Public Petitions Committee, 18 Nov 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Official Report 220KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Coastal and Marine National Park Process (PE1047)<br />Maritime Organisations (PE1081)

There are 15 current petitions that we need to make our way through. We will consider the first two—PE1047 and PE1081—together.

PE1047, from Mark Carter, on behalf of the Hebridean Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the failure of the existing coastal and marine national park and marine environmental protection process, and the extent to which such failure is due to pressure from individuals and industries that have vested, affiliated or commercial interests.

PE1081, from Ronald Guild, calls on Parliament to urge the Government to seek a UK-wide reappraisal of all organisations—Government, local authority and non-governmental—that have maritime and maritime airspace responsibilities, taking into account European Union and International Maritime Organization contexts and worldwide best practice. Members have also been circulated with an updated submission—paper PE1081/F—from the petitioner.

Do members have any suggestions on what to do with the petitions? As the marine bill is due to be introduced in the foreseeable future, I suggest that we refer the petitions to the appropriate committee, which is the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that approval.

---

A76 (Safety Strategy) (PE1067)

PE1067, from Councillor Andrew S Wood and Councillor Gill Dykes, on behalf of ward 8 in Dumfries and Galloway, calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider a safety strategy for the A76 to improve signage on the road, to consider how the road can be improved to remove blind areas and address bad corners, and to erect average speed cameras where speed should be controlled.

Do members have suggestions on how to deal with the petition? We await the strategic transport projects review summary report.

We could write to Transport Scotland for an update on the situation once the summary report of the strategic transport projects review—that trips off the tongue—has been received by Scottish ministers.

That sounds like a great bedside-reading document that we will all love and hold dearly. Bill Butler makes a reasonable suggestion, given that we need to see how the review fits in with the wider strategy of Transport Scotland and others.

Are members happy to accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Primary Schools<br />(Visiting Specialist Teachers) (PE1071)

PE1071, from Ruchelle Cullen, on behalf of Lochinver Primary School Parents and Teachers Association, is about ensuring adequate access to visiting specialist teachers of music, art and physical education.

Do members have any views on the petition?

The issue that the petition raises comes up regularly in remote and rural areas, where pupils are at a disadvantage because they do not receive such specialist tuition. Perhaps we should write to Highland Council. I am sure that the problem exists in other areas of Scotland, so perhaps we should go beyond Highland Council. However, I suggest that we seek first the views of Highland Council.

It troubles me that we seek clarification on the issues that petitions raise even after we have been dealing with them for some time. The point does not apply to Highland Council, which has been written to and has responded. However, issues that we are already progressing continue to pop up. Perhaps we are not getting the responses that we require—such responses should consider in detail the issues that a petition raises. Because there is an expectation that the clerks will bring petitions before us, we are falling between two stools and repeating ourselves. We could ask the clerk to look at petitions that are in that ball park. Petitions should not be progressed until we get the responses that we require.

I could send letters from the committee offline to remind people to respond to petitions that have been in the system for a while. To be fair, we have managed to call to account one or two Government departments. A couple of ministers have had a wee skelping from the committee—an all-party skelping, which is always enjoyable. They got the message, and the attitude that was prevalent in one or two departments—not all departments—has changed. We need to sort out the issue. The clerk is happy to be a big wrecking ball on our behalf.

Have we received a response from Highland Council?

Yes.

I do not gainsay your suggestion on what the clerk should do, but it would be reasonable for us to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it is satisfied that the policy initiatives to which it refers will create a situation in which there is adequate access to the specialisms in rural and remote areas.

Okay—but behind the scenes we must try to iron out these matters. Some petitions keep going backwards and forwards.

Are you suggesting that you will send such letters, convener?

I suggest that the clerk provide the committee with a summary report on current petitions on which responses have not been received. I may need to write directly to those concerned to inform them that, if we do not receive the responses that we expect, we will reveal that.

I am sure that they will be delighted to receive a letter from you.

Yes, but I will need committee members' approval before writing to them.

You have it.

---

Scottish Prison Population (Catholics) (PE1073)

Petition PE1073, from Tom Minogue, calls on the Parliament to investigate and establish the reasons for the apparently disproportionate number of Catholics in Scottish prisons. Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition? When the petition was before us previously, one or two members expressed concern that we were not really interrogating the issues that it raises and that the responses that we had received were not very clear.

