New Petitions
Care Homes (Personal Expenses Allowances) (PE591)
The first new petition is PE591, on behalf of the Senior Action Group Edinburgh, Age Concern Scotland and Help the Aged. The petition calls for a review of the weekly personal expenses allowances for people who live in care homes. We have with us the petitioners—Diane Wilsdon, Emma Lawson and Jessie Mitchell. Welcome to the Public Petitions Committee and thank you for your patience in sitting through that long session on the previous petition. We will follow the normal routine. You will get three minutes to make an opening statement, then it is open to committee members to ask questions.
Diane Wilsdon (Senior Action Group Edinburgh):
By signing our petition, more than 3,500 people from around Scotland have clearly demonstrated that they believe that £16.80 per week is not enough to meet the costs of daily living for older people in care homes. I am the development worker with the Senior Action Group Edinburgh—SAGE—which is a voluntary organisation that was set up by older people in care homes in Edinburgh who run the organisation.
I would like to introduce Emma Lawson, the vice chairperson of SAGE, and Jessie Mitchell, a committee member of SAGE. Both live in care homes in Edinburgh. While Emma and Jessie have asked me to outline why an increase in the allowance is important, they are keen to answer any questions on their experience of living on such a small amount and I would encourage members to take up the opportunity to ask them questions after my presentation.
In the Government's document, "Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide", we are told that the allowance is intended to enable residents to have money to spend as they wish on stationery, toiletries, treats and small presents, clothes and so on. In 1996, Age Concern published research that calculated that the cost of allowing residents to live a modest but adequate life based on those criteria was £38 a week. However, in 2003, the Government tells us that £16.80 is sufficient.
In 2002, the Scottish Executive set care standards for care homes with the principles of dignity, privacy, choice, safety, realising potential and equality and diversity. We are here today to say that those standards simply cannot be met while residents have only £2.40 a day. Where is the dignity in never being able to pay for a coffee or meal out with your friends or in not being able to buy your children or grandchildren a Christmas present? Imagine how you would feel if you could not afford to treat your family occasionally to show them how much you appreciate their love and support. Where is the choice for residents when a perm in the local hairdresser's that you have used for 20 years—where you know the people and they know you—costs £35, whereas the hairdresser who comes to the home charges only £15? Can you justify paying two weeks' money for a haircut? How would you pay for stamps, telephone calls, toiletries, taxi fares or a magazine during those two weeks? Under care standard 17, paragraph 7 may refer to the use of local services, but without adequate personal allowances, that will not become a reality for residents.
Where is the privacy and safety in not being able to afford your own telephone and having to use a public call box? More than 90 per cent of residents who took part in our research did not have a private telephone. Imagine being hard of hearing and reliant on care staff to take you to the public telephone that is situated in a communal area when you want to reach out to family or friends or call the Age Concern abuse line. In our research, when we asked people what they would buy if they had more money, the vast majority said that they would buy their own telephone if they could also afford the line charges.
Realising potential is what SAGE is all about—realising the vast untapped resource of skills, knowledge and experience of older people in care homes. However, without a decent increase in the personal allowance, older people cannot be part of groups, pursue hobbies or interact with their local community. Basically, they cannot afford the taxi fare to get to meetings or the cost of lunch once they are there.
Coming to the meeting today cost £16.90, which is more than a week's personal allowance for Emma and Jessie. Ironically, without the charitable support of SAGE, they could not have afforded to come here to tell you how poor they are.
We urge you to call for a substantial increase in the personal expenses allowance to meet the true cost of living in a care home and to enable residents to enjoy the standard of living that the Scottish Executive has stated they should have.
Thank you. You gave a figure of £16.80. Has that gone up at all in recent years? Does it go up with inflation every year?
It went up from £16.15 last year to £16.80 this year.
So the allowance increased by about 65p. Is that the normal annual increase?
In 1996, when Age Concern conducted its research, the allowance was £14.10.
You have contacted a number of MPs and submitted a petition to the Department for Work and Pensions. What kind of response did you get?
We got no response. We did not even get an acknowledgement.
The DWP did not even acknowledge the petition.
No.
Did the MPs indicate how they felt?
We have never received a letter from an MP. We have received letters only from civil servants. The ladies wrote individually. Jessie Mitchell wrote to Andrew Smith MP, but she got a standard letter from a civil servant.
Andrew Smith MP is the responsible minister.
Yes.
Do the national care standards that the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care has laid down make any reference to the amount?
No. The care standards are about the quality of life that the residents can expect and were written for the residents. The reality is that a much larger amount of money would be needed to meet those standards.
