inquiry might begin to deal with the many conflicting issues.
A lot of points have been raised across the committee.
I draw the committee's attention to paragraph 6.2 of the response from Scottish Power, on line routing. It strikes me that Scottish Power undoubtedly deliberately routes high voltage lines away from housing. I speak from experience, as Scottish Power did that for the Scotland-Northern Ireland interconnector. I would have thought that that was obvious good sense and good practice. I am surprised that Scottish and Southern Energy is not prepared to adopt similar obvious good practice by keeping those pylon lines away from housing, based on the precautionary principle that the weight of evidence that is before us would support. The least strong evidence seems to be the NRPB's view that more research needs to be done.
There is a conflict, and those arguments were rehearsed at the public planning inquiry that took place for the interconnector. The reporter at that time came to the conclusion that the arguments did not stack up. However, we are nearly 10 years further down the line; perhaps there is new evidence. I would certainly be interested in seeing whether that new evidence is more conclusive than previous evidence.
There is still an awful lot of mileage in the petition. All the suggestions have been valid, but we have to get them in order. We must first get the views of the Minister for Health and Community Care on the report of the work of SAGE, Professor Draper and Professor Henshaw. Once we have the Executive's position, we can consider the industry side of things and the information that is out there in previous reports. We will certainly not get involved in any of the planning application discussions, but we have a lot of scope to look in general terms at how such decisions are made. That is something that we can ask people to consider further down the line in the context of the proposed planning bill, but our starting point must be a letter to the minister. We can re-evaluate our position when his response comes. We shall ask him specifically to give us an update on the work of SAGE and a response on the views of the Draper report and Professor Henshaw's work. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Food for Good (PE704)
PE704 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to support the terms of Unison Scotland's NHS food for good charter. At its meeting on 23 February 2005, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Health and Community Care on the responses that were received from Unison Scotland and NHS Scotland. A response has been received. Do members have any views on it?
It is clear from the Executive's response that a lot of research work has been done on public procurement. I wonder what action is being taken in the light of that research. In particular, one of the calls in the Unison food for good charter is for targets to be set for organic procurement. We know that some hospitals in England have started purchasing organic milk because of the high levels of omega 3 in such milk, which is obviously of public benefit. Two years ago, the Executive produced an organic action plan that contained a specific commitment to develop a plan for public procurement of organic produce, but it is not clear what has happened on the back of that. I wonder whether it would be appropriate for the committee to ask the minister what is going on in public procurement in relation to the organic sector, because there is a definite commitment in the organic action plan.
Much of the petition is about public procurement. We have received some correspondence on that and the minister's response addresses that. We must get the petitioner's views on the minister's response, which will tell us whether they think that the minister has addressed the public procurement aspect of the petition. We shall write to the petitioners to ask them to comment on whether they feel that the petition has been adequately addressed by the minister. I am sure that they will let us know whether there is further scope to question the Executive on the points that Mark Ruskell has made.
In fairness to the minister, there is definitely willingness to move down that avenue. I have had discussions with the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department in that regard and I know that the agenda is moving forward quickly—more quickly than it was, at least, although the pace was very, very slow before—and I hope that a momentum is building up.
Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
NHS 24 Services (Rural Areas) (PE814)<br />NHS Services (Rural Areas) (PE826)
Out-of-hours Medical Services (Rural Communities) (PE776)
Our next petitions are PE814, PE826 and PE776 on NHS 24.
PE776 by John MacPherson, on behalf of Braemar community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the merits of proposed new arrangements for out-of-hours medical services in remote rural communities such as Braemar. If we discuss all the petitions together, we can also consider PE814 by John MacPherson, on behalf of Killin community council, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications for rural areas of the introduction of NHS 24 services, particularly in relation to ambulance cover and timescales in getting medical assistance to patients in rural areas.
PE826, by Mr W D R Chalmers, urges the Scottish Executive to ensure that NHS services in rural areas such as Mid and Upper Nithsdale are adequate, equitable and acceptable, as required by the NHS Reform (Scotland) Act 2004, especially in relation to out-of-hours services.
At its meeting on 16 March 2005, the Public Petitions Committee agreed to link PE814 and PE826 and to write to the Scottish Executive. A response has been received from the Minister for Health and Community Care, which has been circulated to members. Do members have views on the petitions?
John MacPherson's petition PE814, which I am speaking to because Killin is in the Stirling constituency, is particularly about ambulance cover out of hours. First, I note that the minister in his reply seems to suggest that he thought that the committee should consider the response from the Scottish Ambulance Service, but I did not see anything in the papers. Did you get a response from the Scottish Ambulance Service?
Yes—we will try to get it to you.
I am sorry, but I did not see it.
You would not have seen that response because it is for Public Petitions Committee members only.
You can perhaps say in your summing up what is in the response.
The response states:
"We would be grateful if you note that we do not wish the attachment to this submission to be made public."
I do not know how we will address that, but I have to abide by the request so the response has been circulated only to Public Petitions Committee members.
Okay.
