Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Official Report 557KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Cancer-causing Toxins (PE1089)

PE1089, by Morag Parnell, relates to exposure to hazardous toxins in the environment and the workplace and the rising incidence of cancers and other chronic illnesses. We have discussed this petition a number of times and, if members have nothing further to say, I suggest that, given the assessment that Scottish Government officials are carrying out and the fact that in response to one particular suggestion the petitioner has already contacted two of the expert committees in this area, we have come to the end of the road with this and recommend that we close it. Before we do so, we should pay tribute to the Women’s Environmental Network Scotland for its work on raising awareness of toxins in the workplace. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)

In introducing the next petition, I look to my left in fear and trepidation at the dastardly duo of Des McNulty and Gil Paterson. Margo MacDonald is present to speak to another petition but, unfortunately for me, I see that she, too, has joined us for this item.

PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on behalf of the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice, relates to funding for that hospice and general policy on hospices throughout Scotland. Given that we have discussed the petition extensively in the past and given the time that we have, I ask all members, Des, to be very brief.

I will indeed be brief, convener.

The original petition had two strands: first, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s proposal to withdraw continuing care provision at St Margaret’s hospice; and, secondly, the funding arrangements for hospices. Members will see from the relevant papers that the health board obviously noted the committee’s previous discussion of the matter, and Mr Calderwood responded to some of the points that I and others made. I have provided committee members with a detailed reply to his points, which I hope helps them.



On page 2 of Mr Calderwood’s letter, he says:

“Three successive options proposed have been put to St Margaret’s and been rejected.”

The third option was to provide

“care beds with nursing support (an option developed between ourselves, Glasgow City, West and East Dunbartonshire Councils).”

Both West Dunbartonshire Council and East Dunbartonshire Council have denied being involved in any discussions about proposals for care beds with nursing support. They support St Margaret’s position.

Mr Calderwood concludes by making three points on page 4 of his letter. He says:

“We are committed to funding the palliative care service which St Margaret’s provides.”

The problem is that the palliative care services will inevitably be at risk if he or the board withdraws the continuing care funding, which is two thirds of the funding that the board provides, because there will be a significant funding shortage.

Mr Calderwood’s second point is:

“We want St Margaret’s to continue to provide care for older people but we have asked them to change the use of these beds”.

That is the fundamental point of the petition. Why should Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board take it on itself to decide what St Margaret’s should provide without proper negotiation or discussion? There has been no proper negotiation or discussion in this case.

Mr Calderwood’s third point is perhaps the most worrying. He says:

“Nothing is being asked of St Margaret’s which is any different in objective or nature from what is happening elsewhere in the country and across Greater Glasgow and Clyde.”

If that were the case, I would be concerned about what is happening throughout the country. However, I am particularly concerned about what will happen to St Margaret’s.

There has been a successful members’ business debate on the petition since we previously discussed it. A number of members across the chamber spoke in that debate, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing indicated in it that she expected Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board to have discussions with St Margaret’s. Those discussions have not been completed; indeed, it is not entirely clear to anyone whether they have started yet. The onus was put on the health board to take them forward.

Finally, work has been done on the funding issue, but we do not know yet what the funding will be.

On the basis that the funding issue and what will happen to St Margaret’s have not yet been resolved, and the process has not been completed, I urge the committee to keep the petition open and keep the pressure on the respective parties to see whether we can get a successful and sensible outcome.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to the petition.

I suggest that members take Des McNulty’s advice. The review of funding for the hospice movement is in progress. The committee will be trying to wind down its work on certain petitions, but this is the wrong time to do that with PE1105. The committee should await the outcome of the funding review, because an issue relating to that may arise.

Since the members’ business debate on the petition, a survey has been carried out in the local area. Some 75 per cent of those who responded to that survey supported the hospice’s position.

We should highlight to members who may not be aware of the geography that only a mile and a half separates Blawarthill hospital and St Margaret’s hospice. They are in the same geographical area. The proposal is to move 30 beds from St Margaret’s to Blawarthill when it is up and running. My argument is that every measurement of the quality of service at St Margaret’s that has ever been taken shows that that quality is the highest. Why would we want to jeopardise that? Why not keep the beds in St Margaret’s in place, and switch the other beds that were earmarked for St Margaret’s to Blawarthill? The two places are in the same health board area. The beds would be in two different buildings, but in the same area.

17:00

I put on record my thanks to Robert Calderwood, chief executive of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, for his detailed response. I welcome the fact that he has taken the time to respond to the committee, especially given the problems that we have had with the board in that regard in the past.

However, I am concerned about the middle of the paragraph in section 4 of Robert Calderwood’s response, in which he states:

“Clearly, it is very difficult for the NHS, portrayed as working against the interests of spiritually motivated people who are providing care for the dying, to be perceived in a balanced way.”

