Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 22, 2001

Official Report 225KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first new petition is PE365 from Mr Iain MacSween on behalf of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation. The petition calls on the Parliament to review fixed quota allocations. Mr MacSween has three minutes to address the committee. At two and a half minutes, I will indicate that you have 30 seconds to go. Thereafter, I will open the meeting to questions.

Thank you. I hope that my petition will not be as contentious as the committee's first item of business was.

It is unnecessary to outline the difficulties that have faced the Scottish fishing industry recently. In an attempt to confront some of those difficulties, the Executive decided to implement a decommissioning scheme, to reduce the size of the Scottish fishing fleet. At present, each fishing vessel in the fleet has attached to its licence a number of units, called fixed quota allocation units. They are the quantities of fish that the vessel caught from 1994 to 1996.

Fixed quota allocations were introduced in January 1999 and are used to calculate the quotas that are allocated to the group to which the vessel belongs for quota management purposes. When fixed quota allocations were introduced, the minister responsible said that no trade in such units would take place and that individual transferable quotas, which would confer property rights on fishing vessel owners, would not be introduced.

Despite that, discussions on implementation of the decommissioning scheme seem to be moving towards a different policy approach. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's view that fixed quota allocations attached to decommissioned vessels can be sold by the fishing vessel owner is likely to prevail. That will mean that fishing vessel owners who accept taxpayers' money to decommission their vessels can sell their quota units, presumably to the highest bidder. Property rights would be introduced into the Scottish fishing industry, which would allow quota and access to quota to be sold.

Fishing vessel owners from other European Union member states could then participate in that trade. That would end the protection that Scottish fishing grounds have enjoyed in the past 20 years, during which successive British Governments have attempted to restrict access to Scottish fishing grounds. That would be to no avail if foreigners could simply purchase such access by acquiring fixed quota allocations.

It is ironic that, as the review of the common fisheries policy—on which the European Committee produced an excellent report—seems to be moving towards a more regional dimension, a policy could be introduced that would undermine that, by allowing other member states to buy access to British fishing grounds. That would mean that future generations of young fishermen would be precluded from the fishing industry, as they would not be able to purchase access to the grounds round the Scottish coast. Not only would the jobs of Scottish fishermen vanish, but the jobs in the processing sector would contract as foreign-owned vessels landed their catches abroad.

The ability of the Scottish Parliament, to which responsibility for fisheries was devolved, to exercise control over a vital industry would be lost. The industry needs decommissioning, but not a move to a situation in which Scottish quotas and access to Scottish grounds are put up for sale to the highest bidder. Fish stocks are a national resource, and should continue to be treated as such. It is the Parliament's responsibility to ensure that future generations of Scottish fishermen will continue to have access to the grounds round the coast, and the stocks therein.

What do you want to happen to the quota to overcome the problem that you foresee?

The way in which the problem can be overcome is straightforward. At present, it is likely that the Executive will seek bids from fishing vessel owners who wish to decommission their vessels. In a sense, there are three components attached to the licence: the vessel, the licence, and the quota units. We believe that the quota units should be left within the total pool that is available to all fishermen in the United Kingdom, but there are a number of possibilities. One that we find attractive is that a special pool could be created whereby young fishermen could be given access to quota units to help them to gain access to the industry, because without young men coming into the industry, the long-term future does not look healthy.

Would the system in Shetland, where the community owns the quota, work elsewhere? If communities owned the decommissioned quotas from their harbours, they would be able to lease them back to new entrants or existing boats.

The Shetland model sets an interesting example, but Shetland enjoys the considerable benefit that the community was able to fund such purchases with its oil fund. We have approached not only local authorities, but Highlands and Islands Enterprise with a view to replicating community ownership in other parts of Scotland, although to date, no financial assistance has been forthcoming. Without that funding, it is difficult to see how community ownership could be activated.

But if quotas were included with the boat and the licence as part of the decommissioning package, one would imagine that they would revert to the Scottish Executive, and it would be for it to do—

That is right. There is an interesting model in Northern Ireland, where the quota units from decommissioned vessels will be left in the port from which the vessel is decommissioned. The system of central quota management is, in effect, based on regional groups, so if vessels in a particular group decommission, the quota units are left with that group, which ensures that the local community has access to the quota units. That is the preferred solution.

Would not it make just as much sense to establish a Scottish quota reserve that was held by the Scottish Executive, given that it is the Scottish Executive that is funding the decommissioning? Precedent exists with regard to the common agricultural policy; there is a national reserve for sheep and cattle quotas throughout Scotland, which can be used to help new entrants to agriculture. I presume that it would be relatively easy to promote the same principle, so that a central quota reserve that was held by the Executive from the decommissioned boats could be used to allow new entrants into the fishing industry.

