Current Petitions
Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)
The next petition, which we have considered on a number of occasions, is PE1089, by Morag Parnell on behalf of the Women's Environmental Network Scotland, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate any links between exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and in the workplace and the rising incidence of cancers and other chronic illnesses.
It is in members' hands how we deal with the petition. We have had a number of opportunities to raise matters on behalf of the petitioner. My view is that we have explored the issue as far as we can, so I recommend that we close the petition, unless members feel strongly otherwise.
The paper from the Government more or less says that the issue is solely the responsibility of the UK Government, but my understanding is that, for certain substances in drugs, such as hormones, there is regulation in Scotland by—I cannot remember the name of the organisation that considers the safety of medicines, although I should know it. I am not clear whether we have explored that aspect. I have come to the committee late on in the life of the petition, so the committee may have looked at that previously.
Rhona Brankin has raised an issue that she feels is worth exploring. Do we want to keep the petition open to explore that issue a bit further and then come back to it?
I just seek reassurance that that area has been looked at.
I am trying to recall some of the committee's specific questions. Unfortunately, I did not bring the back papers with me, but I know that the committee wrote to—I am trying to remember the name of the relevant committee; it is on the tip of my tongue. I cannot recall the specific questions that the committee asked, so I am afraid I cannot help on that.
I will reverse my recommendation. We will keep the petition open to explore the issue that Rhona Brankin raised and we will come back to the petition at a future meeting.
Nevertheless, I suggest that, meantime, we should ask the Government to forward to the Women's Environmental Network Scotland a copy of the minutes of the Minister for Public Health and Sport's meeting and invite the Scottish Government to draw the petition and all the written submissions received by the Public Petitions Committee to the attention of the relevant expert committees: the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment; the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment; and the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
We should also invite the Scottish Government to keep in touch with WENS and draw the petition and the written submissions to the attention of the chemicals regulation directorate of the Health and Safety Executive, asking it to discuss the issues with WENS to reassure it that we are doing as much as we can to draw people's attention to the concerns that WENS has drawn to our attention.
Okay. We will take those points on board and pursue them.
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
PE1105, by Marjorie McCance on behalf of St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to guarantee retention of continuing care provision for patients who require on-going complex medical and nursing care, such as that provided at the 30-bed unit at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, and to investigate whether arrangements for funding palliative care provision at hospices in the context of the Scottish Executive's health department letter HDL(2003)18 are fair and reasonable.
Again, we have considered this petition on a number of occasions. Des McNulty has expressed particular support for the petition, so I invite him to say a few words.
I presume that members have before them the letter from Marjorie McCance to the convener. There were two issues in the initial petition. One involves the formula that governs how hospices are funded. Currently, hospices get 50 per cent of agreed costs towards palliative care. In practice, that means that some hospices get far more per bed than others, because it is the amount that the hospice can raise, divided by the number of beds that it has to raise money for, that determines the quantum of expenditure that it can look to claim 50 per cent of from Government.
The case of St Margaret's hospice has highlighted a significant anomaly in the way in which the funding arrangement works. Nowhere else in the health service uses a match-funding system. By and large, the health service operates on a pay-for-care basis. In my view, the system that operates in relation to hospices leads to a fundamental injustice.
The minister appears to have recognised that fact to some extent, which is why the Government agreed to set up a short-life working group. It was supposed to report by December but, of the three scheduled meetings, only one has so far taken place. The issue that has been raised by the petition has not been dealt with. The short-life working group has not completed its work, which means that, obviously, the minister has not had a chance to respond to its conclusions. That strand of the petition needs to be kept open until we get some further information about that and the issue is resolved.
The other issue concerns NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's proposals to remove the funding for continuing care beds at St Margaret's, in the context of a consolidation of continuing care provision on the north side the river on to three sites. The contention of St Margaret's has always been that that consolidation should not necessarily affect it. There is no necessity for St Margaret's to be roped into that process. The health board could have made a number of different decisions about how it dealt with the need for continuing care. St Margaret's has a high quality of provision. We do not wish to set ourselves against any provision anywhere else, including Blawarthill, which is only a quarter of a mile away from St Margaret's. However, it seems that the way in which the health board has gone about this process has created a tension between those facilities, which is genuinely unhelpful.