The spiritually motivated people to whom he refers are a dedicated team of staff who provide services across the board to people who require them. Yes, they are spiritually motivated, but the fact that they provide vital services to people who are at the end of their lives must be taken on board. Regardless of whether they are spiritually motivated, they provide essential services which, unfortunately, some health boards and other health providers do not provide. The fact that the alternatives that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board is offering are not the same as the dedicated care services that St Margaret’s hospice provides goes to the root of the debate. The board and its chief executive have failed to realise that. The debate is about the provision of end-of-life care services that are tailored to the individual. The provision of those services, unlike those that the health board has made available, is not based on financial considerations.

I hope that we can keep the petition open, get a more detailed report and take the issue forward to the benefit of all concerned. We should not take account only of financial considerations, as the board seems to do.

I will let Margo MacDonald in briefly.

I am here in support of my two colleagues, Des McNulty and Gil Paterson. I agree with what John Wilson said about the temerity of the health board in judging people’s motivation. The hospice provides a service that is more than adequate, as the local opinion poll has shown.

I ask the committee to consider keeping the petition open until after the budgeting arrangements for the new Parliament and Government are in place, because we know that there will be knock-on effects on all services, whether they are provided directly by health boards or are contracted out to the voluntary sector. It is in that context that one would want to take the decision about the provision of such care.

I think that the considered view of the committee is that we want to continue with the petition and await the outcome of some of the deliberations and discussions that have been mentioned. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. I do not think that there is much disagreement on the desire to keep the petition open. We are conscious that a critical stage has been reached as far as any recommendations that may come forward are concerned, particularly on the delicate issues of funding and the review.

I am conscious of time, so I would like us just to decide whether to keep the petition open, but if members feel strongly about particular issues, I would be happy to invite comments—please keep them brief, though.

I agree that we should keep the petition open. I would be interested to find out what discussions or negotiations, if any, have taken place between Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and St Margaret’s following the members’ business debate on the issue. That is something that we could fruitfully explore.

We should continue our work on the petition because it is about the continued provision of an appropriate service by St Margaret’s, which will not in any way hinder the much-sought-after and much-supported development in Blawarthill hospital in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland.

---

Cancer Treatment (Cetuximab) (PE1108)

PE1108, by Tina McGeever, is on access to cancer treatment drugs. The discussion will also focus on the health rights information leaflet from the health directorate that the clerk circulated to us last week. Members also have a copy of a revised letter relating to the report that we made on the petition. I invite the clerk to address that.

The committee will recall that, at its previous meeting, it considered a draft of the guidance from the Government. Members made a number of comments. Principally, they did not think that the guidance was particularly binding on health boards, and they also raised an issue to do with the deadlines specified in the guidance by which health boards had to report back. Helpfully, the Scottish Government has taken on board all the committee’s comments and suggests that the current version of the guidance is more binding on health boards, which it is hoped will be helpful. The draft letter sets that out. It also touches on the health rights information leaflet that was sent to us last week, which was the first time that the committee had seen it. That stemmed from the committee’s report, to which the cabinet secretary referred in the statement that she made to Parliament in March last year. The leaflet has not been sent to the committee for comment; it has come to it for information only. However, I suggest in the draft letter one or two issues that you may wish to raise with the cabinet secretary, and they are set out on page 3 of that letter.

A lot of progress has been made, thanks to the petitioner and the work of the committee in co-operation with the Scottish Government, which is very welcome. I take on board the fact that the guidance has now been tightened up, which is also welcome. However, we should highlight in the revised draft letter one or two areas of the information leaflet that need to be reconsidered. We will come back to the matter if the cabinet secretary agrees to what is in your letter, as we hope that she will, on 1 November 2010. There will then be progress reports from national health service boards in March 2011. On that basis, we should keep the petition open and welcome the progress that has been made.

Okay, we can incorporate that in the letter if you give us the detail of that observation. We guarantee that, once we have formalised the letter, all members of the committee will receive a copy for comment.

Just as a courtesy to everybody who has been involved. We will continue with the petition and draft a letter to go to the appropriate health minister.

I agree with what Bill Butler says. However, I have had contact today from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, which feels that a key question that was raised in our letter of 2 March has not yet been addressed—namely, how do the area drug and therapeutics committees appraise which medicines are deemed equivalent, and how do we ensure that there is openness and visibility around those decisions and that the equivalent medicines are named so that patients and clinicians are aware of which should be used in place of a Scottish Medicines Consortium-accepted medicine? The ABPI feels that that is a key question.

Yes, we can do that.

