Current Petitions
Members will see from their papers that we have seven current petitions to deal with. Adam Ingram is here to speak to the seventh one, PE429. Do members agree to bring that petition to the top of the list so that Adam Ingram can speak?
Members indicated agreement.
Foot-and-mouth Disease (Pyre Ash) (PE429)
Members will remember that PE429 is from Councillor Julie Faulds and relates to the dumping of foot-and-mouth pyre ash at Garlaff in East Ayrshire. Members can see that we received a comprehensive reply from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, detailing all the steps that the Executive has taken. The reply claims that, in all cases, the Executive carried out proper procedures and that dumping has now stopped.
Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter, convener. I read the letter just this morning and I would like to make one or two observations.
In the first paragraph, the minister points out that the disposal issue is not unique to Scotland. Around 100,000 tonnes of pyre ash have been landfilled in England and Wales with little or no comment. I suggest that it was unique to Scotland that the ash was dumped in a non-infected area. It was dumped not in Dumfries and Galloway or the Borders, which had the infection, but in East Ayrshire, which had battled long and hard to keep the disease out. That is the key difference between the situation in Scotland and that in England and Wales.
Interestingly, a lot of the pyre ash from the foot-and-mouth outbreak has been disposed of in Carlisle. The Carlisle people were more than willing to take the pyre ash from Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. However, the Executive took a political decision not to send the ash to Carlisle but to send it north instead. That is my comment on the first part of the minister's letter.
The minister has gone on at great length about why a landfill site could not be found in Dumfries and Galloway between April, when the cattle were incinerated, and December, when the ash was moved to Garlaff in East Ayrshire. The letter also indicates that Dumfries and Galloway was not a suitable place for the disposal.
I mentioned at the previous meeting that I have a statement from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that indicates that, at the outset of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, it identified 11 sites that were suitable for disposal of the waste. However, the implication in the minister's letter is that sites for landfill would have to be sought out. That seems contradictory.
I would like the matter to be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further investigation. I am not sure on what basis we would do that, given that, as the minister has also mentioned, it is not obligatory to consult local people under current legislation. I wonder whether the Transport and the Environment Committee could review that, given the circumstances that have arisen in East Ayrshire.
Part of the minister's response is that sites were not chosen in Dumfries and Galloway, which is a protected area, because there were no engineered landfill sites with suitable lining. Do you accept that?
Yes. There are no engineered landfill sites in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. However, presumably one could have been constructed. As I said, the SEPA statement indicates that there were 11 sites and that the Executive developed a new site at Birkshaw forest for the burial of animal carcases. Birkshaw forest is in Dumfries and Galloway.
However, the minister also claims that it would have been unrealistic to build a site within three months.
He claims that but, as I have indicated, he seems to be contradicted by SEPA's statement. The minister is indicating that it was unrealistic to find, survey and construct a site. However, the SEPA statement indicates that 11 sites were identified early on.
Where were the 11 sites?
I think that some of them were in Dumfries and Galloway. I do not know where the others were. That is one of the reasons why we need to explore the issue further and try to get some more information.
In the second-last paragraph of his letter, the minister is perhaps referring to the same 11 sites. A number of sites were identified because, as he wrote,
"At that time, we had no clear idea about how far the disease would spread".
Therefore, precautions were being taken. As I understand it, the Executive's argument is that the nearest site that SEPA regarded as capable of taking the ash was at Garlaff in East Ayrshire. The site was chosen on the principle that it was nearest.
I think that the nearest site was in fact at Carlisle.
Is Carlisle nearer?
Yes. A political decision was taken to take the ash not to Carlisle, but to Garlaff, which is in an area that was uninfected. Carlisle may be in a different country, but it is in an area that was infected by foot-and-mouth disease.
Would it cost more to send the ash to Carlisle?
It would possibly cost less. As has been indicated, a special effort was made to get rid of the ash by taking it to the Garlaff site prior to Christmas. Members will recall that, at the last meeting before Christmas, we asked for a moratorium. That seemed to inject a wee bit more urgency into the dumping of the ash. Extra lorries were laid on so that material went to the site before Christmas.
