Public Petitions Committee, 21 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Monday, September 21, 2009

Official Report 251KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Police Informants (PE1260)

The first item of business concerns six new petitions that have been lodged with the committee.

The first new petition, PE1260, is by Derek Cooney. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to advise all police forces to discontinue the practice of entering into agreements with police informants.

I invite comments from members of the committee.

Let us be frank: whether we like it or not, police informants play a part in bringing serious criminals to justice. However, the petitioner has a point, in that they should be used as sparingly as possible, and agreements with informants should not overly benefit people who are criminals or are on the fringes of the criminal world.

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will advise all police forces to discontinue this practice and, if not, why not. We should also ask what offences or crimes that are carried out by police informants it considers cannot be excused from prosecution. That is a central point to the petition. We should ask the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland the same questions.

The point is that there have to be boundaries, checks and monitoring. In addition to the questions that Bill Butler suggested, we have to ask how the process is managed; how the standards are maintained; whether, when and how the system is reviewed and analysed; and—this is important from our point of view as the Public Petitions Committee—what public involvement and consultation there is.

In the first place, we need some clarification about what is meant by police informants, particularly in relation to the petition. The petition seems to concentrate on one particular section of the criminal world. I know that some of the serious crime that goes on in the country is solved because of information that has come to the police from one source or another, but that is quite a different picture from the one that the petition presents.

The petition seems to imply that, when two or three people are involved in some sort of crime and one of the group is prepared to give information to the police, a lot of wheeling and dealing goes on and the person who gives the information is perhaps allowed to walk free. I do not think that that should be allowed to continue; there should be more scrutiny of such situations. I am not against having police informants in the sense that we understand it but, in circumstances such as the petition describes, the practice certainly needs to be investigated.

I agree with the other members of the committee that we should write to the Scottish Government to ask the questions that members have suggested. We should also write to Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation. It would be useful to find out what individual officers think about the use of police informants, how they would use them, what issues might arise in any deals with or payments to police informants and how all that operates in Scotland today.

Nanette, do you have any comments to add?

No. I agree with what has been said so far, so I have nothing to add.

Okay. We will take on board the points raised by members of the committee. We will pursue the issues identified with the appropriate organisations and return to the petition at a future meeting.

---

Small-scale Redundancies (Government Support) (PE1265)

The next petition is PE1265, by Matthew Goundry, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to deliver the same level of responsiveness and support to individuals who are part of small-scale redundancy as it does to those who face large-scale redundancy. That is a relevant issue, given what is happening in the wider economic world, which we are all experiencing. How do members wish to handle the petition?

At this time—in a period of recession—redundancy is affecting a lot of people. Whether someone is part of a large-scale or small-scale redundancy, how they are affected as an individual is every bit as important. We should investigate the issue a bit further. Perhaps we should hear from the Scottish Government how it does, or will, provide support to people who are involved in small-scale redundancy. We know that the Government has the PACE organisation—partnership action for continuing employment—to help people involved in large-scale redundancy. It would be relevant to scale that down and to find out what the Government will do.

As well as writing to the Scottish Government to seek its views, we could write to the Scottish Trades Union Congress and to individual unions, such as Unite and the GMB, which might be involved in advising members in small workplaces. It might also be useful to write to the National Union of Journalists, which has suffered a massive loss, given how many of its members have been affected by small-scale closures or redundancies in local newspapers. It might be useful to write to those organisations, as well as to the Federation of Small Businesses to find out what advice it gives its members about redundancies in small businesses.

I agree with what members have said, but we should also write to the Scottish Government to ask whether there is a difference in the level of support that it and PACE give to workers who are involved in a small-scale redundancy and those in a large-scale redundancy. A redundancy is a redundancy, and the effect that it has on the person made redundant is severe. I echo what Nanette Milne said. If a different level of support is given, we should also ask what the reason for that is. Should the same criteria not be applied?

John Wilson said that we should write to the STUC. To be fair—I always like to be fair, convener, as do you—we should also write to the Confederation of British Industry.

We should write to the Federation of Small Businesses as well.