St Margaret's is looking for some security with regard to the continuation of the outstanding care that it currently provides—continuing care, sitting outside palliative care—and a sensible discussion that does not involve the health board saying, "We have made a decision, and you have to fit in with the arrangements, even though you have not been a party to the discussion." The hospice board and I have been seeking to create a genuine debate with the health board, but that seems to be extraordinarily difficult to do. The health board keeps coming back to the view that it has made a decision that St Margaret's has to go along with. St Margaret's, however, is saying that it would like to hear any reason, based on the quality of care or the management of continuing care, that makes removal of its funding a sensible way ahead.
I remind members of the committee that the petition that Marjorie McCance submitted is the second-biggest petition that has ever been received by the Parliament, with more than 100,000 signatures—the largest was submitted in relation to the proposed changes at the Queen Mother's hospital, which was a highly sensitive issue of which members will be well aware.
One of the issues that I and members across the political spectrum have highlighted is that what is proposed amounts to a significant change in provision. Previously, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has said that, in cases in which there is significant public concern about such significant changes, she will investigate whether the correct decision has been made. She has not done so yet in relation to St Margaret's, but we would like to keep up the pressure on the minister to be consistent in relation to St Margaret's, in light of, for example, the decisions that she made in relation to Monklands hospital and elsewhere.
We approached the issue on a genuinely cross-party basis in order to come up with a solution that was acceptable to the communities in Clydebank, the west of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire and beyond, all of which believe that the approach that is being taken is wrong.
I will end on a point that I have not made before but which is important. When the health board initially considered the provision of continuing care, it did so in the context of the boundaries of Greater Glasgow Health Board. Since that time, the Clyde area has been added to the health board's area. In the context of that new area, there might be a degree of flexibility with regard to the necessary numbers that would enable the much-valued and important provision of care at St Margaret's to continue as it is. I am sure that that would satisfy and delight everyone who is involved in the issue.
I think that a little more could be done before we close this petition. If the short-life working group had met on all of the occasions on which it had intended to, there might not be so much behind Des McNulty's suggestion on that particular element of the petition. However, given that it has not completed its work, we should continue the petition. We should ask when the short-life working group will complete its work and make its report. Once the report has been produced, we should consider what can be done with regard to what the petitioner has described as the inequitable or idiosyncratic funding of hospices.
On the proposals to remove 30 national health service continuing care beds that sit outside palliative care, it might be appropriate to write to the minister and to Robert Calderwood to say that all that the board of St Margaret's is asking for is a discussion with the health board in respect of that proposal. Des McNulty made an important point when he said that the health board area has been enlarged since the provision of continuing care was initially considered, which means that there might be some flexibility with regard to this proposal, which is causing a great deal of anxiety and concern to many.
On those bases, I think that we should continue the petition.
Des McNulty is right to say that there is cross-party support on this issue. Gil Paterson has also spoken to the committee about it. Both of those MSPs have advocated that the petition be supported.
I support Bill Butler's view that, as the short-life working group has not been able to have the discussions that we were promised five months ago that it would have, we should continue the petition until such time as those meetings have taken place and we get some feedback on the proposals that arise from those discussions.
Once again, I put on record my disappointment at Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board's failure to take on board the public concern about an issue in which it is directly involved. It is not the first time that the committee has been critical of how the board has dealt with the decision-making process and shown total disregard for the views of families, relatives and others in relation to the impact of its decisions in vulnerable communities.
If we can get the short-life working group up and running, we can get feedback from it. However, as Bill Butler indicated, we should also express the committee's concern about Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board's proceeding with a decision that, from the information that we have in front of us, it is not prepared to review. The strength of this committee is that we can once again challenge the board to tell us why it is continuing with the decision that has been made without full consideration of the arguments that St Margaret's hospice makes.
To be honest, I will probably just echo what Bill Butler and John Wilson have said but I sometimes fear that, if I do not do that repetition, the committee will forget that I am here.
Never, Anne.
Thanks, John.
The Scottish Government offered to meet the Scottish hospices forum—to discuss the funding formula, I presume—but the forum said that it did not want to do that until the short-life working group had met. Therefore, we should keep the petition open until the working group has met and reported and the Scottish hospices forum has had an opportunity to consider the report.