---

Transport Strategies (PE1115)

PE1115, by Caroline Moore, on behalf of the Campaign to Open Blackford Railway-station Again, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that national and regional transport strategies consider and focus on public transport solutions such as the reopening of Blackford railway station and, in doing so, recognise and support the positive environmental, economic and social impacts of such local solutions.

Dr Richard Simpson, who has expressed support for the petition in the past, hoped to be here but has, unfortunately, been called away. There are outstanding issues on the petition. We are still awaiting a full report from the Tayside and central Scotland regional transport partnership. The study aligns with the Government’s national priorities in the strategic transport review. Perhaps we should write to Transport Scotland, asking to know the outcome of those discussions, making it aware of the study and asking it to take the study’s findings into account in considering the proposals.

Sorry. I invite Elizabeth Smith to comment.

Yes. It makes a very strong case as well.

We should formally suspend consideration of the petition while we await responses. We will return to it once we have them. Thanks for your time on that, and thanks to Elizabeth Smith.

Elizabeth Smith hoped to be able to say something on this.

I will do so briefly, convener, and thank you for allowing me to do it. I support the petition very strongly. It is particularly important at this juncture to say how well organised the group has been in raising other issues that relate to part of southern Perthshire, where very important developments are going on in new housing and an integrated transport system. It is right that the debate is put in the context of the integrated transport structure. I hope that the committee will take that into consideration in the future.

My apologies for missing you out at the beginning. There is a wee note in the briefing paper saying that a full business case that the petitioners commissioned is now available. We will maybe invite Transport Scotland to respond to that.

---

Magazines and Newspapers (Display of Sexually Graphic Material) (PE1169)

I know that the research was submitted to the Home Office in February, so I suspect that the response might come later rather than sooner. However, we will certainly chase that up with the Home Office to get an idea of the timing.

I have in front of me a press release that tells me that the key recommendations of the Papadopoulos report are that the Government should

“launch an online ‘one-stop-shop’ to allow the public to voice their concerns regarding irresponsible marketing”

and

“support the Advertising Standards Agency ... to take steps to extend the existing regulatory standards to include commercial websites”.

The report also recommends that

“broadcasters are required to ensure music videos”

of the inappropriate variety are not broadcast before “the ‘watershed’”; that the Government should

“support the NSPCC in its work with manufacturers ... to encourage corporate responsibility”;

and that

“games consoles should be sold with parental controls already switched on.”

I am sure that those are all good ideas, and I would not wish to be in any sense derisory about them, but they do not address root and branch the issue that I think worries the petitioner and concerned committee members. Even if those ideas were adopted wholesale within a year, I am not sure that we would be very far forward or that that would do anything to displace the desire for some research to work out what is really going on. Frankly, with the greatest of respect to the Home Office and the Papadopoulos report and its authors, if we really want to examine the issue, we should just get on with it and not expect that report to change the countryside very much.

17:15

PE1169 is by Margaret Forbes, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography. We have had the petition in front of the committee before. It asks us to consider ways in which we can enforce measures that ensure that magazines and newspapers with sexually graphic covers are not displayed at children’s eye-level or below or adjacent to children’s titles and comics, and that they are screen-sleeved before being placed on a shelf in public. A number of issues are involved in this one, so I invite comments from members. Given that we have had lengthy discussion previously on the issues, we now want to recommend a course of action.

It is the Home Office, you know.

A couple of years, then.

I am aware that, in the past, the committee has considered the option of commissioning its own research on the issue. The difficulty is that a review has taken place, the voluntary codes that currently exist are UK-wide and, even if we commissioned research and made recommendations, we do not know how the voluntary codes would apply here in what is a UK market.

The clerk made the point earlier that it may be more appropriate for us to write to the UK Government to ask when it intends to respond to the research and review that have been carried out. Its answer will give us an idea of whether we then want to commission our own research. We may be jumping ahead by commissioning and paying for research when whatever UK Government is formed on 7 May may decide to incorporate the recommendations in the review, which would take us forward on a UK-wide basis. Any recommendations that came forward then would have a UK basis and standing among retailers rather than what we could ask for, which is a voluntary code in Scotland. It would be appropriate to wait for the response before we jump into considering research.

John Wilson is correct: we should defer a decision. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it welcomes and supports the recommendations of the Papadopoulos report—I hope that it does—and we can bring the petition to the attention of the Home Office, asking it whether it supports the recommendations and will do anything to endorse them. Until we get that information back, we should hold fire and defer any decision.

Do we know when the Home Office will respond to the recommendations in the Papadopoulos report entitled “Sexualisation of Young People Review”? Do we have a timescale for that? One of the suggestions for the petition is that we wait for that Home Office response before we decide whether we will carry out any research or commission research. However, if we do not know when that response will be, I would be keen to move on with the suggested action.

How long do such things normally take? I know that there is an election in between.