Since the petition came to the committee, there have been a number of incidents. I have to say, in fairness, that at the same time there has been on-going consultation between the community, the Scottish Ambulance Service, Forth Valley NHS Board and, on occasions, NHS 24, to try to make the situation better.
The first incident, in April, relates to a fatal accident inquiry. The incident did not happen out of hours, but it happened during the day when the GP practice was closed for training, so it was a very similar scenario.
A briefing note on the investigation states:
"the investigation concluded that the management of the RRU"
—rapid response unit—
"in particular had been inappropriate. At 15.50 hours with the Callander Ambulance in the Breadalbane area the EMDC authorised the RRU to travel to NHS Forth Valley Acute Operating Division HQ. This was to allow the completion of administration apparently required by the RRU Paramedic to facilitate their Hospital placement".
In essence, that was because we had been urging that there had to be double-crewed ambulances and that the training had to take place as soon as possible. However, that was an inappropriate visit by the ambulance when it had been given an emergency call at Killin. It was concluded in the opinion of Stirling procurator fiscal that the person's death would have happened anyway, but nevertheless no ambulance was available.
There have been other incidents. I will not go into details, but in one case following a road accident on the A84 south of Lochearnhead, the local fire brigade attended to find one single-manned ambulance in attendance. The casualty had to await the arrival of another ambulance from Crieff. That happened again on 28 July on the A85 near Glenogle. There was a long wait on that occasion for a person who had spinal injuries, which was particularly distressing for that person. Despite our on-going meetings, there is still great concern in the community that we do not have a safe ambulance service operating out of hours.
I would like to make a recommendation and to hear the committee's ideas. We have been talking about call centres, especially for rural areas, and I think that there has been talk involving Tayside and the Highlands. I am not sure whether there might be something similar for the more rural parts of the Forth valley area, including Killin, Crianlarich and Tyndrum. People in the call centres still do not seem to know where Killin is—it is so far away from Falkirk and district or Stirling royal infirmaries. That is a big issue.
Despite the fact that we have, throughout our meetings, tried to encourage liaison between NHS 24 and the Scottish Ambulance Service so that ambulances can be brought quickly to the person in need, there is still in the community a lack of confidence. I know that the committee has received information about the interim report following the review of NHS 24, and that the final report is due in September, but I suggest that we continue to press for the rural situation to be examined, in particular with respect to ambulance cover in places such as Killin.
I very much welcome the interim findings. I am not au fait with the situation in Killin, but the interim report's recommendations following the review of NHS 24 are to be welcomed. It might not be generally known but, in Ayrshire and Arran, there is a pilot scheme that is essentially the same as what Sylvia Jackson wishes for her area. Essentially, what was previously the e-doc system has been resurrected, providing local additionality to the NHS 24 service. As I understand it—I could be wrong—that has been broadly welcomed.
When the matter was discussed more than a month ago, it was said that four such pilot schemes were being rolled out in Scotland. If those are successful, that would help address the problems of NHS 24. That is welcome in as much as it means a return to NHS boards and their ability to provide for themselves the required services. That is also in line with the Kerr report.
I listened with great interest to what Sylvia Jackson said. She speaks for all MSPs, and especially for the people in the areas directly concerned. Issues around ambulance services, the call-out rate and NHS 24 have been raised again and again. The interim report has addressed some of those issues, and there are some concerns there for the Minister for Health and Community Care. I hope that the minister sees the petition, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to see the responses that have been made today by Sylvia Jackson and others. Perhaps he will be able to take on board some of the ideas that she has highlighted.
NHS 24 is the crux of the matter, and we should write to that organisation for an update on its service improvements—if there have been any. It would be good to get an update on what improvements NHS 24 has carried out and then to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care to request a full report from the independent review team. Could we send the minister a copy of the petition and of what has been said here? The issues that Sylvia Jackson has just raised are very important, and they should reach the right ears.
Do you mean that we should send a copy of the Official Report?
Yes. We are writing to the minister to ask for an update on the independent review; is it within our competence to send the minister a copy?
The minister will have already seen the petition.
I mean a copy of what has been said today.
You want to ensure that the minister is aware of the comments—
That Sylvia Jackson made in particular—
In the Official Report.
Yes.
We will bring it to his attention.
We could ask the minister when the full report is going to be delivered. We are aware of the interim report and the recommendations, but when is the remainder to come?
It is due in September.
On 30 September.
We will get a response on the points that have been made by Sylvia Jackson and other committee members.
I have one final point to make. This is a matter of trying to reassure the community that the situation in Killin—and, judging from what Sandra White said, elsewhere—will be subject to on-going monitoring. Somebody should be looking at the situation. Although we have been having local meetings and have been gradually securing some improvements for the community at large, when the incidents happen it seems as if we are not getting any improvement. We need on-going monitoring to help to improve the situation. We could possibly make use of some of the pilot work that John Scott mentioned. It is a question of how we move things on.
We will ensure that the minister is aware of the concerns that Sylvia Jackson has raised.
Thank you.