I understand where the petitioner is coming from on the scale of support that he feels he could have received when he lost his job. Understandably, he contrasts that with the high-profile campaigns that take place when a larger employer leaves an area. The loss of two or three jobs in a small place can be as detrimental as the loss of 200 or 300 in other parts of the country. Let us explore that issue and see whether we can find some better ways to address it.

I thank members for their suggestions on that petition.

---

A96 Safety Improvements (Mosstodloch) (PE1271)

PE1271 is by Councillor Anita McDonald and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to investigate the case for a reduced speed limit and other road safety measures, such as crossing points, on the A96 trunk road in Mosstodloch to improve road safety for schoolchildren and the wider public. Do members have any comments?

I imagine that Mary Scanlon might have views on the petition too. I travelled the A96 yesterday on the way up to Forres. It was very quiet and there were no problems, but it is normally an extremely busy road. There have been issues in Mosstodloch and fatalities in the past. Work is on-going there, so the case should be considered to determine what safety measures can be incorporated in the built-up area. I am strongly in favour of that being investigated. We should ask Transport Scotland to investigate the case for a reduced speed limit and other road safety measures. If it is not willing to do so, I would like to know why.

I invite Mary Scanlon to comment on the petition, as she will have an awareness of the journeys concerned.

We are all familiar with the hold-ups on the A96. In Fochabers, next door to Mosstodloch, the bypass is about to begin construction, so quite a lot of work is going on and, at the time of considerable change in the area, it seems eminently sensible to ensure that adequate school crossing and road safety measures are put in place for children.

We will raise the issues that are raised in the petition with the likes of Transport Scotland and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. There is always an issue there. Perhaps it would also be helpful to contact the local authority to find out what its assessment is of community safety around the road. Do we approve those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

We will bring the petition back once we have the responses.

---

Out-of-hours GP Services (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE1272)

The next petition is PE1272 by Randolph Murray. I understand that he is in the audience, so I welcome him to the committee. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that there is adequate provision for out-of-hours general practitioner cover in all remote and rural areas in Scotland. I invite committee members to comment.

I strongly support the petition. I spoke to one or two of the petitioners this morning. In a remote area such as the one that the petitioner is talking about, it is inadequate to replace medical expertise with, in essence, first-aid expertise. The matter should be investigated.

Should I make recommendations before Mary Scanlon has spoken?

We will leave that until we have discussed the issues.

I support the petition and would like to hear what Mary Scanlon has to say as well.

Thank you for letting me comment on the petition, convener. I have been to Kinloch Rannoch with my colleague Murdo Fraser. Like John Farquhar Munro, I am used to talking about remote Highland villages and how difficult it is to provide NHS services in remote and rural Scotland—which is very different from the convener's and Bill Butler's constituencies—but I have to say that I was shocked. NHS Highland would not dare to replace GPs with first responders. I do not mean to denigrate first responders, who are volunteers and give their time for no financial reward to help and support their local community, but with the best will in the world we should not expect them to diagnose because they are not capable of doing that. They provide excellent, complementary support to the health service, but it is unacceptable to expect them to replace GPs.

I referred the group from Kinloch Rannoch to the case of Applecross on the west coast, with which John Farquhar Munro will be familiar. NHS Highland said, "We can't get a doctor to go to Applecross", but the local people advertised and got an excellent response, and they now have an excellent doctor in place. I am pleased to say that the people in Kinloch Rannoch decided that they too would advertise to see how attractive it was for a GP to go to their area. They had an excellent response of 20 GPs who would be willing to come. NHS Tayside's cost for providing GP cover for the area was £558,000, but the locals have costed it at about £120,000.

In recent times, it has taken two hours for a doctor to reach Kinloch Rannoch—this is through NHS 24—and an additional two and a half hours for an ambulance to come. There would be ructions if that was the case in even the most remote parts of the Highlands. A drive from Kinloch Rannoch to Perth royal infirmary takes between one and a half and two hours on a good day, as many of the roads are single track.