I do not know how committee members feel about this. I know that we are keen to try to help the petitioners. There was a strong sense from committee members previously that they wanted to do so. However, it is a case of putting the petition in the context of an awaited report and deciding whether that would strengthen and help the debate, before considering whether to do further exploration around the petition. I am in the committee’s hands regarding how we go forward with the petition. Anne McLaughlin is correct to say that we want to make progress with it.

John Wilson’s and Bill Butler’s combined suggestion is helpful. We will explore the issue further and then take a decision on whether to initiate anything further ourselves.

---

Tail Docking (PE1196 and PE1230)

The next two petitions are grouped together. PE1196, by Michael Brander, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 as a matter of urgency to allow for 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 on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 to allow tail docking of working dogs under tightly specified circumstances.

Do members have any comments?

I wonder whether we should suspend these petitions again. We still do not have the outcome of the research study that is being done by the University of Bristol and the Royal Veterinary College. It was expected to have been produced by now and, although it has not been, it appears imminent. I think that we should wait until we get the report.

I propose that we close the petitions. The issue was considered by the Parliament not that long ago, when there was support for a ban on tail docking by more than two to one. The Government has indicated that it has no plans to change the legislation, so I propose that we close the petitions.

Does Rhona Brankin wish to reconsider her proposal?

I was not a member of the committee when the initial decision was taken. I am fundamentally opposed to tail docking, and I do not think that the petition is going anywhere. There is certainly not a majority for it in Parliament; we voted more than two to one against it. It is not very fair to the petitioner to pretend that the petition is going anywhere. It is not going anywhere and it should be closed.

As I see that five members are in favour of suspending the petition, and only one is in favour of closing it, we will suspend consideration of the petition.

So we either suspend or close the petitions.

I do not particularly support what the petitioners call for but, as we decided to wait for a research study, I would not close the petitions until the research study has been published. I would investigate how long it will be before we get the study but, if we have decided already to hold the petitions until we get the research, we should wait for it. We should at least consider the research, and then we can say no if we want to.

I am sorry, but I want to hold out to see the report. It is only fair on the petitioner that we see the report first.

---

General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)

I have a very brief comment to make because the issue has been raised with me. Perhaps one of the unintended consequences in rural areas such as Newcastleton in the Borders is that dispensing GPs get quite a bit of income from dispensing, which allows two or three GPs to be sustained in the area. If they lose that income, the area will go down to one GP. I am not making a special plea for those GPs—it might or might not be the case, but it is their submission. I do not know whether the committee has considered that. Such action might be okay in urban areas, but some GP practices in rural areas are sustained in this way, and there would be a consequential impact on service delivery for patients throughout the area.

That would be helpful. I suggest we continue the petition, knowing that there are still issues to be addressed.

I do not know whether we have had a formal submission on that issue. It might be worth asking for that information to be submitted formally.

I will ask the GPs to write to the committee.

PE1220, by Alan Kennedy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review all relevant legislation to ensure the continuance of general practitioner dispensing practices when commercial pharmaceutical practices apply to operate in the same area. We have also had this petition in front of us before. There are issues still to be explored, so I recommend that we continue the petition. In particular, we might want to write to the Government to address points about the issues of current and new applications in dispensing doctor areas until any new regulations are brought in, and to ask for an indication of the actions that are expected to follow and a timescale once the consultation has closed on 11 June. Are there any other comments?

---

Biological Data (PE1229)

PE1229, by Craig Macadam, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to establish integrated local and national structures for collecting, analysing and sharing biological data to inform decision-making processes to benefit biodiversity. The report from the Scottish Government biodiversity science group should have been drafted by the end of last month, and a copy should be sent to the committee in due course.

Do we wish to continue the petition? I suggest that we do so, and that we write to the Scottish Government to seek a note of the outcome of the meeting that took place at the end of January between its science group and the petitioner, and of how those discussions might lead to more appropriate gathering of information and biological data for decision-making processes. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

St Andrew’s Medal (PE1232)

PE1232, by Alasdair Walker, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to instigate a national civic award—the St Andrew’s medal—to recognise those who have committed extraordinary or outstanding acts of bravery. The petition has been in front of us before. Do members have any comments?

Perhaps we should close the petition, convener. Having considered the suggestions, the Scottish Government has agreed that the Brave@Heart and the St Andrew’s awards will be awarded at an annual ceremony. The petition has achieved what it set out to achieve. I do not know how other members are minded.

Shall we close the petition on the ground that there is now some recognition for individuals who have committed extraordinary or outstanding acts of bravery?

Members indicated agreement.

---

HM Prison Kilmarnock Contract (Independent Review) (PE1241)

I seek guidance from the clerk. Is there a locus for us to take the matter further?

I would like to keep the petition open and perhaps write to the Government again.