We will keep it open and explore the two or three points that members raised. I hope that we will get some satisfaction. It is a long journey. I also thank Des McNulty for his continued support for the petition.
Free Public Transport (PE1107 and PE1174)
The next two petitions, PE1107 and PE1174, are grouped together. Both relate to free public transport for under-18s. We have had an opportunity to raise the matter on a number of occasions and have had responses back from the Government and the petitioners. I recommend that we close PE1107 on the basis that the petitioner has not submitted any communication to the committee for this or the previous occasion on which it considered the petition; the position is similar for PE1174.
Perhaps the high-school year group that was keen on the issue has moved on. The petitioners highlighted the issue, and there is continued discussion with ministers on extending programmes for access to public transport. Decisions on that will be taken in light of budget options and any commitments that are made.
I recommend that we close the petitions on those grounds but recognise that they represent young people who were trying to ensure that they could access public transport.
Members indicated agreement.
Tail Docking (PE1196 and PE1230)
The next two petitions, PE1196 and PE1230, are also grouped together. PE1196, by Michael Brander, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to allow the tails of working dogs to be docked. PE1230, by Dr Colin Shedden, on behalf of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, calls for prophylactic tail docking of working dogs to be allowed under tightly specified circumstances—that sounds painful enough already.
Do committee members have any comments on the petitions?
We have been waiting for the publication of research that the University of Bristol is doing. As that is not yet forthcoming, there is not much that we can do now except suspend our consideration of the petitions again. However, perhaps we could write to the university asking for the likely timescale for publication. The research has been going on for a wee while now.
I am happy to do that. We will suspend consideration of the petitions but will find out that further information.
Members indicated agreement.
General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)
PE1220, by Alan Kennedy, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the legislation to ensure that GP dispensing practices continue to operate in instances in which commercial pharmaceutical practices apply to operate in the same area. We have considered the petition previously, but we are still waiting for the relevant consultation paper to be published, so perhaps we could suspend our consideration of the petition and explore that issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
St Andrew's Medal (PE1232)
PE1232 asks us to urge the Scottish Government to look into having a new national civic award. I know that the Government is carrying out a scoping study on the recognition of bravery in Scotland, so I suggest that we suspend our consideration of the petition until we see the conclusions of that work.
Could we write to the Scottish Government to ask when it expects the scoping exercise to be completed? I note that the response that we received states that the petitioner's proposal is under consideration, but it would be useful if we could get from the Government a completion date for its work.
We will also ask whether members of the committee could be considered for such an award.
I know that you deserve one, convener.
If the committee wishes to put my name forward, I would be delighted to receive its support, although that might be illegal under the new rules on honours—we will soon find out.
We will visit you in prison.
I will be adding to the prison stats again.
HM Prison Kilmarnock Contract (Independent Review) (PE1241)
PE1241, by William Buntain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to conduct an impartial and independent review of its contract with Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd on the design, construction, financing and management of HM Prison Kilmarnock. Members have dealt with the petition previously, and I know that Margaret Mitchell, in particular, has expressed support for it, so I invite her to make some brief comments.
It has been a long day for the committee, so I will be brief.
Even though there has been a fair amount of correspondence with the Scottish Prison Service and other interested parties, there remain certain unresolved issues, including in relation to conflict of interests, on which there is no audit trail and a lack of transparency in accounting.
The disciplinary process is very much a live issue. I believe that what happened following an incident that took place this week at Kilmarnock sheriff court is analogous to the situation in the prison. After the union and Reliance had agreed on a course of action in relation to a custody and restraint incident—they had agreed that a debrief would be the best way forward—the SPS decided to suspend the member of staff in question, which means that their certificate is withheld and that they cannot work. It is a little disingenuous of the SPS to say that it does not determine employment matters when suspension of a certificate results in the employee losing their employment for a specified period. That issue is still unresolved, as are various physical training issues.
The financial penalties system should be looked at, given that we are 10 years into a 25-year contract. Key performance indicators that looked quite good 10 years ago might not be as robust as we thought they were. That certainly seems to be the view of the workforce at the prison. Rather than adding to performance and making the prison safer, they are detracting from it and affecting morale. The health and safety issue that arises from staff not being able to use PAVA spray is unresolved, too. It is worth pointing out that the normal process of contract management has still not resolved that issue.