So the issue of the £16.80 is ignored in the national care standards.
There is no reference to it.
There was much applause when the Parliament agreed to free personal care. What effect has that policy had on the two ladies present who are in care homes?
Jessie Mitchell (Senior Action Group Edinburgh):
I cannot buy papers. I am supposed to be reading papers, but first I have to find out how much money I have left. I cannot buy anything for my grandchildren at all—all that they get is a card. That is unacceptable: it is an insult and a sin.
Free personal care has no effect on someone who relies on the personal allowance. The ladies saw no benefit from that policy at all.
When you first raised the issue in 1996, what support did you get from us politicians?
SAGE is a voluntary organisation that was set up by residents and has been in existence for only eight years. The residents have employed me as a development worker for the past two years only. Age Concern carried out the research. SAGE has raised the issue with Age Concern and Help the Aged because it comes up as the number 1 issue when we go out and speak to residents, which is the main part of our work. Time and again, we have been told, "We simply don't have enough money to do the types of things that you are encouraging us to do."
What kind of support has Age Concern had from politicians over the years?
It has not indicated that it has had any support on the issue.
When individuals are taken into residential care, what is the arrangement concerning their old age pension? Does the establishment secure it? Do they get any funding from it?
Before somebody moves into a care home, a financial assessment is carried out. If their savings and pension do not meet the full costs of their care, the local authority will subsidise them. The person is guaranteed a minimum income, which is where the personal expenses allowance comes in. A resident's full pension goes towards the cost of their care. That is what happens with Emma Lawson and Jessie Mitchell: they do not get to keep their pensions and receive the personal allowance; they merely get the personal allowance.
So their total income, as far as we are concerned, is £16.80 per week.
Yes.
The pension disappears.
Yes. It goes into the cost of the care.
On that point, someone who has considerable income will not be affected, because their income will be in excess of any local authority contribution.
Correct.
Do they also get the £16.80?
No. That is the minimum income guarantee.
So someone who was very well off would not be affected.
Correct.
The matter is obviously reserved in that the Westminster Parliament sets the rates, but in Scotland, they have to be set through the Scottish Parliament.
Yes. It is open to the Scottish Parliament to set a higher rate than that set by the Westminster Parliament. I understand from Age Concern that the National Assembly for Wales has recently raised the rate by 30p.
Is that over and above inflation?
The Assembly has only increased the rate by 30p.
So there is a difference between what residents in Wales and England receive, and you would argue that it is perfectly feasible for the Scots to set a higher rate, too.
Yes. In Scotland, the amount of savings that a person is allowed to keep is lower than in England. There are therefore differences between Scotland and England in the amount of money that people in care homes can have.
What proportion of residents in care homes do you think is in receipt of the allowance? Is it half?
Yes, it is roughly half.
Do have any idea of numbers?
SAGE works in Edinburgh, where there are about 3,000 people in care homes.
So about 1,500 of them receive £16.80 a week.
I have one more question for clarification. There has been a lot of talk about free personal care, free nursing care and so on, and I heard you refer to the difficulty that some ladies have in securing the services of hairdressers in care homes. Is hairdressing not considered to be part of personal care?
No. The only costs that are met in the home are for bed and board. Anything over and above that—travel, hairdressing, toiletries, the odd newspaper or a can of juice—has to be met from the resident's £16.80.
If any of the witnesses wants to make any other points, now is your chance, as we have no further questions.
Emma Lawson (Senior Action Group Edinburgh):
I care about the matter. The hairdresser in my home increased her fees, but the residents did not receive any more money. It now costs me £5.40 a week to get my hair done, which comes out of my £16.80. A perm, once a year, costs £15. That is cheap compared with how much it would cost outside the home, but it does not leave me with much money.
The men would like to have a flutter on the horses, but they cannot afford to spend more than 50p on that. I do not buy myself a newspaper. I get my hair done instead; a newspaper would cost more than £4 a week, which I cannot afford. We borrow one another's newspapers.
That is dreadful.
I have my own mobile phone, but I could not afford to buy it myself, so my son bought it for me. He has to pay the charges once in a wee while. I am a pauper.
Thank you for that well-made evidence. We shall now decide what to do with the petition, but the petitioners are free to sit and listen to the discussion.