We could write to the Government and the SPS again on the issues that Margaret Mitchell has raised. However, we must be careful. We have clear information that the focus of the petition is now a dispute between the petitioner and the SPS over a number of issues in which the committee has no locus. We have to separate that out. I do not have a problem with writing on the issues that we have already rehearsed and on those that Margaret Mitchell has brought before us. However, I am not willing to agree to do anything more than that. If there is a dispute between the petitioner and the SPS, it is up to individual members, whether regional members or the constituency member, to act on the petitioner’s behalf. I do not want the committee to get involved in that—it would be the wrong thing to do.

I understand where Nanette Milne is coming from, but I cannot help feeling that we have the answers, although we might not like them. There is little point in asking the same question about a review, when the answer is no. We might not like it, but we have asked the question and heard the answer. To me, the logical action is to close the petition—although perhaps with regrets—because that is the situation that we have reached. It is for others to pursue other avenues.

17:30

I propose that we write to the minister.

PE1241, by William Buntain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to conduct an impartial and independent review of its 25-year contract with Kilmarnock Prison Services on the design, construction, financing and managing of HM Prison Kilmarnock. Margaret Mitchell has expressed support for the petition on previous occasions. I ask her to make a brief comment.

Members have no further comments. We can close the petition if we feel that we have taken it as far as possible, or we can decide whether we wish to write to the minister to ask whether he will review the situation. Does anyone wish to support either of those options?

It has. Even shadow chancellors get their numbers wrong.

I am aware that it has been a long afternoon for the committee, so I will be brief. When we left the petition, specific answers were to be sought from the Scottish Prison Service on outstanding matters. The answers have now been received, but they merely confirm the case for an independent review. They refer constantly to the contract. For example, on disciplinary processes, I do not understand why the SPS does not just say that it has the ability to withdraw a person’s certification. A matter could be resolved amicably internally within the prison by Serco and the management, but the SPS can still come along and withdraw a person’s certificate, which means that they cannot be employed as a prison custody officer. I do not understand why the SPS does not simply state that that is the case.

The required level of physical training is set by the contract, but there is no level playing field. Everyone in Kilmarnock must be trained to level 2 in control and restraint, which means that there is the ludicrous situation of a 64-year-old who is on gate duty having to undertake the training, whereas they would be exempt if they worked in any of the public prisons. It is clear that there are issues about the contract and the key performance indicators that were determined 10 years ago, so it is reasonable that those be reviewed.

We are also not clear what happens to the money that is budgeted for in case Kilmarnock prison reaches 100 per cent on its key performance indicators and there are no deductions or penalties. Where has that money gone? There is a lack of transparency and a need for an audit trail. Ten years on, there is an overwhelming need for an independent and impartial review.

Yes. We can write to the Scottish Government again, referring to the points that Margaret Mitchell has made and asking the Scottish Prison Service to review its decision not to carry out a review. Alternatively, the committee could seek to call the minister to give oral evidence again and pursue the issues that way.

The interim chief executive’s response addresses the point about penalties that I raised at a previous meeting. I am amused by the chief executive’s wording where he says that “no income” has been received by the SPS with regard to the penalties. It is clear that the issue is not about receiving income, and no income is received by the SPS from the operators of HMP Kilmarnock but, as Margaret Mitchell said, the SPS retains the moneys that would have been paid to the operators of HMP Kilmarnock if they met 100 per cent of the contract’s criteria. Although the letter states that no income has been received, the SPS retains moneys by not paying the full amount of the contract’s value because of the perceived failure to meet 100 per cent of the criteria as laid out in the contract.

The response is clear that the SPS is retaining moneys and the word “income” might have been used to sidestep us. We have still not had the answer to the question: what is the SPS doing with the money that is being retained and how is that money being used? If HMP Kilmarnock was operating to 100 per cent of the contract criteria, how would the SPS pay for that if, as at present, the SPS says that it is using all the financial resources that it has to provide prison services throughout Scotland?

Who is in favour of writing to the minister? I see that two members are in favour of that option. Who is in favour of closing the petition? I see that one member favours closing it and that there are three abstentions. The clerk has had to advise me that such democratic wisdom means that we will write to the minister.

It has been a long afternoon for you, convener.

---

Sheltered Housing (Self-funded Tenants) (PE1245)

PE1245 is by John Wood and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to consider how it ensures the continued independence of self-funded tenants of sheltered housing whose funds and savings are being eroded by increased costs, for example through the supporting people programme. We have had the petition in front of us on a number of occasions and I know that the petitioner has had it clarified to him that he should not be paying for the same service twice. On that ground, and because the petitioner can contact the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman if his grievance continues, do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Courts (McKenzie Friends) (PE1247)

PE1247, by Stewart Mackenzie, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency. Again, we have had the petition in front of us before. Margo MacDonald is still with us and will speak to the petition. I ask her to be brief.