I have views on what we should do next, but I would like to hear what members think. In my opinion, the issues remain outstanding and have not been addressed in the responses that we have received so far. These are sensitive topics, and people always get nervous when they are raised. The number of prisoners from Muslim backgrounds is also disproportionately high. There are issues that we need not cease to pursue. I know that members have views on the matter.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it does not consider that there is merit in investigating the issue further. What is the rationale for its position, other than the suggestion that the disparity is related to social and economic factors that may or may not be prevalent in the west of Scotland? That is not a throwaway remark—it seems to be a general view. Can the Scottish Government provide a more specific reason for its view that there is no merit in pursuing the matter?

I read the responses that we have received, which make some fair points about deprivation. In many ways, they say things that we could have guessed, but it is better to hear other people saying them. I do not think that anything in the responses comes as a huge surprise.

The petitioner makes some extraordinarily good points in his most recent response, not least that our names reveal a great deal about our backgrounds, and we can hardly hide our names. The matter is not as simple as has been suggested. We recognise that, because we are human beings, we are instinctively prejudiced. It is difficult not to be, so we should not hold it against our fellow men and women if, occasionally, they are prejudiced.

However, it is not clear to me how we should investigate the matter. Unless the committee wants to try to do something—and I am not even sure what we could do—it is difficult to know to whom we could refer the petition to get better information. I think that the answers that we have are simplistic, and I do not mind saying so, but I am not sure how we can improve on them.

I raised the issue of the number of Muslims incarcerated in Scottish prisons in response to the petition, which concerns the disproportionate number of Catholics in Scottish prisons. In his paper, the petitioner raises a number of other questions.

The responses that we have received do not satisfy me that enough work has been done on the matter. The evidence from the University of Stirling states that it is not aware that any research has been done on the ethnic or religious backgrounds of prisoners in Scottish prisons. If we are to take the matter seriously, we need such research. It is all very well to say that people find themselves being incarcerated because of social and economic factors, but the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service or even the Scottish Court Service should analyse the matter further and find out why there are higher than normal proportions of certain categories of prisoners in Scottish prisons.

I would like the committee to refer the matter back to the Scottish Government, which should ask the appropriate bodies to undertake research. The committee will then have some meaningful information to consider—whether or not we also consider the social deprivation factors—in discussing why we lock people up in prison. If it is the case that we lock people up because of social deprivation factors, we should draw that to the attention of the Government and other decision makers. We must ensure that we address the issues meaningfully and that we do not just resolve problems by incarcerating people.

I am minded to support Marlyn Glen's and John Wilson's view that we should keep the petition open. I do not think that the body of evidence that we have received responds conclusively to the petition. It is appropriate for us to ask the Government and the Scottish Prison Service to examine further whether they can address the higher proportions of the prison population that come from certain religious backgrounds—as far as such affiliations can be identified.

I am surprised that no research has been done, given the importance of the cultural and religious issues, which seem to dominate many of the narratives that take place in Scotland. It would be interesting to find out whether there is an option for that research to emerge.

Bashir, do you want to add anything?

No.

Okay.

We will keep the petition open. Do we know whether the Equal Opportunities Committee has considered the matter?

It has not done so from the point of view of the petition.

Would its doing so be appropriate?

I am wrestling with what the Equal Opportunities Committee could do. If we want to find out more, we need research. If the proportion is statistically significant, the question is what came first. That is the difficult question for the research.

I might raise the matter informally with the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee to find out whether the petition would fit into any likely future work plan for that committee.

The problem is that, as Marlyn Glen said, the Equal Opportunities Committee would, with the best will in the world, be left in front of the stumbling block that we face: there is no research. I am not—heaven forfend—against the convener having an informal chat with the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but we should ask the Scottish Government to set aside resources for proper research.

Okay. Thank you.

---

Wind Farm Developments (PE1095)

PE1095, from Sybil Simpson, on behalf of the Save Your Regional Parks Campaign, has been presented to the committee previously. We have also had a submission from the constituency member in support of the petition. Do committee members have views on how we should progress the petition? I note that one of the options is "to write again". Have we had a limited response, if any, from the Scottish Government?

There was a response. I could not comment on whether it was limited.

Okay. We could perhaps look for more information the next time we write to the Government on the issue.

Yes.

