Public Petitions Committee, 22 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Official Report 202KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Institutional Child Abuse (PE535)

The first of our current petitions is PE535, from Chris Daly, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to conduct an inquiry into past institutional child abuse, in particular of those children who were in the care of the state under the supervision of religious orders, to make an unreserved apology on behalf of the said state bodies and to urge the religious orders to apologise unconditionally.

At its meeting on 29 September 2004, the committee agreed to bid for a committee debate in the chamber on the petition and, in the meantime, to invite further views from the Minister for Education and Young People, the petitioner, the In Care Abuse Survivors/In Care Abused Support group—INCAS—Quarriers Homes and the Catholic Church. Responses have been received from the minister, the petitioner, Quarriers, the Catholic Church and INCAS. Correspondence has also been received from a number of victims of past institutional child abuse and has been circulated to members.

The Parliament debated PE535 on Wednesday 1 December, following a ministerial statement by the First Minister. The petitioner, Chris Daly, is here to respond to the points that were raised in the debate. He is accompanied by Helen Holland, who is the vice-chair of INCAS. I welcome you both; you may take some time to make initial comments, after which we will discuss the points that you make.

I thank the committee for allowing me to attend the meeting to give my personal response to the debate on institutional child abuse, which took place on 1 December. I thank the INCAS committee, which came on board at a crucial stage to support the petition and guide me through the process. Without the backing of INCAS and individual survivors, which provided strength in numbers, I am not sure that I would have had the resolve to continue. It was very much an uphill struggle to secure recognition of the wrongs meted out to people who survived abuse in children's homes and other child care institutions such as list D schools.

The work of the Public Petitions Committee was key to the progression of the petition to secure a debate in the chamber. I understand that mountains had to be moved to achieve that and I thank Michael McMahon, the committee's convener, for his determination. I also recognise the input and hard work of members of the committee—there was clear cross-party support for the petition. Other MSPs took an interest as their constituents told them about their own experiences of institutions. I thank my MSP, Janis Hughes, who was very supportive at different stages, for her hard work and for her input to the debate.

The full recognition by the First Minister of what happened to many of Scotland's most vulnerable children, who were placed in institutions for their care and protection, was a huge leap forward. His apology on behalf of the Scottish people was a very emotional moment for me and I believe that his apology was heartfelt and meaningful.

The First Minister said:

"we are anxious to do the right thing by the survivors of past abuse."—[Official Report, 1 December 2004; c 12391.]

I hope that the experienced, independent person that Peter Peacock said that he would appoint does the right thing by survivors. To use the words of the petition, I hope that the independent expert will

"establish a picture of causes, nature and extent of physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children in institutions from around 1940 or before until the present",

and

"compile a report and make public, on the activities and findings of"

the independent expert. The report should contain "such recommendations as" the reporter "considers appropriate".

The reporter's hands should not be tied. In particular, if the reporter concludes that a public inquiry should be initiated, such an inquiry should happen. The independent expert should also consider the continuing effects of abuse. It is also important that the Minister for Education and Young People and civil servants take account of the views that MSPs expressed in the debate when they put detail to and present in writing Mr Peacock's proposals.

Helen Holland wants to join in the question-and-answer session and to give the response of INCAS to the debate.

On behalf of the committee, I say that without your courage and tenacity, we would not have taken the issue as far as we did. You are to be commended for your efforts to raise such an important issue in the Scottish Parliament and we congratulate you. Do members want to comment?

It is nice to meet you again, Mr Daly, and to meet Helen Holland. As the convener said, we thank you—personally and professionally—for the work that you put in. You mentioned the First Minister's statement and the independent review that is proposed. Is it still the intention of the petitioner and INCAS, on behalf of everyone who suffered abuse, to push for an independent inquiry, or were the answers that you received in the debate on 1 December sufficient?

I will let Helen Holland answer your question.

INCAS has met the Scottish Executive only once since the debate. We are not sure what powers the independent adviser or investigator will have. We have not been able to go back to the body of INCAS and say, "This is what is on offer", because we do not know what is on offer. We have not had anything in writing. Our concern is that the Scottish Executive has said that it will address only the response of the Minister for Education and Young People to the debate. We find that disheartening because although a lot of MSPs made valuable contributions to the debate and offered guidance it seems as if that has been ignored. The Executive is going to proceed only on the basis of the minister's statement. We have no clear guidelines on what package will be put in place, so it is difficult to answer your question. We would obviously have to go back to the body of INCAS and have a vote on what way we want to go. It is difficult to explain to people what is happening when we are not having it explained to us. We are still very much in the dark.