Was the alternative site of Carlisle mentioned at the time?
The subject was raised within the Executive. Executive officials have indicated to me that the decision not to take the ash to Carlisle was a political one.
On what basis?
Apparently, the argument was that, as the minister had indicated that he would not take any cattle infected with foot-and-mouth disease from England to be rendered in Scotland, he did not feel in a position to send the ash from Scotland to England. That was not a big issue, however, because Carlisle was in the middle of an infected area and was already taking a lot of the ash from the north of England.
I am among the MSPs who think that there should be a full public inquiry on foot-and-mouth. We are not getting that at the moment, but we keep being told about the other inquiries that are being carried out under various headings. There seems to be a question whether it is scientifically safe or wise to take the ash from an infected area and bury it in an uninfected area. That point should be put to the committees concerned. We keep being told how good the inquiries will be, although they are not public inquiries.
We had a petition calling for a public inquiry. What has happened to it?
It went to the Rural Development Committee.
Is it still being considered?
I think that the committee has decided not to take the petition any further.
My point is that inquiries are on-going. I think that three have been mentioned.
Are they UK inquiries?
There is also a Scottish inquiry.
Yes, there is a Scottish one. Should not that inquiry be informed that there is a question on which we would like reassurance?
You mean about the fact that the infected area was Dumfries and Galloway and that Ayrshire was uninfected.
Yes. How was the decision made that the ash was safe? It does not seem very reasonable.
The clerk informs me that the minister's argument is that there was no danger because the ash was controlled waste and because the animals were not infected but were on land that was contiguous to infected areas.
But we do not yet have the results of an inquiry to tell us about foot-and-mouth in detail. The question of the ash seems to be worth putting to the Scottish inquiry, wherever it is being conducted.
My problem with referring the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee is, first, that the dumping of the ash is finished. Secondly, committees, because of the burdens on them, are reluctant to take on petitions unless there are serious grounds for so doing. They may well say that the minister's reply is comprehensive and that there is no real point in taking things further.
That does not answer my question.
It may be more worth while to raise such points with the minister and ask him to respond directly before we finally decide what to do with the petition.
Yes, we could do that.
We could also consider Dr Ewing's suggestion of remitting some of the evidence to the three inquiries. The moment that the foot-and-mouth situation was said to be officially over, it fell out of the news. However, it is most definitely not over, nor is the BSE situation, in relation to the disposal of carcases. The cow burner at Carntyne has been the subject of a previous petition; the ash from incinerated cattle is being taken to an unlined dump in the east end of Glasgow. If ash from suspected BSE cattle can be taken to an unlined dump in Glasgow, why cannot ash from foot-and-mouth animals be taken to a lesser kind of dump in Dumfries and Galloway? I do not trust much that I hear about disposal and I would hold on a pair of tongs most of what I am told by SEPA and other authorities. The full truth will not come out until much later. However, I would like Adam Ingram to tell me whether a Glasgow dump is one of the 11.
The honest answer is that I do not know. I assumed that the 11 sites were in and around the area infected with foot-and-mouth disease.
We can usefully write back to the minister asking for clarification on a number of points. We can ask the Executive whether any consideration was given to the fact that the waste was taken from an infected area to an uninfected area. We can ask why the Carlisle option was turned down. Was it on cost grounds? We can ask where the 11 sites are and whether it would be in order for the committee to refer the material that it has on this issue to any of the on-going inquiries into the foot-and-mouth catastrophe in Scotland. Finally, we can ask why there is no obligation on the Executive to consult local authorities in such circumstances. Are there any other points?
No, those are the key points.
The Executive has to take responsibility. SEPA is a particularly secretive quango. Cattle at high risk of having BSE are being burned in the middle of Glasgow, surrounded by thousands of people. We have a terrible situation in Adam Ingram's area. Many things are wrong and at least some of the truth must be told to us openly.