I bring to the committee's attention the fact that the Health and Sport Committee is to undertake an inquiry into out-of-hours services in remote and rural areas. We discussed that at our away day. I cannot pre-empt our decision about the extent of the inquiry, but I can say that Kinloch Rannoch has been brought to our attention and committee members are concerned by the situation. I am not the convener or deputy convener of the committee, but I think it is safe to say that our inquiry will look at what is happening at Kinloch Rannoch. We think that it is unfair that people there are being discriminated against compared with the rest of Scotland. They do not have the access to the NHS that the most rural parts of the Highlands and Islands have, and that is unacceptable.

There is a question of natural justice and equity here. I take the hint that Mary Scanlon gave us. I believe that the Public Audit Committee referred the question of the new contract and whether it represents value for money to the Health and Sport Committee. Perhaps the best option for us is to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, given that, as Mary Scanlon said, there is to be a full inquiry. The petition would fit in neatly with that inquiry. That is my suggestion.

The issue is obviously a serious one for Kinloch Rannoch, but there has also been unacceptable confusion about the process of the change and the way in which the new GP was appointed. We need an in-depth investigation and, if the matter fits in with the Health and Sport Committee's inquiry, the best approach would be to refer the petition to that committee.

I endorse what Mary Scanlon said. She knows the situation personally, having been to see it. I think that the petition should be referred to the Health and Sport Committee.

Okay. I will explain the process to the witnesses, as we are probably speaking in parliamentary jargon.

Petitions come to our committee in specific areas of policy that have major implications for the communities involved. The Parliament has a Health and Sport Committee that has responsibility for health and related matters. It is suggested that that committee will look into the whole issue in much more detail, calling before it senior practitioners in the health service, senior managers, ministers and representatives from the health directorate to explore the issues and discuss what other modelling could be done. We are trying to find a better way in which to deal with the petition that will be much more effective than dealing with it just through the Public Petitions Committee. Although we are useful in many ways, professional and intellectual rigour is required to drill down into the detail of the petition, which deals with big issues about staffing, resourcing and the management of the health service at a local level. We want to punt that to the Health and Sport Committee to take it forward as part of its wider deliberation.

We will make the strong recommendation that we have received a good petition on the matter. It will be up to the Health and Sport Committee to decide whom it wishes to take evidence from, but it will have the information that we pass on. We will suggest that it might be useful to have those who have petitioned the Parliament present as part of that process, but that is for the Health and Sport Committee to determine. We hope that that will be the best way in which to deal with the petition.

Throughout the rest of today's business, I will pause every so often to give people a kind of easy guide to the petitioning process, so that everyone understands it and in case anyone is getting a wee bit puzzled.

I have one important point to add. The concerns at Kinloch Rannoch have been on-going for some time—I could not tell you exactly how long—but I think that I am right in saying that the Health and Sport Committee would not look at the petition until January, I am afraid. It may look at it sooner, but the latest that it would look at it would be January.

It is helpful for the petitioners to know that. That is a few months away, but I still think that it would be best for the petition to be dealt with by that committee, as it will make the connections that the petitioners have raised about the legitimacy and effectiveness of any proposed recommendation. Shall we take that course of action and refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee? Our clerk will work with the clerks to that committee to ensure that the information from our end is appropriate for it.

I suggest that we also write to the local health board and the Scottish Government to make them aware that we are referring the petition to the Health and Sport Committee and to ask that, if there is anything that they can do in the meantime to alleviate the problems in which the residents find themselves, they do that before the petition goes to the Health and Sport Committee if they want to emerge from the situation with a good reputation.

Okay. That is a helpful suggestion.

The problem in Kinloch Rannoch, which Mary Scanlon told us about, could be replicated all over rural Scotland. I therefore agree with John Wilson's suggestion. People should be made aware that that scrutiny is going to take place so that responses can come in from all over, not just from one particular area.

Okay. I accept those recommendations.

Our next two petitions have been submitted by students from the academy here. We are still waiting for students from other schools in the surrounding areas to arrive, so I suggest that we defer dealing with those petitions to allow time for the youngsters from the other schools to arrive. I know that that will probably put even more pressure on the youngsters who are going to make the presentations, but they will want their peer group to hear them—not just old people like me.