We do not know what the remit of what Peter Peacock is now calling an experienced, independent person will be. I hope that they will look into all the issues, but that is difficult to know when we do not have the information in black and white.

People have said that they were pleased with what came out of the debate, but, as you said, you have not received anything in black and white. I am loth to close the petition on the word of the minister, given that you do not know what is going to happen. That is why I sought clarification. If we close the petition today and you are not satisfied with the independent reporter, we are back to square one. I want to clarify the point that you really do not have a clue what is expected of the reporter.

On behalf of INCAS I was going to ask that the petition not be closed until we have clarification of what will be involved and what the Scottish Executive's input will be.

That is why I asked the question. We still need lots of answers and I think that an independent inquiry would suffice. I am open to suggestions from you and from Executive ministers. In order to move on, we have to get evidence on how what happened was allowed to happen. We have not been able to get that yet, but I hope that either an independent reporter or an inquiry would allow us to get it. I would not be happy to close the petition without getting further information from the minister.

I hope that it would be within the remit of the independent expert to call for a public inquiry if they deemed it necessary, given the findings of their report.

We do not have a guarantee that that would happen. I would be loth to close the petition until we have such a guarantee.

I had not intended to debate whether to close the petition. My understanding is that the minister has to report back to Parliament, because he undertook specifically to do so. If he does not do so, Parliament would take a view on that, rather than it being a matter simply for the Public Petitions Committee. I do not want us to get caught down a sideline. The matter is for Parliament as a whole, irrespective of what happens to the petition. Have Chris Daly and INCAS been asked to contribute to drawing up the remit of the independent review? Have they been asked to identify anyone to carry out that review? I heard you say that you had had one meeting. Is there the prospect of more? I got the sense from the minister that that was the start of a process of engagement that would result in the kind of outcomes that you are looking for.

That is right. We have been asked for our input into the membership of the short-life working group on childhood sexual abuse, which will be an extension of the group that did not examine the specifics of institutional abuse. We have been asked to contribute our ideas on the membership of the short-life working group, but I am not sure that we will have a great deal of say in deciding who the independent expert will be.

Have you been asked to contribute to that decision?

We were asked whether we knew anyone who could hold that position but, unfortunately, we did not. The answer that we got was that the person might need to be from down south because of the political aspects. I think that the issue is still being considered and that no decision has been made so far.

Given that some previous inquiries were seen by some people to be biased towards members of staff in the institutions, we must be careful that the independent expert has a balanced view that takes on board the opinions of the survivors. In some recent inquiries, children had to give evidence about the abuse that they suffered in institutions, but there appeared to be a bias towards members of staff. We have concerns that an even balance might not be achieved. The position will obviously be difficult to fill. We need someone who is fully independent but who has the necessary expertise, such as a social work-type background.

In direct response to Jackie Baillie's question, I should say that we have not been eliminated from any decisions. Regardless of what the final decision might be, I imagine that the Scottish Executive intends to come back to us to tell us who the person is and to give us some information on their background. I imagine that we will be asked whether the person is acceptable to INCAS. In all fairness, the Executive has been open in its discussions with us up till now.

You may have just answered this question. Given that you have no one suitable in mind to carry out the inquiry, are you content to allow the Scottish Executive to find someone and then seek your agreement to that person's appointment?

We need an element of trust somewhere along the line. Obviously, the Scottish Executive has more contacts than our membership has. If the Executive comes back to us with some background information on the person, I imagine that it would take on board any comments that we might make if we felt that there was a discrepancy or if we were unhappy about something. At this moment in time, we trust the Executive to choose someone who will fit the bill.

I gave the civil servants in the Scottish Executive a videotape of Kieran Prendiville's dramatisation "Care", which has a factual basis in the abuse that was uncovered in Wales at the beginning of the 1990s. After that dramatisation, there was a discussion programme that included input from people who were experts in child abuse in institutions. I suggested to the civil servants that they might get some ideas from that discussion about what type of person they should look for to fill the position of independent expert.

On a different subject, you will have seen the letter from Peter Peacock dated 21 December, in which he outlines all the measures that he is taking. Should the minister be taking other measures, which are not outlined in his letter?

I received a copy of the letter just before today's meeting—

So did we.

I have not really had a chance to consider the letter. The minister highlights various points. He says that he will

"appoint someone with experience to analyse independently the regulatory requirements".

That would certainly fit the bill in relation to what the petition calls for.

We can take a minute to go through the letter. The letter says that the minister will give you access to information and that files have now been redacted. It says that the minister is involving the Scottish information commissioner, considering the law on limitation and establishing a short-life working group and that he has had discussions about whom he will appoint.