That is a good idea. Whether that was done on a national or a regional basis, it would achieve the same ends. Somehow, some form of pool of quota units must be retained to enable people to get access, otherwise the quota units will be sold.

Currently, the people with the greatest access to finance and acquisition are probably the owners of Spanish fishing vessels, due to the courtesy of the British Treasury, which paid them £80 million in compensation. It would be the final irony if Scotland's fish stocks were sold to the Spaniards who are funded by taxpayers' money, but such things happen.

To whom do the quota rights belong at the moment?

That is an interesting issue. According to current Government policy, they do not belong to anyone.

How then can the rights be sold?

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London wants to say that the quota units can be sold and, in a sense, a new policy will be created. The industry would not have debated it. Such a decision would have been brought about by administrative convenience. By allowing them to be sold, property rights would be introduced into the industry. It would be a fundamental change to the current situation.

I presume that there are two sides to the argument. If quota rights were sold, those who currently own de facto their quota rights would want the most money for them. If it were then said that that quota would be ring-fenced in Scotland, it would be of less value than if it were sold on the European market. Are you taking all the fishermen—the boat owners—with you in that respect? They will want the maximum value.

The fishermen do not own the quota. They acquired it. The Government gave them quota units as part of their day-to-day business. They were issued free, gratis and for nothing. The proposition that is beginning to emerge is that, having been granted those fishing rights, they should be allowed to sell them. The majority of people in the fishing industry are opposed to that because such a policy will decimate the smaller ports, particularly on the west coast. Large fishing companies will buy the quota access. Small west coast and north-east communities face horrendous prospects. Future generations will not be able to fish, but will see fishing vessels from other parts of the European Community fishing along their coast.

If the quotas have no value, they can only be held centrally by the Scottish Executive and allocated as it sees fit.

The danger is that the sale of quota units from decommissioned vessels will create a market. Be under no illusion—quota units will have a value. Spanish fishing vessel owners have spent the past 17 years arguing for equal access to British waters. If they have to buy quota units to gain that access, they will do it. A value will emerge.

The situation is fraught with new legal complications. I wonder whether the removal last year from the jurisdiction of Scots law of some 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters and fishing grounds has any bearing on the matter. Could some of the quotas be sold via England and come under English law? Now that the sea border has been moved so much further north, which country owns Scotland's fish?

The access to fishing grounds in south-east Scotland is a different matter, which is problematic. Under the Scotland Act 1998, a Scottish fishing vessel is defined as one that is registered in Scotland. However, many Scottish-registered fishing vessels are based in England, because the registry rules were different at one time. For example, half the North Shields fleet is registered in Buckie. It would be ironic if the money that the Scottish Executive thought that it had set aside to decommission the Scottish fleet was spent decommissioning vessels that are registered in Scotland, but based in England. Many legal difficulties lie ahead.

To what extent do Scottish fishermen purchase quotas in Spanish, French or other foreign waters?

They purchase none.

Nothing at all?

The rules effectively preclude that. I suppose that it is another case of us playing by the rules, while other member states do not. It is virtually impossible for a person to buy and register a fishing vessel in Spain if he is not Spanish. Danish law precludes people from other member states from doing that. The United Kingdom and Ireland are the only two member states that have a significant proportion of their quota held by non-domestic fishing vessel owners.

Can Danish and Swedish fishermen easily purchase quotas in France or Spain?

No. The practice within Europe of buying quota and access to fishing grounds has been concentrated in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Spanish, French, Dutch and even Icelandic fishing companies are located in the United Kingdom, all of which have acquired flag of convenience companies. By so doing, they have gained access to quota. If MAFF's proposal goes ahead, it will take such action one stage further because, under competition law in Europe, Spanish companies will be able to buy the quota units that had previously been attached to Scottish vessels and will be able to fish there.

Thank you, Mr MacSween. We will now discuss what steps to take with the petition. Obviously, we will keep you informed throughout the whole process. Big issues are involved. As members of the committee will see, the suggested action is that we seek the views of the Scottish Executive on the petition before considering what to do next.

If the Scottish Executive is at liberty to do so, I suggest that it consult MAFF.

The suggestion is that we ask the Scottish Executive to consult MAFF as part of the response to the petition.

Fine.