Members will see that it is suggested that the Executive might be unlikely to increase the amount of personal expenses allowance to a higher level than that proposed by Westminster, particularly as it could argue that people living in residential care homes in Scotland now benefit from free personal care. However, we have heard evidence this morning that suggests that the policy of free personal care does not impact upon people in Scotland who receive the £16.80. It is therefore recommended that we write to the Executive to ask for its views on the issues raised by the petitioners. In particular, we can ask for details of the Executive's position on the level of personal expenses allowance for people in residential care homes and for an indication of whether it is satisfied that the amount is adequate to cover the items that we heard about, such as toiletries, telephone calls, hairdressing and so on. We can also ask the Executive whether it intends to propose an increase in the level of personal expenses allowance, either through negotiations with Westminster prior to the amount being set, or by proposing a separate increase for Scotland when the relevant statutory instrument is laid before the Parliament.
I agree with that recommended course of action. Perhaps we could also consider whether we should send a copy of the petition and the Official Report of this morning's proceedings to the relevant minister in London to ask him to take note of our discussion.
That is a good idea. Andrew Smith did not reply to the petitioners, but perhaps he will reply to the Public Petitions Committee. It would be interesting to find out how Westminster ministers view the allowance.
Would there be merit in our putting the petition in front of the Health and Community Care Committee?
We could certainly copy the petition to the relevant committee, but I am not sure whether that would be the Health and Community Care Committee or the Social Justice Committee. We will find out and pass on a copy of the petition and the associated correspondence.
I have a query that arises from the evidence that we heard. A comment was made about England and Scotland having different amounts for capital allowances. I recognise that some differences exist, but my understanding was that the capital allowances are set by the Benefits Agency and are reserved. That should mean that there is commonality across the UK. I did not understand that point. Perhaps the clerk could query that issue further and bring back some information.
We have already agreed to write to the Executive, so we could ask it to clarify that point in its response.
The other point that we should emphasise and underline is that free personal care did not make one iota of difference to the individuals from whom we have taken evidence today.
Free personal care did not make any difference on this issue, but it obviously makes a difference to some people.
I do not know that it does. Perhaps free personal care makes no difference at all to people in residential homes who are dependent on the state. That is the message that I picked up.
That may be true for people who are dependent on the state.
We have agreed that we will write to the Executive and to the Westminster minister. As soon as we get a reply, we will get back in touch with the petitioners to advise them what action the Public Petitions Committee thinks should be taken on the petition. We will keep the witnesses informed of what is happening. I thank them for their attendance this morning and for the evidence that they have given to the committee.
Amateur Boxing (PE594)
Petition PE594 is from Thomas Ross on the subject of amateur boxing in Scotland. The petition calls on the Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to fund the medical requirement of the AIBA—the international amateur boxing association—to eliminate abuse of amateur boxers in Scotland.
Mr Ross is accompanied by Dr Lutton, who is here in support of Mr Ross's petition. I thank Mr Ross for his patience this morning—we have had a long session—but he now has his chance. He may speak to the petition for three minutes. We will then open up the meeting to questions from committee members.
In 1980, having been four times Scottish light-heavyweight boxing champion, I left Scotland and emigrated to Canada, where I became subject to the rules contained in the book "Articles and Rules, with Medical Rules, Governing Amateur Boxing in Canada 1981-1983".
In Canada, it was deemed that I was not medically fit enough to participate in the sport because of myopia, or short-sightedness. To date, Scotland has no book of that calibre for amateur boxing. The book details the rules and medical rules for boxers.
Let me read out the book's introduction, which was written by Dr Joseph Falletta, who is a member of the AIBA—if the committee does not have a copy of the AIBA handbook, I can leave a copy for your perusal.
Dr Falletta's introduction states:
"Amateur boxing is a sport which introduces a young man to the art of self-defence and in so doing provides a healthy mental and physical recreation for competitors of all ages. Amateur boxing teaches self-discipline, physical fitness, poise and confidence, sportsmanship and a respect for supervision; said supervision is meted out by jury officials, referees, ringside physicians and coaches. In fact, amateur boxing remains the most supervised of all sports.
The welfare and physical well being is the essential consideration of each boxer's career. Each boxer is under the constant supervision of an experienced Medical Officer. On joining a Boxing Club, initially each boy is to undergo a complete medical examination for mental and physical fitness. Then, prior to each and every boxing tournament, the boxer must present himself for medical examination to ensure that he is in a fit physical state. Only fit boxers box and in this way the morbidity of amateur boxing remains very minimal.
The prevention and treatment of boxing injuries is of paramount importance. As succinctly stated by Ron Olver, British boxing author,
‘AN EFFICIENT MEDICAL SYSTEM ENSURES THAT BOXING IS FULLY CONTROLLED WITH THE WELFARE OF THE BOXER ALWAYS THE FIRST CONCERN OF THE APPROPRIATE RULING BODY.'