There is a difficulty with independent institutions. Will they be compelled to hand over files? In my experience of trying to access files I have been given many different reasons why files are missing. For example, I have been told that the files have been lost in a fire, mislaid during building works and lost in transit from one institution to the organisation's headquarters. The Scottish Executive has started the process of redacting its own files, which will be finished at the beginning of the new year, but the difficulty is that some institutions have given no firm commitment to allow access to the files that they hold.

The minister might want to take up that point. I am sure that he will be made aware of this discussion. However, I think that he said during the debate that he has no powers to compel bodies outwith the Executive or local government to open up their files.

Are there other, fundamental issues that have not been addressed?

I hope that the fact that other agencies are opening up their files will force the institutions that have given no firm commitment in that regard to give access to their own files.

Linda Fabiani MSP and Janis Hughes MSP are here. Do you want to comment, Linda?

I have just received a copy of the letter to which John Scott referred. When the witnesses met the Executive, were they given an idea of the timescale for the appointment of the investigator and the duration of the investigation?

I think that everyone appreciated the First Minister's apology on behalf of the state. Has that been followed up by other parties that have been involved over the piece?

Unfortunately, we received the same response from the Catholic Church that we received a couple of years ago. The Church has reissued the apology that was given on the back of the publication of the book, "The Pyjama Parade", by the priest, Father Steve Gilhooley, who wrote about his experiences of abuse during his time in a seminary. We did not regard the church's statement as an overarching apology—as the church would call it—because it did not include children in institutional care. Other survivors did not regard themselves as included in that apology.

The apology was made about three years ago through the media and, as far as I know, it was published in only one newspaper. When we contacted Archbishop O'Brien, as he was then, we were told that the apology was in direct response to the accusations that Steve Gilhooley had made against the seminary that he had been in. When we asked why the apology was given through only one newspaper, we got the answer that the archbishop leaves it up to his public relations person who to give the apology to. Nobody has ever been given a direct apology.

My understanding of the Catholic Church's practice is that, if an apology is going to be made, it tends to be done through the archdioceses. The apology is sent to every diocese in the country and, I imagine, read out at every mass on a Sunday or perhaps a Saturday evening as well. It is therefore directed at survivors who are carrying on with their faith. That is a difficult issue, because many survivors have waived the faith and are not practising at the moment.

For the Catholic Church to apologise through one newspaper is like my going out and slapping somebody and then sending somebody else to apologise on my behalf. It has not come across as an apology to survivors. I had hoped that after the First Minister's apology, others would follow his example.

That is what we all hoped.

I hoped that there would be an immediate response from the churches, Quarriers and other organisations, but that has not happened.

Has there been no response from anyone?

No.

I ask for clarification in light of what Ms Holland has said about what the Catholic Church said through a newspaper. Committee members have received an e-mail from John Deighan at the Catholic parliamentary office, in which he says that it was the bishops' conference of Scotland that apologised. Are we talking about the same apology? In December 2001, Archbishop O'Brien stated:

"I apologise unreservedly to those who, over the years, have suffered any form of abuse at the hands of those representing the Catholic Church."

Are you in a position to say whether that is the apology that you are talking about? It came through the bishops' conference and would obviously carry greater weight than an apology given through an individual newspaper.

That paragraph is taken from the newspaper article, which I read recently. I think that it was in The Scotsman. It followed by saying that there was a specific apology to Steve Gilhooley.

Was that on a personal basis?

Yes. The paragraph that you quoted is taken from the newspaper article in which Archbishop O'Brien apologised. There was further detail in it, which mentioned Steve Gilhooley specifically.

Are you saying that, since the First Minister's apology, INCAS has had nothing from anyone else who we might have expected would have followed the spirit of what the First Minister said?

No, we have not. We had hoped that there might be some reconciliation. We have on many occasions held out an olive branch to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. For years, we have been asking the bishops whether they would sit round the table with survivors in some kind of reconciliation process, as has happened in America. Reconciliation has also been going on in Ireland and, in some cases, with particular orders down south.

To get away from the Catholic Church, I also noticed that Quarriers had sent a letter to the Public Petitions Committee. In some ways, it appears to be making some moves towards reconciliation with survivors. However, it does not recognise fully that the abuse took place within its institutions, to the point where it has said "if abuse happened". In the case of that organisation, there have been court cases that have proved that abuse took place and there have been convictions in criminal cases.