Okay. I understand the language. To paraphrase what the clerk has said, we are not getting very far. We should write again on a number of points contained in the petition. Are there any other views?

We need more specificity.

That is easy to write but harder to say—well done.

Thank you.

We need to address a number of issues about the planning process in national and regional parks. We will pursue those issues. Are members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Motorcycle Facilities (PE1100)

PE1100 is from Bob Reid, on behalf of Scottish Auto Cycle Union and North Lanarkshire Scramble and Quad Bike Club. It asks for a review of planning and environmental regulations to allow for the provision of off-road motorcycle facilities, with the particular intention of tackling anti social behaviour.

The petition has been before us on at least two previous occasions. John Wilson would like to comment.

The letter from the petitioners clearly states their position. We should respect their wishes to have the petition closed to allow them to continue a dialogue with Government.

Let us hope that the dialogue is constructive and addresses the issue.

I add that the petitioners should not hesitate to come back to us if the answers that they get from the Government are not satisfactory.

Let us ensure that it is not a mad scramble, though.

---

Cancer Treatment (Cetuximab) (PE1108)

PE1108, from Tina McGeever, on behalf of Mike Gray, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the provision on the national health service of cancer treatment drugs, in particular cetuximab, to ensure equity across NHS boards on the appropriateness, effectiveness and availability of such treatments.

I think some members who wanted to comment are not able to be here. I know that Bill Butler would like to comment—he has previously spoken on the petitioner's behalf.

Obviously, this is the big inquiry that we undertook. I record our appreciation for the work that Tina McGeever has done and for the progress that she has continued to make. Both at UK and Scotland levels, ministers have had to respond on some of the principles that the petition raises, as well as on their proper and sensitive application locally. The documents are all before the committee.

As colleagues will know, the committee's report was debated in the chamber on 1 October. On 27 October, the Scottish Government published "Better Cancer Care, An Action Plan".

Colleagues will also know that the committee's report set out 16 overall conclusions. The Scottish Government stated in its response that those will be addressed through a number of policy initiatives, one of which will be the action plan. However, colleagues will know that although there are passing references to the issues that are highlighted in the committee's report, there is not sufficient detail or clarity about what is happening, how it is happening, when it is happening and by whom it is being done.

The committee should take a couple of steps. First, we should write to the Scottish Government to ask it to detail clearly and precisely how each of the conclusions in the committee's report is being addressed through the plan. For example, how are variations in the planning of drug use in cancer services and the provision of such drugs being monitored? How is the overall exceptional prescribing process to be improved—for instance, what new guidance material will be produced? How will liaison officers, which my constituent George Darroch proposed, be appointed to facilitate communication between clinicians and patients?

We should also seek the views of the witnesses during the committee's inquiry, to gauge whether they think the action plan addresses adequately the issues that they raised. For example, does it go far enough in expecting or requiring more from health boards? Will it lead to the required improvements to the processes that patients, such as the late Mike Gray and others, have gone and are going through to access cancer treatment drugs? If so, how?

Many questions are still to be answered. Continuing examination is required and the Government must address specific points that relate to the 16 major conclusions in the committee's report.

As Bill Butler said, time has passed since the parliamentary debate and developments have occurred at UK and Scotland levels that show a willingness to engage and to work out the best ways forward. We identified a series of actions that we want to be taken. We will take on board Bill Butler's points and pursue them and the key issues in our report with the Scottish Government.

Will we write to the people who gave oral evidence?

Yes.

We will have a brief five-minute comfort break, after which we will continue with the rest of the petitions.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Residential and Abstinence Treatment (PE1113)

I thank members for their patience. PE1113, from Peter McCann, on behalf of Castle Craig hospital, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the availability and provision of residential and abstinence treatment for people who are alcohol and/or drug dependent. Do members have views on the petition?

Could we close the petition with some satisfaction, because it coincides with the Government's plan? The Government has produced the strategic document "The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem". A letter from the Government says:

"The Government shares the Committee's view that there needs to be … clarity about how much is spent"

on the various issues of drug misuse. Audit Scotland is to examine such spending urgently. Those two elements add up to giving the petitioner what he asked for. The Government is working on that.

Are members happy to accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Medical Records (Destruction) (PE1141)

PE1141, from Myles Fitzpatrick, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider whether it is satisfied with the policy and guidance that it has issued under which NHS boards may destroy a patient's medical records and whether that policy in any way hinders the right of an individual whose records have been destroyed to access treatment on the NHS. Do members have comments or observations?