To that end, the following rules and medical regulations are intended to preserve the health and welfare as the highest level of priority with respect to the Canadian Amateur Boxer."
I have printed a number of copies for your perusal, but I understand that you have not had time to read them.
If you leave them with us, we will ensure that all members get copies.
The only change that I wish to make to the introduction I read aloud is with reference to "mental and physical fitness". I would like to change the word "physical" to "medical". The intention of the petition is that the medical state of the boxer should dictate whether he is allowed to participate in or is excluded from the contact sport.
As far as you are aware, do other countries in the UK experience difficulties in meeting these medical standards? If so, is funding provided from central Government for that purpose?
It is my understanding that the rest of the British Isles suffers the same fate. In fact, in Northern Ireland, a boxer I used to train attends shows and boxes regularly without being medically examined. Despite the presence of a medical officer, he does not undergo the medical exam that we do in this country, in Wales and in England.
The stringent test applies in other countries that I use as a model—namely in Canada, where I was first informed that I was not fit enough to be a participant in the sport. In fact, in 1997, I first wrote to Sam Galbraith on the subject, telling him of my concerns that we did not meet AIBA regulations. It was he who furnished me with the blue AIBA book I mentioned earlier, which concludes that we do not meet the regulations.
You have not answered the part of the question that dealt with funding. Are you aware of any such funding elsewhere in the UK?
If there is, I have never heard of it.
You referred to your own career and to the success that you had. Is it not the case that at that time, amateur boxers did not wear headgear or the same levels of protective clothing, and perhaps had different sizes of gloves? Has progress not been made in the protection of those who participate?
Yes, that is correct. We have progressed in a number of ways. The use of headgear is still in dispute, because boxers will tell you that it inhibits them. One of the aspects of boxing is hearing. Wearing a head guard deflects that hearing sense, and boxers lose a measure of awareness as a result.
I recognise the problem of the expense of medical coverage. Is it not the case that professional boxing is really suffering from a lack of provision of medical back-up, and that that comes down to cost also?
The professional game tends towards medical overkill to treat the symptoms of the accident. I want to prevent accidents, which would reduce costs at one end of the scale, although it would increase costs at the other end.
You used the term "contact sport". An example of a physical sport is rugby, which involves much physical contact. Are comparable medical checks undertaken on participants in that game?
That is not my forte, so I will pass you on to my colleague.
My interest in sports medicine has covered more than 10 sports at international medical level. I was a boxer when I was young and I played rugby at senior level. I am worried about many sports other than boxing, but we are here to talk about boxing, which has the best officials of any amateur sport. It has excellent medical back-up, but that can be improved.
Members must bear in mind the theoretical possibility and the practical reality of lack of money. In theory, it would be desirable in many sports to have doctors who are trained for the sport and officials who have relevant first-aid training. That would not cost much. However, computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans might cost up to £500 or £600 each if performed privately.
I am worried that boxing is an excellent sport that tends to be starved of money. It has always been a cinderella sport but, in my medical opinion, it is excellent. It is the only sport for which participants must pass a medical examination of fitness to compete. A doctor is at the ringside and participants carry a medical card on which everything is recorded. That is done well. I would like doctors to be trained specifically for sports, because a great deal must be known.
As rules are strict in boxing, problems are fewer, whereas 30, 40 and 50 years ago, when I was involved, many knockouts used to occur in amateur boxing. Knockouts do not happen often now. Referees are strict and doctors can stop the fight. If anybody is over-matched or unwell, the doctor says, "Stop." Head guards have helped to a point, but they present a larger target. However, in the past five years, I have increasingly seen fewer knockouts. Now, a whole tournament of 15 or 16 bouts can be held without a knockout and a result of referee stops contest might occur four or five times.
I would willingly box again and I believe seriously that I was safer competing in a boxing ring than I was when I played rugby as a forward. The scars on my head and any knockouts that I have had came from rugby, not boxing. Other sports—such as karate—are equally dangerous, but we are here to talk about boxing, which needs support. I have always encouraged and will always encourage boxing.
You made the point at which I was aiming: that other sports might offer greater dangers. However, sport these days is supposed to be all-inclusive—we have the Paralympics and other such events. As a doctor, do you think that some conditions could preclude people with some forms of disability from participating in boxing?