It has been pointed out to me that we do not need to ask the minister whether we can refer any of this material to the various inquiries, as we have that power. Perhaps we can ask for information on how we would refer it to the inquires. We will write to the minister then act on his replies. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Charitable Organisations (Regulation) (PE428)
Bristow Muldoon has arrived to talk to PE428, on Binny House, so we will deal with that next. An additional paper came in this morning from Sue Ryder Care, which has been circulated to committee members. I appreciate that members will not have had a chance to read it. It is a response to the letter that we sent to the chief executive of Sue Ryder Care, Iain Henderson. Members will also be aware of the recent tragic reports about a resident at Binny House who has asked to have her treatment discontinued in protest at the closure of the home.
Sue Ryder Care's response expresses the view that a national health service is in operation, that tax-raising powers are in place to provide revenue for that service and that that should be the Parliament's starting point when investigating regulation. It also makes the point that Sue Ryder Care has provided a substantial building at Binny House, together with continuing maintenance and provision of equipment to enable the care of high-dependency residents. Mr Henderson contends that the health authority and Government agencies have a statutory duty to provide such facilities and that they should have been providing them.
Mr Henderson also asserts that it is for the health authority and Government agencies to provide all health care services and facilities, and that the Government is occasionally fortunate in having assistance in meeting its obligations to the electorate from the voluntary and not-for-profit sector. He states that, for many years, Sue Ryder Care has helped the health service in Lothian to meet its obligations to patients by providing treatment that is worth many millions of pounds.
He also says that Sue Ryder Care is making a multimillion pound investment in building a new care centre in Aberdeen, with realistic revenue funding from Grampian NHS Board and Government agencies. However, he states that dealings with Lothian NHS Board and associated agencies have not been harmonious and that the publicity and reporting of the proposed closure of Binny House have been consistently unbalanced. For example, he says that it was widely reported that the only remaining obstacle to a solution for Binny House was a revenue gap of £18,000, whereas the true figure was in excess of £250,000, year on year.
Mr Henderson also expresses the view that the reporting of Sue Ryder Care's negotiations with the health board has been distorted. He says that Lothian NHS Board was unable to offer sufficient funding to allow the charity to keep Binny House open, having made a final offer of £680 per week per patient, with no further room for manoeuvre. He therefore does not consider that Sue Ryder Care has walked away from negotiations, and states that he has written on two occasions to the chief executive of the health board about the provision of increased funding, which he believes constitutes participation in discussions. Mr Henderson concludes that he has always remained ready to listen to proposals about the Binny House situation, were any proposals to be tabled.
That is a brief summary of the response from Sue Ryder Care. We also have a response from the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Hugh Henry, who reiterates his view that it is a matter for local negotiation between the principal commissioners and Sue Ryder Care and that it is not appropriate for him to intervene. However, he provides details of steps that have been taken by local authorities and the health board to prevent the closure of the facility. He refers to the fact that the Minister for Health and Community Care, Malcolm Chisholm, wrote to the chief executive of Sue Ryder Care in November, urging the resumption of discussions with the commissioners of care to safeguard Binny House's future. Hugh Henry also restates the Executive's desire that a solution to the situation should be found through such discussions. Finally, Hugh Henry indicates that a full response that will cover the more general points in the petition will be provided in due course.
I am grateful to the committee for including the issue on its agenda and accommodating me in this way. I would like to respond briefly to some of the issues that are raised in the response from Sue Ryder Care, before I address what the petition asks for.
One of the points in the Sue Ryder Care letter with which I will not disagree with is the fact that Sue Ryder Care has provided an excellent level of care for many years at Binny House and other facilities. However, that is not the issue. In fact, part of the reason why people are fighting so hard to maintain the service is that they hold the service in such high regard. The problem is the way in which Sue Ryder Care is going about trying to close the service. It is trying to do it within a short time scale and has not been completely open and transparent about its financial dealings.
Mr Henderson's letter points out the fact that there is a dispute about the level of the funding gap. He refers to reports of a revenue gap of £18,000, which I mentioned at a previous meeting. Part of the problem that I and others have had in dealing with the issue is that there has been a lack of transparency from Sue Ryder Care about its true financial position. The figure of £18,000 was quoted to me by Lothian NHS Board.