I do not mean to harp on about the Catholic Church, but Alan Draper, who is the chairman of INCAS, used to be an adviser to the Catholic Church and therefore has lots of contacts in that church. I understand that he intends to try to open up some kind of dialogue with the appropriate party in the church in the hope that it will issue a public apology, perhaps through INCAS. I understand that INCAS would expect the church to apologise via INCAS because it is a point of contact for a lot of people who have been abused.

Since the petition was raised, more people have come forward. One of the MSPs said that, given that an apology had been made, the doors might be opened for more people to come forward. That has happened. I would like Alan Draper to have the opportunity to open dialogue with the Catholic Church and perhaps get some kind of response from it. However, to date, the answer to your question is that we have not had any other responses.

Like Linda Fabiani, I am saddened to hear that other organisations have not taken the opportunity to come forward, given the fact that the Executive and the First Minister have gone so far in their efforts to address the situation. Although INCAS has put a lot of work into trying to liaise with those organisations, it would be nice if those organisations were to come forward voluntarily after the petition is progressed. I hope that there will still be an opportunity for them to come forward through INCAS to open up a dialogue, which might help the situation.

I accept what you say about the element of trust in the Executive's selection of an independent expert who will be able to do the work and I know that you have had a meeting with the Executive since the subject was debated and that you are keen to be involved in deciding the work that that person will undertake. Are there plans for further meetings at which you will discuss the independent expert's remit or are you waiting to see a proposed remit?

We are waiting to see a proposed remit for that person in black and white. Additionally, we are told that negotiations are continuing with the lawyers before matters concerning the independent expert can be finalised.

Jackie Baillie mentioned that the minister had given assurances that the matter would return to Parliament. However, in his letter to the convener on 21 December, all that Peter Peacock said was:

"I confirm my undertaking to Parliament to report outcomes of this work".

By that the minister meant the appointment of an independent adviser and the establishment of a short-life working group. I have gone through the Official Report of the debate and, although he talked about appointing someone, working with INCAS and the survivors, and setting up the short-life working group, nowhere did he mention having an inquiry.

As the Public Petitions Committee has done such a good job in this area—I was not on the committee when the subject first came up—and it has the faith of INCAS and the survivors, I would hate to think that the work would be taken from the Public Petitions Committee if the result that the people want was not achieved. There has not been an inquiry and it has not been said that there will be one. I have looked through the Official Report of the debate and most of the questions that were raised there were raised by members of the Public Petitions Committee.

I would like to keep the petition live. I do not think that there will be a public inquiry. If there is, that will be great, but if not, at least we will be able to monitor what is happening. I know that the convener has the final say, but I do not think that the questions in the petition have been answered.

I do not want to open up a big debate, but my understanding of the minister's response was that he believed that an independent review would be more productive than an inquiry. However, I hear what the petitioner says about the possibility that the person who carries out the independent review will suggest that there is merit in holding an inquiry. The minister has provided an answer, although it may not be the answer that the petition seeks.

I would like to keep open the petition for a slightly different reason. This morning we have heard an expectation that others would follow suit, which has not been met. That expectation is contained in the petition, so it is legitimate for us to keep it open. I suggest that we do one other thing. We should write back to the Catholic parliamentary office, give it an indication of the discussion that has taken place and clarify the nature of the apology that was made. Clearly, people are under the impression that it was made to one individual, rather than generically. We should also pursue the question of access to files. The minister said that he would do that, but there would be no harm in the Public Petitions Committee doing likewise.

Are members happy with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open, investigate the issues that Jackie Baillie has raised and pursue them in the way that she has recommended. Are you happy with that, Mr Daly?

Yes. Obviously, it is difficult for us to take a firm decision on the review until we see the remit in black and white.

I will make one comment that may be of significance when we come to examine the petition again in the future. I am always careful to ensure that we treat all petitioners who appear before the committee as equally as possible. In the past, we have never allowed something to be added on to a petition while it is being considered; we have always kept to the remit of the petition. We must be careful that we do not advance this petition by widening its scope or considering other issues. We have turned down previous requests to do that, and it would set a dangerous precedent if we allowed that to happen in this case. INCAS or Mr Daly may need to submit a new petition to allow us to consider further issues in the future. The committee would be very open to that. If what the minister has proposed is not satisfactory, but what you are seeking is not within the remit of the initial petition, you may be required to submit a new petition to allow us take matters forward. Is that okay?

Yes.

INCAS is happy with that approach.

We will keep an eye on the situation, as Jackie Baillie has recommended, and will keep the petition open until further inquiries have been made.

Thank you.

---

Alcohol and Drug Misuse (PE531)

Our next current petition is PE531, from Mr and Mrs Robinson. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to provide adequate funding to local agencies to support and treat those suffering from alcohol and drug dependency, to provide a properly funded network of support groups for carers and to recognise the extent of alcohol and drug misuse in Scotland, especially alcohol abuse in women.