I support that recommendation, but I suggest that we pass on the petition to the European Committee for information only at this stage. I was interested to hear Mr MacSween's feedback on the report of the European Committee. I was pleased to hear it because I took part in the inquiry and it is good to know that fishermen were pleased with the report. I do not recall our going into detail on the topic that is under discussion today, so I think that the European Committee should be aware of it.

We shall pass the petition to the Scottish Executive and ask for its response. We shall ask it to consult MAFF. We shall send the petition for information only at this stage to the European Committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE367 is about services for the diagnosis and treatment of those who suffer from sleep apnoea. Mr Eric Drummond will speak to the petition. The usual rules apply, Mr Drummond. You will have three minutes to address the committee, after which time the meeting will be opened up to questions.

Thank you, convener, for your prompt reply to the sleep apnoea clinic in the Lothians area in respect of the petition on sleep apnoea, and for allowing me to speak this morning. I have been a sleep apnoea patient since 1992. At that time, an appointment—a night in the sleep laboratory—identified that I had sleep apnoea. I went home with a sleep apnoea machine and, after two days, it was as though a miracle had happened. My health improved dramatically within three months.

I understand that, in 1992, 200 sleep apnoea patients were diagnosed per year. However, because doctors are now more aware of the problem, the number has risen to 1200 per annum. The health boards that use the Edinburgh royal infirmary for investigation and treatment are Lothian Health, Orkney Health Board, Shetland Health Board, Grampian Health Board, Tayside Health Board, Fife Health Board, Forth Valley Health Board and the Borders Health Board.

I understand that 30 per cent of patients are from the Lothians and that the rest are from other areas. I have corresponded with my MSP, Mr Iain Gray, regarding what is sometimes a two-year wait for patients and he is looking into the matter. However, the reason for the petition, which was organised by the Scottish Association for Sleep Apnoea, was that the Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust had just sent out two letters, which the committee should have before it, that have made matters worse. Having already waited a longer time for an appointment then a test, sleep apnoea sufferers are now not getting a sleep apnoea machine at the time of diagnosis. They now have to wait in excess of six months, as per the letter that is before the committee.

I understand that all the health boards have taken the decision not to supply a sleep apnoea machine at the normal time—that is, at diagnosis. Sleep apnoea is not just a snoring problem. It is dangerous. Sufferers stop breathing when they sleep. That can result in brain damage and heart attack, which could be fatal. The sleep apnoea machine costs £230. Diagnosis requires one appointment and a night in the sleep clinic. If a patient were diagnosed positive, the modest financial cost of providing a machine would save money by reducing a sufferer's visits to their doctor.

Some sufferers are unable to work because of their condition. All sufferers are unable to drive. If driving had been their main employment, that would be an added problem to the patient.

Funding the increased demand on Edinburgh royal infirmary would seem to be a complex issue. I understand that an audit review is in progress which will, I hope, address the increase in demand and increase the service.

I ask the committee to consider those points along with the documentation that I have provided and to take action to encourage the health boards to treat the sleep apnoea clinic properly by funding it according to demand, to reduce waiting times for an appointment and test in the sleep laboratory, and, if required, to supply sleep apnoea machines at the time of diagnosis.

Thank you very much, Mr Drummond. You made your statement well within the three minutes.

I will begin the questions. Is the clinic at Edinburgh royal infirmary a national clinic?

It deals only with patients in the areas that I listed. The west of Scotland has its own system.

Is that system separate?

It is similar. I assume that Glasgow royal infirmary deals with sleep apnoea patients in the west of Scotland, but the areas that I mentioned are the ones that are dealt with from Edinburgh. Fifty per cent of those cases come from the areas that I mentioned and 50 per cent come from Edinburgh.

The waiting times for a first appointment have increased dramatically. I was involved in politics a number of years ago and one of my constituents waited for two years for the treatment that I waited three months for.

The committee must be aware that sleep apnoea is not just about snoring. I have nearly killed my wife and myself a couple of times when driving the car. I have written to Sarah Boyack and Iain Gray to say that commercial drivers—lorry drivers and bus drivers—should be tested for sleep apnoea. They could have the condition and not know it. Consider the number of road accidents in which people say that the driver fell asleep. We could bet our boots that that would be something to do with sleep apnoea. It is crucial.

I am disappointed that the service in Edinburgh, which was extremely good, has deteriorated from the three-month waiting period that I had. I did not drive for three months when I was told after my first appointment that it was more than possible that I had sleep apnoea. Doctors recommend that sufferers do not drive. However, they are going further now, as the correspondence that I have given the committee shows. If a patient's test shows without doubt that they have sleep apnoea, they are told not to drive. If driving was a patient's job, that would be extremely difficult for them.