Consumer Focus Scotland suggests that the judge or sheriff could ask a simple question—“Are you being paid for this?” If the person tells a porky, he has committed perjury and can be put away for it.

I do not want to turn this into a “Rumpole of the Bailey” moment—I am showing my age there a wee bit. We will continue the petition and explore the issues that members have raised.

I will be brief, given the lateness of the hour. I assume that the committee has received Consumer Focus Scotland’s report on the matter. All I would say is that I support its overview. I should put on record that I have sympathy with the Lord President’s desire to ensure that the Scottish court system is as professional and equitable as possible, but I think that he is too protective and is ignoring the evidence of 30 years’ practice of McKenzie friends in courts in England and Wales.

I think that the case is proven. Although it is not within our jurisdiction, I do not think that we would behave much differently in the situation, which is what I imagine the Lord President is concerned about. There should be a strong presumption in favour of McKenzie friends and that should be enshrined in primary legislation. However, there should not be an absolute right to it and a judge or sheriff should retain the discretion to determine whether the normal conduct of the court would be hindered or harmed in any way. Proceedings should be enhanced by McKenzie friends.

Finally, I will keep my remarks brief and say that I think that the issue that has been raised by Consumer Focus Scotland—the rights of audience that are given to a plethora of lay people in the Scottish courts—could be examined to see whether the situation can be rationalised and made more understandable. I sincerely hope that the committee will not discontinue the petition, because I believe that it would enhance the rights of litigants in the Scottish courts.

Thank you. We would like to pursue some matters, so I can reassure you that our inclination is to continue the petition.

We should continue the petition. We should write to the Lord President of the Court of Session to ask for a response to the concerns that have been raised in the submission by Which? magazine, specifically in paragraphs 4 to 7; by the petitioner, particularly in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2; and by Consumer Focus Scotland. We should also ask the Lord President whether each of these concerns will be addressed in the forthcoming act of sederunt that he intends to introduce and, if not, why not?

Okay. We want to continue the petition and we will explore those matters. That is a quick way of dealing with the petition and we want to make progress on the matter.

I know that time is against us, but we might try to tease out a couple of issues. First, as I see it, the certificate does not say anything other than, “I understand that this is an important place to be. I understand that I am in court and that there are some responsibilities in respect of receiving information and how I conduct myself.” Equally, people seem to be suggesting that the experience is a tick-box exercise that says, “You have not got enough experience, so you cannot be there,” but that is not my reading of it. It is simply the case that, as anybody who has ever organised a meeting knows, if you know the skills of the people in the room, and particularly the folk who might advise somebody else, that is generally helpful to the court. There is a certain amount of confusion in some of the comments.

I have one real concern, which comes from reading an e-mail from Families Need Fathers, which points out that, as I had suspected, there are professional McKenzie friends kicking around. I do not know whether that is a good or a bad thing in principle, but I note that the Lord President is suggesting that the lay assistant should not be paid in any way. It seems to me that, if that is a line that he wants to maintain, people will probably find a way around it. I want to ensure that we bring the matter to his attention.

He would have an interest in the outcome, which would count him out. The issue has been covered and you are right that it is dealt with quite simply.

With the greatest of respect, if I may, convener, if the person happens to be paid for by the local citizens advice bureau, he is being paid but he is not being paid by the client.

---

Freight Trains (Overnight Running) (PE1273)

---

Rail Noise and Vibration (Larbert) (PE1302)

We can explore the issues that have been raised. Bill Butler has identified the need to get some direction on the issue from the relevant Government departments and ministers, and the issue of the impact on the local residents.

Do we agree to continue the petition and explore those issues?

Members indicated agreement.

You are right, convener. You summed it up when you said that nobody wants to take responsibility. It seems that everybody wants to pass it on to somebody else or to the Scottish Parliament, which considered the legislation under which the Stirling to Alloa line was created.

I am interested in the response that we received from DB Schenker about the trains that operate on the line. It states that up to 12 trains a day operate six days a week to run freight from Ayrshire to Longannet power station. However, it does not include the fact that the 12 trains also go back the way, which means in effect that rail freight runs down the line 24 times a day, to the annoyance of the residents—not only residents who live along the Stirling to Alloa line, but every resident who lives adjacent to the line from Ayrshire right up to Longannet power station.

I have made it clear in committee before that I know that night-time rail freight has increased substantially. I do not think that we asked about that last time. There are still questions to be asked of the Scottish Government about how it handles the matter, but questions also have to be asked of Network Rail, because it seems to be saying, “We operate the rail line, but it’s not our fault that freight trains are operating at that level. We’ve got to schedule them in, and if they want to operate 24/7, we’ve got to accommodate that.” It would be interesting to go back to Network Rail and ask whether freight usage of the whole line from Ayrshire to Longannet has increased substantially in the past 10 years, and if so, to what level.