The regulations about the medical examination of fitness to box could be improved even more. Scotland has 96 amateur clubs and only about 860 young amateur boxers are registered, but about 2,000 or 3,000 young people attend such clubs and the vast majority who participate in amateur boxing never have a contest. They go for the training and the fitness element. They do not get hurt because they do not get hit.
The people who are encouraged to enter contests are strictly supervised and matched well. I have no hesitation in saying that, increasingly, boxing is a safer sport. It would not take much to train doctors fully in the dangerous aspects of competing in boxing at senior level. Those doctors would prevent people from being hurt.
The art of all sport is in the participant's being so fit for the sport that they tend not to get hurt. There will always be contact sports, but they need medical input increasingly, because otherwise, insurance companies will eventually decide not to support some sports, because of litigation and other matters.
I have watched boxing in Cardenden in my constituency and my brother used to box. Do you think that those medical standards are not being met because of a lack of funding or is it due to resistance from within the sport?
The medical standards are not being met because there is no money. I can honestly say that I have never taken a fee for doing sports medicine of any kind and I have done it for 54 years. Medicine in sport, especially boxing, would go a long way to helping and the training of the doctors would cost very little. Amateur boxing is a cinderella sport—there are no funds and doctors do not take fees. The clubs therefore rely on the doctors' good will. However, tournaments cannot take place unless there is a doctor there before the match to do the medicals, at the ringside and afterwards.
The sport relies on good will and there has to be more than that. Also, 80 per cent of our medical students are female and not so many female doctors are keen on sport, although increasing numbers of young women want to join boxing clubs. I am afraid that I do not approve of contact sport, especially boxing, for women.
That has put you in your place, Helen.
I am trying to be clear about exactly what the petition is asking the Parliament to do. We know that the AIBA sets medical standards for the sport across the world through its general council and medical commissioner. Amateur Boxing Scotland and the officials in charge of tournaments in Scotland are required by law to meet those standards. Are you saying that they are not doing that?
That is what I am saying.
They are not meeting the international standards laid down by law.
The sheet of paper that I am holding is the initial medical examination for a boxer in this country. I also have here the booklet containing the Canadian initial medical examination for 1981 to 1983, which states:
"The following neurological medical states are a direct contraindication to boxing: …
The following states preclude from boxing: …
The following disorders preclude from boxing: …"
Do you see those statements anywhere on the Amateur Boxing Scotland form?
So international standards are being ignored in Scotland.
They are being ignored.
You would argue that that is the responsibility of Amateur Boxing Scotland and the officials in charge of the tournaments being held here.
Yes.
You would say that they are in breach of their legal requirements under international law.
I would argue further that that is the case in all of Britain but as we are in Scotland, I will confine myself to Scottish issues.
As we must also.
I assume that members of the committee have in front of them copies of letters that I sent to the Prime Minister.
Basically, you argue that international standards are not being met by those involved in boxing in Scotland and that it is time that the Parliament did something about that.
Yes.
Are those standards not mandatory? If we were not meeting the right standards, would we in Scotland or the UK not be barred from participating in international competitions such as the Commonwealth games, the Olympic games and the European championship?
I could not prejudge what the AIBA committee would decide. However, I imagine that it will not be pleased to learn that one of its member states is not fulfilling its obligation on the medical requirements of participants.
I will leave some of the materials that I have brought with me for your perusal.
One of the conditions that most affected me was myopia. I was allowed into boxing when I should not have been. The rules in other countries make it clear that that is not allowed. The regulations on the testing of eyesight have been tightened up.
I was in contact with Dr Chowla, who is now retired, at the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion. Before he retired, he gave me the opinion that he could examine a person and say yea or nay to their involvement in a contact sport. One eye examination would be sufficient.
Although the standards are in place, I would like adherence to them to be improved in this country. I have experienced a detached retina—not through boxing, but through an accident at work. I suffered blindness for six weeks and that is not pretty. In 1980, the cost of the necessary operation in Canada was $12,000 Canadian. I imagine that the cost has doubled or tripled by now. If the cost were to be translated across the pond, an equivalent number of pounds would be involved—it would cost thousands of pounds for just one operation.
It is well documented that many detached retinas have resulted from boxing. Gary Mason and Frank Bruno are examples. The history of allowing into boxing people who are not medically fit goes back as far as Archie Moore. At a medical examination for one of his world title fights at the age of 50, he was asked what letters were on the board. Even though his answer was, "What board?" he was still allowed to fight. That kind of thing still goes on and it gives boxing a bad name. I want such practice to be eliminated. I want boxing to be brought out of its current state of disrepute into a state of repute.