I have put some questions to Sue Ryder Care to try to get to the bottom of its financial position. For example, its most recent published financial statement showed an increase in costs at Binny House of about 10 per cent. I am absolutely sure that the staff did not receive a wage increase of more than 10 per cent, nor am I aware of there being any substantial difference in the range of people who were being provided for in Binny House during that year. I have tried to get to the bottom of that increase.
At the previous meeting, I highlighted the fact that there have been increases in management costs and publicity costs for the organisation. I am concerned that some of the cost increases might not, in fact, be cost increases that are associated with the care of people at Binny House.
The letter mentions Lothian NHS Board's offer of £680 per week per patient. That is exactly the same as the offer that was made to Marchmont House, which is being kept open. We have not received an explanation for why that is a suitable figure for a broadly comparable range of patients who are being maintained in a location that is only 30 or 40 miles down the road from the home that is to be closed.
I do not want to comment on the position of the lady who has been mentioned in recent television coverage, because I have not spoken directly to her or to her family. However, I have encouraged Sue Ryder Care to negotiate. Last week, I spoke to the chief executives of Sue Ryder Care and Lothian NHS Board and I still hope that Sue Ryder Care will come back to the table to negotiate. Negotiating by letter from 400 miles away is not appropriate. It is better to get people around a table to find out where divisions lie between organisations and to try to close those divisions.
PE428 calls for a framework that would not allow organisations to close in such a short time scale. The proposal is to put in place a framework in which there would be a minimum period of consultation and in which notice would be required before a closure could take place. That would be appropriate. Many people who are in such residential care accommodation are highly dependent and many have become settled. It cannot be said that there will never be change in such care homes, but if there is to be change, there should be the opportunity to deal with potential funding problems. If, in the end, people are required to move to another location, they should be given a satisfactory period in which a suitable place can be found. The petition calls for that. The committee might agree that it is appropriate for the Health and Community Care Committee to consider whether we need a stronger statutory framework.
I ask members to separate the two issues. Bristow Muldoon referred to the need for a regulatory framework for charitable organisations that provide health care. The committee will take that suggestion seriously, but we are still awaiting the final response from the minister on that issue.
There is the immediate problem of Binny House's impending closure. There is not a great deal that the Public Petitions Committee can do about that, other than to appeal to Sue Ryder Care and to Lothian NHS Board to come together for further negotiations around the table, as Bristow Muldoon said. Using the committee as a medium to negotiate with Lothian NHS Board is not the way forward—that would be slow, cumbersome and would not achieve anything. Does any member want to ask Bristow Muldoon questions on Binny House's impending closure?
Is something wrong with the structure of the building? Is there any excuse for Sue Ryder Care to treat it differently from its other homes?
I am not aware of any excuse. In his letter, Mr Henderson mentioned the Care Standards Act 2000, but that is a bit of a red herring. I understand that that is UK legislation that applies to England and Wales and that Lothian NHS Board has advised Sue Ryder Care that the legislation does not apply to Binny House.
I am not aware of any substantial problem with Binny House. Over the years, there may need to be a change in how service is delivered there. It is an old building, but it is maintained to quite a high level. The standard of accommodation is high and I am not aware of a substantial structural problem that has driven the decision.
Regulation on a minimum period of consultation is an excellent idea. A big adjustment is involved in a person's going from their own home to a residential home. People settle down and to ask them to move again is absolutely cruel. That has happened in Nairn. Seeing those old people is heartbreaking.
We also need to consider not so much the time span for consultation, but the time between a decision's being taken and its implementation. That is important because people might not consider alternative provision until a decision is made. It can take a long time to find suitable alternative provision.
We will discuss that in the light of the Executive's response on the issue.
The difference between the yearly revenue gap figures—the Lothian NHS Board figure of £18,000 and Sue Ryder Care's figure of £250,000—is enormous. What is the basis for the £250,000-a-year claim by Sue Ryder Care?
There is disagreement between Sue Ryder Care and Lothian NHS Board over the true cost. There is also disagreement about the underlying costs of the organisation and some additional costs that have been incurred, which might be managed out. In particular, the degree to which agency nursing has been used recently is an issue, and the question is whether some costs could be managed out by employing staff directly instead of using agency staff. There are other costs that Sue Ryder Care regards as base costs, but which Lothian NHS Board believes can be managed out of the system without the quality of care being affected.