Network Rail argues that it has to consider the other operators that use the lines. There are clearly issues about the passenger trains that use the same lines as the freight trains. A number of other issues remain unanswered, including the bogies that are used to carry freight and who is ultimately responsible for noise mitigation for residents who live either side of the railway line along the whole route. When DB Schenker was asked whether it was responsible for consulting residents who live adjacent to the line, it replied “No.” Whose responsibility is it? As others have said, there is no responsibility on local authorities to monitor or restrict the noise and vibration that are created by the use of railway lines by heavy freight.

The question is who is responsible. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will organise a meeting of all the relevant parties—or “stakeholders”, as the jargon has it—to find a way in which to minimise the disruption to residents who live adjacent to the railway, and we should ask the minister to update the committee on the outcome of that meeting.

I feel the matter personally because I was the convener of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee and we were given promises under oath. The mitigation that was promised to the committee—which it took at face value—and to the residents has not happened. It is an absolute disgrace that people’s oaths have not been kept. Perhaps a meeting could be held at which heads could be knocked together, metaphorically of course, to try to get some justice for the people who live alongside the railway line. That is just a wee suggestion.

17:45

We come to two petitions that we have grouped together. PE1273, which was submitted by Anne Massie, is on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line and the issue of overnight running of freight trains, and PE1302 is by Colin Sloper, who requests that greater consideration be given to the problems of noise and vibration generated by heavy freight. We have had a great opportunity to deal with the petitions before, but there are still some fundamental issues of concern. My biggest worry on behalf of the petitioners and some members is that it seems that no one is taking responsibility for the issues. I am sure that other members will comment on that.

I invite members to comment on what course of action we should take.

---

Planning (Protection of National Scenic Areas) (PE1295)

PE1295, by Flora Dickson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how sites that have been identified as areas of national scenic value can then be considered as suitable locations for the building of crematoria.

Christine Grahame, who has expressed support for the petition in the past, has indicated that she would like to speak.

The building of the crematorium in the scenic area outside Melrose is an example of the problems that arise around our definition of national scenic areas, what they are for, what value they have, what protection they should have and whether that protection is good enough.

SNH objects to the crematorium being sited in an area of national scenic value. Its website says:

“National Scenic Areas are Scotland’s only national landscape designation. They are those areas of land considered of national significance on the basis of their outstanding scenic interest which must be conserved as part of the country’s natural heritage.”

The Government’s letter to the committee, dated 5 January, suggests that it does not have much clout when it comes to the protection of the areas. It says:

“Ministers do not wish to discourage well conceived development proposals for important infrastructure, economic development, housing or community facilities in such areas.”

National parks have protection, and we know what they are, but we do not know what national scenic areas are. That is demonstrated by what the letter says about environmental impact assessments in the third paragraph on its second page.

Flora Dickson, the petitioner, has done a lot of research on this issue and is guiding me through it. Schedule 1 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 deals with pretty obvious stuff such as nuclear power stations, in relation to which it is mandatory that applications be made to the Government. However, schedule 2 is interesting. The Government’s letter says:

“All schedule 2 development must be subject to a case by case determination”,

but goes on to say that

“When determining a planning application it is a matter for the planning authority, in the first instance, to determine whether a particular development is of a type listed in the schedules”.

That means that the masters of the planning application also determine which schedule it goes into. In this case, Scottish Borders Council decided that schedule 2, which would have been the more open schedule, did not apply. Further, I am curious about what happens after the first instance. What is the process by which someone can say that something does not apply in certain circumstances?

I will be brief, convener, as I know that you have had a long meeting, but I have another point that I must make. The second paragraph on page 3 of the Government’s letter says:

“I understand that SNH expects to publish its study of the special qualities of each of Scotland’s NSAs in the near future.”

I do not know what progress has been made in that regard since January, but I see that the Government is not prepared to announce a moratorium while the process that we are engaged in is on-going.

We should start paying attention to these national scenic areas. Every member here knows that, once one starts to build in an area, one has opened the door for the possibility that other developments might take place—I put it no more strongly than that.

I think that this issue should be pursued, and that, even though we are at the fag end of the day, it should be given attention. We need to consider what we mean when we talk about a national scenic area, what it is for and whether it has sufficient protection.

I think that we should continue our consideration of the petition. There is still a lot of vagueness around the issue of national scenic areas—I speak as someone who has tried to clarify it in the past. We should ask the Government to clarify what additional consideration is given by planning authorities to an objection that is lodged by SNH or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and whether such objections carry more weight. We should also ask when SNH’s study of national scenic areas will be published and what will happen after that. It would be useful to know whether, other than through this petition, concerns have been expressed by individuals or organisations about the protection of national scenic areas from development and, if so, from whom, what points were made, and what the views of SNH were on the matter.