I want to reinforce Mr Ross's point about the changing of the phrase "physical fitness" in the AIBA handbook to "medical fitness". That would safeguard any individual who wanted to participate in the sport. It would mean that, no matter how physically fit someone was, they would not be allowed to compete unless they were medically fit.
I will use the vernacular to expand on that point: I was as fit as a butcher's dug when I was 30. You can ask the heavyweight champion of the world how fit I was. Lennox Lewis couldnae have handled me.
Even though I was only 12 stone, I was fighting guys who were 6ft 5in tall and who weighed 18 and a half stone. Although I was physically fit, I was not medically fit. No one ever told me that until I went across the pond. I am a proud Canadian, but I will not be proud to be a Scotsman until the issue is resolved.
You made your point very well. Thank you for your evidence. You are free to listen to the discussion about how we should deal with the petition.
It is suggested that the committee should write to the Executive to seek its comments on the issues that have been raised. In particular, we should ask it to provide details of its position on the adequacy of current medical standards in amateur boxing in Scotland and to indicate whether it is satisfied that they are being complied with. We should also ask it whether it would consider allocating funding to ensure that the AIBA medical standards are fully adhered to. That would improve the health and safety aspects of amateur boxing in Scotland.
It is also suggested that we write to Amateur Boxing Scotland to request details of the measures that it takes to ensure that the AIBA medical standards are complied with. We could also inquire whether it is experiencing difficulties in that area because of lack of funding or for any other reason. Until we receive responses, we could pass a copy of the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for information.
I have some questions, particularly in relation to the international situation. I would prefer it if we contacted Amateur Boxing Scotland directly. As well as passing on the petition and discussing its implications, we could give an indication of the evidence that has been taken today and could ask for ABS's views before we approach the Scottish Executive.
That would slow things down.
It would. Perhaps we could ask for a swift response. That would mean that we would have a better case.
Do you mean that we should approach the Executive after we receive the information from Amateur Boxing Scotland?
Yes. I think that it is a case of adding to the information. I acknowledge the points that have been made today. I cannot understand why our Olympic, Commonwealth and European people are participating in an international sport if they have not met the international obligations. I would like clarification of that.
Okay, that is a fair point. Steve Farrell suggests that as well as writing to Amateur Boxing Scotland seeking a response to the petition and an answer to the points raised by the petitioners, we could also write to the AIBA to ask what its views are on compliance with the standards in this country. Once we have those two responses we could approach the Executive. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. We will obviously keep the petitioners informed of the outcome of the responses that we get.
Elections (Voter Turn-out) (PE592)
PE592 is from Mr George McAulay, on behalf of the UK Men's Movement. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce mechanisms to allow voters to express dissatisfaction with all candidates in an election to the Scottish Parliament or to councils. He sets out his arguments for a system of reducing MSPs' salaries in relation to the turnout at elections and giving voters the opportunity to vote for "none of the above" rather than for the candidates who are standing in any election.
The suggested action points out that Scottish parliamentary elections are reserved to Westminster and that, therefore, we would be unable to introduce the measures that are proposed by the petitioner in relation to changes to ballot papers for such elections, although we could try to influence Westminster to do so if we thought that that was worth while. In theory, the Executive could introduce proposals to amend ballot papers for local government elections along the lines that are suggested by the petitioner. However, it could also be argued that as the purpose of an election is to elect representatives, it would be inappropriate to amend ballot papers to include an option that would enable voters to express dissatisfaction with all candidates and to elect no one.
There is no evidence to suggest that the proposals, together with the proposal for MSPs' salaries to be calculated on the basis of voter turnout, would increase turnout. There is also the possibility that they could deter quality candidates from standing for election. It is unlikely that the measures would receive widespread support.
The Executive is well aware of apparent voter apathy in this country and has charged the Electoral Commission with responsibility for undertaking on-going research in relation to voter engagement and education as part of its remit on electoral issues. In addition, provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2001 aim to increase voter turnout in local elections by allowing such elections to be held on the same day as parliamentary elections and enabling local authorities to pilot new methods of voting. In view of all that, it is suggested that we agree to take no further action on the issues raised in the petition.
We are wasting our time talking about the Scottish Executive in relation to the petition. Perhaps we should send a copy of the petition to the Electoral Commission, because it might pick up something from it. I doubt that it would, but that is what it is there for.
That is a fair point. Do we agree to copy the petition for information to the Electoral Commission to take into consideration as part of the remit that it has been given by the Scottish Executive?