I heard this morning that a Grampian Health Board patient had a four-year wait. I have made the point that an appointment, a night in the sleep laboratory and a machine that costs £230 have improved my life dramatically. Without that, I would not be speaking to the committee today, I have to say, because I have other health problems. With those added to the sleep apnoea, I would have been in a box years ago, had it not been for the machine.

For some reason, the health boards have not been able to get their act together. They have failed to take account of the demand for treatment. The situation has been made worse by the recent decision not to give patients the machine on the day of diagnosis. That is the last straw.

Thank you for appearing before the committee. Sleep apnoea is an important problem. As you say, it represents not only a disturbance to the person who suffers from it and to their bed partners, but a potential hidden danger to the general public, because of sufferers' excessive fatigue.

You mentioned that each machine costs £230. Approximately how many patients in Scotland need that equipment? Is it possible to issue it to them all, or are some not suited to it?

As far as I know, the number of sufferers has risen from 200 to 1,200 a year. Every year that number is increasing and more people are using the sleep laboratory.

We are not talking very big bucks, even if there are 1,200 sufferers.

I do not think that we are. If members want a laugh, I can show them how the equipment works.

We can always do with a laugh in this place.

I take this machine with me everywhere. Once I have put the mask over my head my wife knows that we are going straight to sleep.

Can I take a photograph for the Official Report? [Laughter.]

The machine blows air into the airways. I visit the sleep apnoea clinic once a year so that the machine can be checked. That does not cost very much.

So the equipment that you use is long-lasting.

Aye. I have just had mine replaced after nine years. Occasionally I get a new mask, but in my view the equipment is inexpensive compared with some drugs and major operations. It should be fairly easy to provide.

Are you saying that Scotland is going backwards on this issue, having been quite advanced in dealing with it, particularly in the Lothians?

There is no doubt that Professor Douglas in the Lothians is the leading authority on the subject in the UK. However, his staff numbers have not increased. I waited three months before being seen and was not able to drive for two months. Now the waiting time can be two years in some instances. Sometimes it is less than that—I do not know why. This morning I was told that a patient in Grampian waited for four years to be referred.

Something is interfering with our sound system—perhaps it is the machine.

It will be my wallet. The machine has made a huge difference to my life. Two days after I received it, I rang the hospital to tell the doctor that I felt like a new man. People do not normally do that after an operation. All that I needed was sleep. That was in 1992. The bad news for some people was that I was able to go back into politics for a while.

That should have sent you to sleep.

Without the machine, I would not have been able to do it. I was beaten in 1992 and people thought that that would be good for my health. However, my health deteriorated until I was given the machine, which made an unbelievable difference. People who suffer from sleep apnoea are still driving buses, which could lead to all sorts of problems. Sarah Boyack needs to look into the issue—there should be some sort of test. I tried to get something going when I had responsibility for policing in Edinburgh, but I was unable to follow it through because my health packed up. This is a major issue.

When the convener said that the committee cannot tell trusts or boards what to do, I wondered whether I was at the right meeting. The committee needs to bring this issue to the attention of someone who can fund the treatment that I have described.

There is an argument within Edinburgh royal infirmary that sleep apnoea can be treated another way—with a pill or something. However, I do not believe that. Professor Douglas knows the right approach to take and it must be properly funded. Without treatment, people will be off work and claiming welfare or they will be unemployed because they are unable to work. I was in a mess. I could not do a day's work without going into a car park to sleep. People do not think of telling their doctors that they are tired. I would be grateful if the committee could do something. The petition would have been larger but it was completed in only a week and a half. People are suddenly frightened when they have been diagnosed and are told that nothing could be done for them.

Regardless of size, all petitions are treated seriously by the committee.

If all 1,200 sufferers were issued with the equipment whether or not they wanted it, the sum involved would be just more than £0.25 million—unless my maths is way out. The cause must be given a higher profile. It is not just the money that is the problem—some health boards have to be re-educated.

The treatment is funded in a complex way, as a result of which Edinburgh receives a raw deal. I think that block money comes from other authorities and Edinburgh ends up with £300,000. The shortfall is causing the problem. Edinburgh considers that it is paying for sleep apnoea sufferers in other authorities, and the patients are caught up in the internal politics within the hospital. That is the issue.

That is fine. If there are no more questions, we shall now discuss what action to take with the petition. Do not worry; the committee will treat it seriously.

The suggested action is that we ask both the Scottish Executive and Lothian Health to respond to the petition. We must ask, in particular, how the clinic in Edinburgh is financed. We must also send a copy of the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for its information.