In addition to the base-cost offer that Lothian NHS Board made, it offered to underwrite 50 per cent of any cost overrun during the period when some of the costs were being managed out of the system. An offer was made to contribute towards some of the additional costs on an interim basis.
However, Sue Ryder Care claims that it has been running on a deficit of £250,000 a year.
The deficit that it cited previously was £500,000 a year.
At Binny House?
Yes—at Binny House, prior to the opening of the negotiations. However, Lothian NHS Board advises that it was first made aware of the deficit at Binny House in August 2001.
Excuse me, convener. I have an urgent advocacy case to attend, to which I referred earlier. I am sorry. Will the committee still be quorate if I leave?
Yes. We need only three members.
There are two issues. The only thing that we can do in respect of the immediate problem is to write back to Sue Ryder Care and Lothian NHS Board, asking them to reopen negotiations because of the urgency of the situation at Binny House. There is not much else that the committee can do. We must then wait for the Executive's response on the further question of the regulatory framework for charitable organisations. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I ask for clarification. The figure that is cited in the submission is £680 per patient per week. Surely, that figure is much higher than that which one would normally associate with such establishments. Is that figure the offer from Lothian NHS Board or is that a sum that was demanded by Sue Ryder Care?
That figure is the sum that has been offered by Lothian NHS Board and the local authorities concerned. Some patients have especially high levels of need and would be funded to a greater amount than that. However, the majority of patients would be funded to the tune of £680 a week. It is a high figure partly because of the high levels of dependency of the people in the home and partly because Lothian NHS Board feels that it is paying a high premium towards the service and has gone further than it normally would to try to maintain it.
Thanks, Bristow.
Cancer Rates (East Lothian) (PE349)
We will try to get through the remaining petitions as quickly as possible. The first item is a response from the Health and Community Care Committee to PE349, on cancer cases in East Lothian. We asked various organisations, including the Executive, East Lothian Council, Lothian NHS Board, the local environmental action group and the operators of Torness power station for their responses to the petition. We considered the responses and noted the divergence between those of Lothian NHS Board and the Scottish Executive, on the one hand, and those from the campaigners, on the other hand, regarding the cause of higher cancer rates in Lothian.
We asked the Health and Community Care Committee whether it considered that there should be further investigation of the issues that PE349 raises. We did not formally refer the petition to that committee at that stage. At its meeting on 28 November, the Health and Community Care Committee agreed that it did not want to take action on the petition.
The East Lothian Environment Group submitted additional material—which was circulated to members—that intimated its disappointment at the Health and Community Care Committee's decision.
Given that the Health and Community Care Committee said that it does not want to investigate further the issues that the petition raises, we must now decide whether the Public Petitions Committee should take further action. I understand that the additional material is not new material, but a restatement of the material that was originally passed to the Health and Community Care Committee. That committee decided that it was not going to investigate the matter, so there is not a great deal that we can do about it. I do not see, therefore, any purpose in us taking the matter further. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Compulsory Purchase Order Procedures (PE392)
The next petition is PE392, from Mr Thomas Buchanan, on the question of the review of compulsory purchase orders. Members will remember that we agreed to write to the Executive to request its views. We have received its response, which provides details of how compulsory purchase orders operate in Scotland and makes clear the circumstances under which they can be used.
The Executive also addresses the issue of whether compulsory purchase provisions are compliant with the European convention on human rights. Following a review of existing planning legislation, the Executive concluded that the current system—which includes compulsory purchase order provisions—is ECHR compliant without further amendments. The Executive also provided details of the objectives and findings of the compulsory purchase order research that was published in 2001, which found that the majority of such purchases are conducted by agreement and that there is broad acceptance that open-market value is the appropriate basis for compensation for land that is taken.