Perhaps the Electoral Commission could respond directly to Mr McAulay. In that way, we could still wipe up the petition.
Okay. That is agreed.
Pharmaceutical Industry (PE595)
PE595, from Mr James Mackie, is on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on NHS psychiatric services. We were not expecting Mr Mackie to be here today, but he has turned up and I have agreed to allow him to say a few words in support of his petition.
Thank you very much, convener. This is one of the few occasions on which I might be to the left of the committee as it stands.
The petition is fairly straightforward. There is a lot of concern about the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, which is progressing through the Parliament. Many of the measures in the bill will be fairly draconian and will have a major impact. The voluntary sector and the charities suggested a large number of amendments to the bill, which seem to have been pushed to the side—at least that is the impression that the public are getting at the moment.
At the same time, psychiatric services in the UK—particularly in Scotland—are going down the route of medication-only treatment. Several charities have done research that shows that drugs should be the last treatment in psychiatric services. However, the impression is that the pharmaceutical companies have had a major influence on the main consultation process leading up to the discussions in the Parliament on the bill.
The one-day conference that was held in Edinburgh last year was billed as being for the benefit of the minister who was to attend. He could listen to the views of service users and providers. People in the voluntary sector and those who use the services had major concerns. At that time, I was unemployed, having been made redundant from my position as a researcher for an MSP. My weekly benefit was £34 a week, yet to attend that one-day conference I had to pay £96. The majority of users of psychiatric services who will come under the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill are unfortunately on benefits because the drugs have so debilitated them that they cannot work. However, a company that makes major profits from service users funded that conference.
The charities that attended the conference were concerned about the question sessions. A screen was erected, and at the end of each presentation a list of questions was put on that board, and the audience responded using remote controls. Everybody who was there from the voluntary sector, and the few service users, was convinced that the whole conference had been rigged. Asking those questions at the end of the conference made those people feel that no decision would be made other than that the conference was in favour of compulsory care in the community, which comes down to medication.
Charities have been trying to work with MSPs, the Executive, and the national health service to show that there are alternatives to drugs in psychiatric services. We on that side of the fence are getting nowhere. All we see is the drive, drive, drive of the pharmaceutical companies. The companies do not have a good reputation; it is well reported in the media that many of them are getting ghost-writers to promote the pure publicity and marketing for their drugs. Legal action is being started against some of those drug companies in other countries over the way in which they have marketed drugs, yet the Scottish Parliament is seen to be very closely associated with them.
If the bill goes through as planned, the companies will make far bigger profits than they do at present and those profits will not come back into the NHS. The pharmaceutical companies are taking money out, and the Parliament and the Executive will ultimately have a large drug bill. Money will go elsewhere and the population of Scotland will suffer, especially as there are claims in recent press reports that as much as 20 per cent of the UK population has a mental illness. We can argue over what a mental illness is, and I described some illnesses to the committee in November.
That is what service users and the charities in Scotland feel about the influence of the pharmaceutical companies in the NHS, especially in the run-up to the discussions on the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill.
I declare an interest as a member of the Health and Community Care Committee who is dealing with the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill and who has been lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry.
I heard that you are well respected for some of your recent amendments.
You say in your petition that you want to determine why the same company was allowed to sponsor an eight-page feature on the bill in Holyrood magazine, a publication that is circulated to all MSPs. I share some of your concerns about that publication, but is that not a commercial publication over which the Parliament has little control?
A member of a charity contacted the magazine when they saw that article. They got the runaround and had great difficulty ascertaining who actually published the magazine and whether it was connected to the Parliament. At the end of the day, if such magazines are published to inform MSPs, perhaps there should be some controls, particularly when major issues such as the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill are being debated.
But Holyrood magazine is run by a commercial organisation, is it not? It is like The Sun, the Daily Mail and other publications—I call them gossip rags, rather than newspapers. They are commercial publications, and Parliament can have no control over them. I cannot see how we could exercise control over Holyrood.
If MSPs treat Holyrood as something like The Sun, that is fine, but when magazines like that—
I can assure you that I, for one, treat Holyrood magazine in the same way that I treat The Sun or the Daily Mail.
When a magazine such as Holyrood is seen outwith the Parliament, the public may, because of its title, assume that it is a publication by the Scottish Parliament. I take your point, but that is a complaint that the public have about it.
You are usually to the right of me, Jim, but—
That is pretty far to the right. [Laughter.]