For all those reasons, I hope that the committee will consider recommending the independent review that is supported by the Prison Officers Association Scotland, the Prison Service Union and the petitioner, and that it will look at the petitioner's other suggestion, that the Public Audit Committee should investigate the £2.1 million in financial penalties that has been withdrawn from Kilmarnock prison. Incidents such as the finding of a mobile phone attract penalty points; five penalty points could mean the withdrawal of £2,000. The Public Audit Committee would be able to establish an audit trail and provide some transparency and accountability as regards where that money has ended up. Those are the two points that I hope that the committee will consider taking action on.
Do committee members have any other observations? We have been broadly supportive of exploring the issues that the petitioner has raised and the points made by Margaret Mitchell. Can we take those together and perhaps also consider some of the issues that have been raised relating to the performance system, which Margaret touched on, the ways in which staff members are affected by the perverse criteria that are applied when contraband material is found, and so on?
I suggest that we write to the SPS about the response that we have received from Mike Ewart to Margaret Mitchell's question. His letter states that the SPS does not receive any financial gain. The question was whether
"SPS have received monies as a result of the penalties system".
Mike Ewart's response is that
"SPS have received no income from KPSL please refer to the response above ‘financial penalties'."
There seems to be no clarification as far as I can see of the issue that I believe Margaret Mitchell mentioned about the £1.5 million clawback—the moneys that have been withheld from Kilmarnock prison. Can we seek clarification from Mike Ewart? If the SPS does not receive any moneys as part of the financial penalties system, where is that money going? There seems to be a contradiction: a financial penalties system is in place, but the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service says that the SPS does not receive any moneys as part of that system. Who receives the penalties or fines that are imposed on the operators of the prison and where does the money go?
We want to keep the petition open. I know that the petitioner has been patient all afternoon. We want to continue to pursue these matters; I hope that that will help.
On the issue that John Wilson mentioned, the money was withdrawn from the sum that would otherwise be given to Kilmarnock prison. The point is that we do not know where it goes. That is why it has been suggested that the Public Audit Committee could examine the issue to establish where the money has gone. We do not know whether it goes to the SPS indirectly or to some other organisation or budget, but it would be good to nail the conflict of interest issue by establishing the audit trail.
It might be refreshing if, when we ask the SPS a specific question, we get a specific answer and not obfuscation.
Do you want me to put that in the letter?
Yes.
Good.
That is why I said it.
Fergus Cochrane will need to check the dictionary, because he is looking puzzled at that one. Well done, Bill.
I thank Margaret Mitchell for her time. We will keep the petition open and pursue the issues.
I would like to be clear about whether the committee will go back to the SPS and ask for that information.
Fergus Cochrane would like to comment.
I will have a chat with the clerks to the Public Audit Committee about any scope that that committee has to consider aspects of the petition, given that the Public Petitions Committee is not referring it.
Will that be resolved before the other aspects are looked at, such as the disciplinary issues, training and health and safety, which are the core of why an independent review is being sought?
Yes. We will pursue the matters.
You have a worried look. What are you worried about?
Will the committee come back to look at the whole issue once it has been in contact with the SPS?
Yes.
Sheltered Housing (Self-funded Tenants) (PE1245)
The final current petition is PE1245, by John Wood, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider how to ensure the continued independence of self-funded tenants of sheltered housing whose funds and savings have been eroded by increased costs, such as those through the supporting people programme.
The petition has been in front of us previously and we have not had a full response to all our points, so I think that members will want to continue our consideration of it. In a letter dated 16 November, the petitioner raises some specific issues. We could seek the Government's responses to the following questions: when self-funded tenants pay for the services of a manager through their normal housing association, why are charges also made for the service by the local authority; under what guidelines or statute are such charges being imposed; and why is it necessary for local authorities to be involved, since the tenants are housing association tenants rather than local authority tenants? We could perhaps explore those inconsistencies. I know that the issue is one of how the funding packages are put together and that it is a matter of interpretation. We will keep the petition open and explore the specific issues that have been raised.