The evidence that we have suggests that the issue has been resolved, so we should close the petition.

Our information is that a policy on what happens to medical records now applies. A code of practice on NHS records management, which was issued in July 2008, covers the retention and disposal of patient records and was agreed with the National Archives of Scotland. There is no evidence of a conflict between the policy for destroying medical records and principle 5 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and there is no link between the destruction of patients' records and entitlement to NHS services.

Are we happy to close the petition on the basis of that information?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fire Service Boards (PE1147)

PE1147, from Mrs Annmargaret Watson, on behalf of the fire reforms action group, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review current legislation to ensure that each local authority is represented on the fire service joint board, to ensure that board decisions reflect local concerns and views, and to revise legislation that prevents local authorities from increasing fire cover without full joint board authorisation and bring it into line with police service cover.

I think that some issues that the petition raises still need to be discussed. What are members' views?

Perhaps we can write to the Scottish Government on a number of issues. We can ask whether there are anomalies between joint fire boards and joint police boards in terms of their board structures and their decision-making processes on funding and station staffing. If there are anomalies, what are they and why do they exist? We should ask whether the Government is fully satisfied that the existing constituency make-up and decision-making processes and powers of joint fire boards deliver the best fire and rescue services for local populations. We can tie up other points by asking whether the Government would agree to meet the petitioner and the Fire Brigades Union Scotland to discuss the salient issues that the petition raises. I think that that might cover it.

Okay. We can ask the Government about the decision-making processes. Are members happy to accept what was suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Disabled Parking (PE1149)

PE1149, from Kenny Shand, on behalf of Disability Help Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to allow for parking bays for disabled drivers with mobility impairments—for example, outside a person's home.

We are aware that a member of the Parliament has introduced a member's bill on the issue, which is the Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill. It is evident that, should the Parliament approve the bill, it will address the issues that the petition raises. I think that we should therefore suspend consideration of the petition until the bill has completed its process through Parliament. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (Screening) (PE1151)

PE1151, from Wilma Gunn, on behalf of Scottish HART, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the need to establish a national heart screening programme for young people taking part in sport and for families at risk. The petition asks for health boards and general practitioners to reconsider certain areas. The petitioners gave evidence to the committee previously and spoke movingly of their experience of losing a young member of their family through undetected heart problems.

Do members have views on how we should deal with the petition?

My information is that the Scottish Government has accepted the advice of the National Screening Committee that close relatives of those diagnosed with a condition such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy should be offered tests and advice; and that the Government has launched a two-year cardiac assessment in young athletes programme that will offer cardiovascular assessment to people over the age of 16 who take part in any organised amateur sport. Those are positive measures. I am not sure what the committee should now do with the petition.

That information shows that there has been progress. The petitioners called for a universal screening approach, but the National Screening Committee has said that perhaps a more targeted approach is required to identify where weaknesses may exist. As Bill Butler said, those over 16 who are involved in amateur sport will be assessed, as will relatives of those with a heart condition, who may have a predisposal to that condition. Those people should be assessed.

I think that we should close the petition on the basis that we have made progress on the issues that the petitioner raised. Are we happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Closed-circuit Television Provision (PE1152)

PE1152, from Robert Kyle, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allocate funding for the provision of permanent closed-circuit television facilities in communities that are subjected to significant levels of crime.

The Government is undertaking a review of public-space CCTV. Obviously there are major resource implications for continuing with public-space CCTV, and that will be part of the Government's consideration. We should therefore suspend the petition pending the outcome of the Government's review.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Children's Interests (PE1156)

The final current petition is PE1156, from Jimmy Deuchars, on behalf of the Grandparents Apart Self Help Group, which urges the Parliament to ask the Government to review the administration of child and family law services with regard to grandparents' access. To inform policy development, the justice analytical services division has sought the views of the petitioner and various others on their experience of family law services. The petitioner has also had the opportunity to meet the Minister for Children and Early Years. I do not know whether there is much more that the committee can do.

You have just taken the words out of my mouth, convener. The petitioner has essentially got what he was after. He has the ear of Government and they are talking about the issue. Not for the first time this afternoon, we can give ourselves a small pat on the back, say that we have done our job, and close the petition.

Does the committee accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.