I am a bit concerned about some of your comments on the pharmaceutical industry. There must be some good points. Do you not agree that lobbying is a useful means of information transfer, providing that members have regard of voluntary organisations and balance the various questions raised? You referred, I think, to a dinner. If individual members attend such discussion dinners, they have the chance to put across points that have been made by constituents and others, including representatives of the voluntary sector, regarding the impact of the pharmaceutical industry's involvement. Is that not a good thing?
There is lobbying and there is lobbying. The pharmaceutical industry's products are approved by the Medicines Control Agency and are licensed. If lobbying takes place, that is fine, but it must be balanced. The problem is that the stocks and shares of companies in the pharmaceutical sector consistently appear among those of the five highest-performing companies in the United States.
Voluntary groups here are struggling for money. The majority of them have nothing. They have no money to spend, and they cannot afford lobbying. They try their best at lobbying, but do not have the access that they should have. During the consultation prior to the introduction of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, the voluntary sector and charities felt that the weight, money and glossiness of pharmaceutical companies had overwhelmed them.
Because voluntary groups get no funding, the good information that they have is buried. We cannot get information published in journals, and we cannot afford the luxury of putting up in bright lights the fact that we are in consultation with the Scottish Parliament. Even as far as the NHS is concerned, glossy high-profile campaigns by the drug companies bury everything else. Individuals are suffering. Patients and their families are suffering because of a total imbalance.
I will not go into that argument but, to be fair, many people benefit from the involvement and research of the pharmaceutical companies. Constituents have complained to me about how long it can take to get drugs that they believe will do them some good approved for prescriptions.
Let me also pick up on the point about Holyrood magazine. A recent edition contained a full centre feature of contacts for voluntary organisations. Surely that showed that the magazine gives some scope for the voluntary sector to make its case.
I was not aware of that. If that was published since the publication of the article that was sponsored by the pharmaceutical company, the voluntary sector's lobbying of the magazine's editorial team has perhaps had the effect of balancing things out.
Your first point was that people complain that drugs and their benefits take too long to come through. According to the experience of the voluntary sector and service users in psychiatric services, many of the drugs that are currently marketed are unfortunately pushed on to the market far too early, sometimes after only two or three months' trial.
As a result, there is not enough testing of drugs, particularly psychiatric drugs, which is the aspect of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill in which I am especially interested. Furthermore, there is not enough of a follow-up from the Medicines Control Agency or the pharmaceutical companies. After all, it is not in the companies' interests to find out whether their drugs have any massive side-effects. More work needs to be done on the drugs that our psychiatric services use, because they are not as safe as we think they are.
I will just say two words to you: beta interferon.
That is lost on me, but never mind. Do you wish to make any other points, Mr Mackie?
No, I have submitted most of my information to the committee and I think that I have covered the matter fairly well in response to your questions.
You are free to stay to listen to our discussion over the suggested action.
First, I am told that Holyrood magazine is a wholly commercial operation and responsibility for its contents does not lie with the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Parliament. As a result, we will have to drop the suggestion that we take up that matter.
Other than that, it is suggested that we write to the Scottish Executive and ask for its comments on all the issues that the petitioner has raised. In particular, we should ask the Executive to address the point about the conference that was held on the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill and whether MSPs should be entertained at meals that are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. In the light of the Executive's response, the committee could decide whether any further action such as a full investigation of the issues is necessary.
It is also suggested that we seek a factual restatement of the rules on lobbying and paid advocacy from the clerks of the Standards Committee. It has occurred to me that we should ask the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry for its comments on the petition and take them into consideration when we receive responses from the Executive and the Standards Committee.
I do not demur from any of those suggestions. However, I should point out that the Standards Committee recently investigated and published a report on the issue of lobbying.
That is good to know.
It is also suggested that we pass a copy of the petition to the clerks to the Health and Community Care Committee for their information. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Mackie for his attendance this morning.
Robin Rigg Windfarm (PE605)
We move to petition PE605 from Mr George Makins, on behalf of Auchencairn community council, which calls for a public inquiry into the planning application for wind turbines. This is a last-minute addition to the list of new petitions under consideration this morning and was supposed to be dealt with at our meeting on 11 March. However, as the minister is expected to make an announcement shortly on the planning application for the Robin Rigg development, it has been suggested that we consider the petition this morning. After all, the minister could have already decided the matter by 11 March.
It is proposed that the committee agree to formally refer the petition to the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, urging him to consider the petitioner's calls for a local public inquiry as part of the decision-making process. We might also wish to pass a copy of the petition to the Minister for Social Justice, who has an interest in the general planning matters associated with it. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.