The Executive also proposes to consult on the matter in due course and to improve the system. Given that, it is suggested that we agree to ask the Executive to ensure that the petitioner is invited to participate in a consultation process and that no additional action should be taken by us, other than to send copies of the Executive response to the petitioner and to the Local Government Committee for their information. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (PE398)
The next petition is PE398, from Helen McDade, on the inadequacy of treatments and of support from social services for ME and chronic fatigue syndrome sufferers.
The English independent working group's report was published on Friday 11 January. Members were provided with a copy of the Department of Health news release that announced that fact. The report concludes that health care professionals should recognise chronic fatigue syndrome or ME as a chronic illness and that early recognition, with an authoritative and positive diagnosis is the key to improving outcomes. The report also states that all ME patients need appropriate clinical evaluation and follow-up, and it highlights the role of general practitioners in co-ordinating referral to specialist care with support and understanding for those who suffer from the condition.
The Health and Community Care Committee was keen to see the report before it commented on PE398. It is suggested that the Public Petitions Committee agree to refer the petition, with a copy of the Executive's response, to the Health and Community Care Committee so that it can consider the issues that are raised in the light of the report's conclusion. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The English information is interesting and good.
It is good, but even better was the suggestion in the Executive's response that strategic needs assessment might take place through a Scottish needs assessment programme for chronic fatigue syndrome and ME. I am sure that the Health and Community Care Committee will be interested in that.
Scottish Prison Service<br />(Age Discrimination) (PE404)
We move on to PE404, which is from Mr Walter Limond. Members will remember that Mr Limond, who is 58, is not being allowed to continue until the age of 60 in service as a prison officer. He petitioned us about that and we asked for responses from the Scottish Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association Scotland.
We have a response from the Scottish Prison Service that indicates that staff entitlement to reserve pension rights—referred to as doubling—was contingent on a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the retirement age for those staff was 55 and that Mr Limond falls into that category.
The Prison Officers Association agrees that that is the case but points out also that the quid pro quo about retiring at 55 was meant to be a temporary situation, following a staff structural review. At that time—1994-95—the Scottish Prison Service promised to review that decision, but it has not done so to date.
The suggestion is that in the light of the responses that we have received, in particular the information that the issue went all the way to the House of Lords, whose ruling found in favour of the Scottish Prison Service's policy, we should agree to take no further action on PE404. I feel that it would also perhaps be worth while to write back to the Scottish Prison Service to ask it to respond to the Prison Officers Association's point that the decision about retiring at 55 was meant to be reviewed periodically and to ask whether it has any intention of reviewing that decision.
Do members agree with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
It seems odd to argue that rules about retiring and about pension rights should be subject to a quid pro quo. I have not heard previously of that being done.
I do not think that the quid pro quo has legal standing. I think that it was a deal between the Scottish Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association.
The situation seems to me to be unjust—we should press the Scottish Prison Service to carry out a review.
I am reminded that that deal was one of the steps that were taken, following the staffing review, to avoid compulsory redundancies.
I see.
It was a deal that was done.
Did everyone concerned agree? Is it the Scottish Prison Service's argument that Mr Limond agreed to that deal?
The deal was agreed at the time, but it was agreed also that it would be only a temporary measure that would be reviewed. However, that deal has not been reviewed.
That is a weakness.
We can clarify the position with the Scottish Prison Service.
Indeed.
Health Education (Guidelines) (PE427)
The final petition is PE427, from the Rev Iain Murdoch, on the subject of sex and drugs education resources in Scottish schools. Members will remember that the Rev Iain Murdoch was at the most recent meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. He was concerned about some of the questioning at that meeting about whether the petition was backed officially by the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and other churches in Scotland.
He has written back and made it clear that PE427 is a grass-roots petition that is not officially endorsed by any of the church organisations in Scotland. We are asked to note that additional correspondence and to take no further action, other than to confirm to the petitioners that the committee noted the points that they raised and that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee was sent a copy of the petitioners' letter. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I have sympathy for the Rev Iain Murdoch's viewpoint.
It is not for us to decide—thank God.
Okay. That is everything. There is no other competent business. I thank you all for your endurance this morning. It has been a long committee meeting, but we got through a lot of work. Thank you very much for your co-operation.
Meeting closed at 12:31.