Do members agree with those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Further Education (Students with Complex Needs) (PE1180)

Thank you, convener. As other members have mentioned, I am aware that you have had a long afternoon, and I will keep my remarks as brief as I can.

The petition has exposed the tip of what I suspect to be quite a large iceberg. I noticed with interest that Malcolm Chisholm had lodged a motion on the matter, which I will read. It is entitled “Congratulations to the Finola Education Trust”:

“That the Parliament recognises that the Leith teenager, Finola Forman, who suffers from cerebral palsy, has chosen to attend a specialist residential further education course and that such facilities are available only in England; congratulates the Finola Education Trust on raising the £36,000 additional money that was required for the first year of the three-year course on top of the contribution from the City of Edinburgh Council; acknowledges the contribution of Leith FM and many others in promoting the campaign, and believes that teenagers such as Finola should be able to exercise choice concerning the further education that they receive without the need for such extensive fundraising.”

The Finola Trust is, essentially, Finola’s mother, Henrietta Forman, who is with us today—she has sat very patiently all afternoon. She spends her life fundraising to try to get her daughter the sort of supportive further education that she, and indeed Mr and Mrs Wallace, my constituents, believe is right for their children.

I have only just been made aware of the recent finding by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman that was largely in favour of a complainant against South Lanarkshire Council over a similar issue.

The situation is a postcode lottery, as I have described it to you before, and the cases that we are dealing with represent the tip of an iceberg. The issues that are inherent in the cases concerned are only just starting to come to light. I do not know what response the committee has had from the Government since it wrote following the previous meeting, but I hope that, if it is any less than satisfactory, the committee will keep the petition open, as there are very serious issues at stake.

It is a drip-drip process.

Okay. I thank members for their patience.

We will continue the petition, and we will explore the issues involved. I thank Alex Fergusson for his contribution this afternoon.

PE1180, which is by Tom and Josie Wallace, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in achieving further education placements and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up.

Alex Fergusson, in his capacity as constituency MSP, has raised the matter with the committee on behalf of his constituents.

I agree. I certainly think that we should keep the petition open. There appears to be a lack of detail from the Government on the feasibility study by the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council on the creation of regional hubs, which might go some way towards evening out that postcode lottery. We should explore that option a bit further.

We are all agreed that the matter needs to be addressed, and we all understand that it is not easy. It is a matter that might want to be delegated to local authorities, but each local authority can think of good reasons, which we all understand, why it does not want to spend lots of money on such things.

The committee must get its teeth into the matter—and keep them there. We have form on this. Some things will give after a while, and we just need to chew this one until something happens.

I invite comments from members. We have had a chance to look into some of the details, and I know that Rhona Brankin has expressed views on the issues previously.

It is worth continuing the petition. I have not seen the findings from the ombudsman, to which Alex Fergusson referred. I do not think that they are included in our papers, unless I have missed them. I would be interested to see what they are.

I am concerned that we have not had detailed information about what the Government has done in view of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s report, “Removing Barriers and Creating Opportunities”. The matter is very important, and I agree that there is a postcode lottery and that the Government needs to provide us with more information on the matter.

We will continue the petition. We will write and address those concerns. It is a complicated matter, as you and other parliamentary representatives know, Alex. We need to keep chapping at the door to try and get some shift in attitude and resources.

---

Haemochromatosis (Screening) (PE1298)

Again, the petition originates from one of my constituents. The people of Galloway raise interesting issues, but I assure the convener that that is nothing to do with me. Again, I am not entirely sure where the committee is planning to go with the petition. If I may, I will wait until I hear the committee’s deliberations.

Our final petition is PE1298, by George Scott, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote and support the introduction of national screening and a science-based diagnosis to deal with iron overload within national health service primary care.

Do members have any comments? Alex Fergusson previously expressed an interest in this petition as well.

We have considered the petition previously, but there are still issues that we would like to resolve, so we will continue to explore matters. I hope that that helps.

Alex Fergusson is welcome to make final comments.

There is no disagreement among committee members that we should continue to explore the issue. Again, we did not know much about the issue until it was drawn to our attention but—to echo Nigel Don’s comments on the previous petition—we will try to resolve it.

We will write to the Government with a series of questions on its views on the UK National Screening Committee’s recent decision and on the implementation of that committee’s recommendations from a number of years ago. We will also ask whether the Government has any other ideas on how to raise awareness of the condition, such as by issuing guidance notes to GPs and medical centres.

No, I am perfectly happy with that.