I suggest that we contact Greater Glasgow Health Board to find out how it deals with the illness. It might not have a problem and a solution could be staring us in the face.

Perhaps we could also ask the Executive if it has any indicators of provision throughout Scotland, although its usual reply to such questions is, "This information is not held centrally."

It sounds from the evidence that we have heard this morning that there are two national centres, so we would expect the Scottish Executive to have such information.

I wish to say how nice it is to see Eric Drummond again this morning. I worked with him on the Edinburgh airport advisory committee. It is good to see him looking well. I support the recommendations, but do you, convener, consider it worth while writing to Fife Health Board and the Borders Health Board? It would be good to hear their views as well as the Lothian side.

If we do that, we will have to write to 15 health boards. At the moment, there are two centres in Glasgow and Lothian. I think that we should ask them how the treatment is funded in other health board areas.

The documents say that there is a six-month waiting list in Lothian before treatment is started. If other areas have shorter waiting lists, perhaps they can provide Lothian with a solution.

I may have misunderstood the situation completely, but my understanding is that as other health board areas do not have their own sleep apnoea services, they send people to Lothian and Glasgow. There would therefore be the same waiting list for everyone.

I have perhaps misunderstood the situation. I beg your pardon, convener.

Thank you. Are we agreed on the recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE363, is from Mr Stan Gregory. We do not have anyone to speak to the petition. Mr Gregory is calling for an independent consultation to be carried out to examine the structure and operation of Scottish councils. He is concerned that council taxes have increased as a result of increased administrative burdens on councils.

As members can see from the background research to the petition, the Local Government Committee is currently engaged in a major local government finance inquiry. In addition to that, the Scottish Executive, as part of its response to the McIntosh report, has announced the setting up of a leadership advisory panel. The panel will advise councils on reviewing their decision-making and policy development processes and the working practices that support those processes. The panel is expected to report next month.

Given that background, it is suggested that we request a response from the Scottish Executive on the issues that are contained in the petition. It is further suggested that we make a specific request for information on the progress of the leadership advisory panel and whether its report will address the issues that are raised by the petitioner.

I support that recommendation. The only concern that I have about the petition and the charter is that the charter is not set out in full. One of the major concerns with information technology and the digital world is that sometimes—

You are addressing the next petition. We are discussing PE363.

I apologise.

Are we agreed on the recommendation for PE363?

Members indicated agreement.

The final new petition this morning is PE366 from Dr Andy McDonald, on behalf of Craigmillar Community Information Service. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to support its digital inclusion charter and asks the Scottish Executive to take a range of steps to tackle the problem of the digital divide.

In the petition, members will see the points that are made in support of the charter. As Helen Eadie says, the charter is not set out fully. However, CCIS gives an indication that it is looking for partnership with the private, educational and community sectors. It is interesting to note that petition PE366 was hosted for us on the international teledemocracy centre website. A lot of background on the petition is available to members if they would like to consult the clerks.

The suggested action is that we agree to seek comments from the Executive on the issues that are contained in the petition. We should ask whether the Executive's proposals and its digital Scotland initiative will address any of the issues that are raised in the charter by Craigmillar Community Information Service.

I can now make the point that I tried to make earlier. I am an enthusiastic supporter of IT. I am wholly behind anything to do with digital technology. However, one of my concerns, which I tried to raise in a motion but did not get support for from any MSP, is the issue of it being rare to reach a human being at the end of the telephone line when calling any of the public utility companies.

These days people have to go through various platforms: press asterisk; press 1; press 2. Ten buttons later, the person making the telephone call has still not reached the right person. Whilst I support digital inclusion, we have to ensure that people who are in the greatest need can access a human being. I believe that Scottish Power has a message on its machines that is activated by button 5 that says, "Sorry, we are too busy to deal with your inquiry. Please call back later." Are we going to get to a digital world where that happens on a universal basis? I support the suggested action that we seek comments from the Executive. I hope that someone will listen to an appeal from an ordinary human being who wants sometimes to talk to another human being in the world out there.

I am not sure how we would handle Helen Eadie's appeal in relation to our consideration of PE366.

I will lodge another motion if the convener will support it.

I am happy to support any motion that is lodged by Helen Eadie on that subject. I did not see her previous motion, or I would have supported it. The issue she raises is a real problem, but it is not part of the petition.

I was just being creative or inventive.

Absolutely. You are tempted to be so.

The suggested action is that we ask the Executive to respond to the petition and ask specifically whether its digital Scotland initiative will address the points raised by the petitioners. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.