At its meeting on 11 March 2003, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and Perth and Kinross health and social care co-operative and agreed to invite the petitioners to comment on those responses. Despite a number of reminders having been sent, no response has been received from the petitioners. Do members have views on what we can do with the petition, other than close it?

If we have not received a response from the petitioner, the committee can do little more than it has already done. Given that we have made numerous approaches to the petitioner, I suggest that we close the petition.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 (PE573)

Current petition PE573, by Dr J Beatson, calls on the Parliament to amend section 47 of part 5 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and its code of practice, to remove the assessment and certification workload requirements from general practitioners in favour of the appointment of dedicated personnel to fulfil that requirement.

At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee agreed to defer further consideration of the petition until the Scottish Executive's proposals on facilitating the aims of part 5 of the act were published. In its response, the Executive states that the Minister for Health and Community Care announced on 2 July that he was minded to put forward two changes to part 5, when a suitable bill becomes available. The two changes are: to allow health professionals other than registered medical practitioners to issue certificates of incapacity under section 47, provided that they have the necessary skills and expertise to assess capacity; and to extend the maximum duration of section 47 certificates from one year to three years in certain circumstances, such as in cases where the adult has a degenerative or progressive illness with no prospect of improvement or recovery.

Do members have any comments?

I think that the Executive's response is very helpful and addresses Dr Beatson's concerns, so I move that we close the petition.

I too think that the response is extraordinarily helpful, and it is actually quite a victory for the Public Petitions Committee. Essentially, what we have done is to review legislation that, despite the best intentions, has been found to be slightly inadequate. My only concern is about the time at which a suitable bill may be introduced for those alterations to be enacted. The question that I have is whether the relaxation in the guidelines will be sufficient to satisfy the petitioners. I just wonder if it might be worth asking the petitioners if the relaxation in the guidelines accommodates their position—in the mean time, at any rate—while we wait for a suitable piece of legislation to be introduced.

I might be wrong, but I understand that the bill will shortly be before us. I forget its title, but it is about to be introduced, if it has not already been introduced. The Executive is availing itself of an early legislative opportunity.

There is a health bill that was initially intended to include organ retention, but it may now be the case that it is the smoking bill that will encapsulate that. The bill will probably be a vehicle for those changes. We can certainly ask whether the minister intends that to be the bill that he discusses in his letter.

I would be grateful if you would ask. I am sure that Jackie Baillie is right, and I would be happy if she is, but—

But we should just get that clarified.

Yes. If everybody is happy with that, I would be very grateful.

Okay.

---

Solvent Abuse (PE580)

The next petition is PE580, by John O'Brien, calling on the Parliament to recognise the serious problem of solvent abuse in Scotland and to introduce preventive safety measures to help combat solvent abuse.

At its meeting on 20 April 2004, the committee agreed to ask the Executive to inform it of any developments addressing the issues raised in the petition, including the test purchasing pilot in Fife. The committee also noted from a response from Shell UK that a report published in 1995 by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs led to an announcement by the Department of Trade and Industry that it would seek the co-operation of industry in establishing an industry-led forum, with the involvement of the DTI, to co-ordinate the activities of the cigarette lighter refill companies in the UK. The committee agreed to write to the Department of Trade and Industry inquiring whether it has any plans to collaborate with the industry along the lines outlined to take that project forward.

In its response, the Executive stated that it would be mounting a Scotland-wide campaign in the autumn to raise awareness among retailers of the law governing the sale of cigarette lighter refills, which makes it an offence to sell those products to under 18s, and highlighted the fact that the Scottish Retail Consortium is planning to distribute a new booklet to retailers reminding them of their responsibilities in relation to age restricted sales generally. The DTI states in its response that although it supports initiatives by companies to tackle social issues, it does not have specific views on the initiative.

Do members have any comments?

I have been following the progress of the petition since it was first considered by the Public Petitions Committee. My colleague Marilyn Livingstone, who represents the constituency next door to mine, has done a power of work with John O'Brien, who is to be commended for his dedication and commitment to the issue.

I am concerned that the DTI has not addressed a key measure that we wanted to be taken. Despite the best endeavours of Shell UK, which has been helpful and has tried to co-operate, I understand that the DTI has not achieved the goal of ensuring that a substance is inserted into the product to ensure that young people, or others, who want to sniff solvents are physically put off doing so. Chemists at Shell tell me that it is possible to insert such a substance, but that that must be done by the solvent manufacturers, rather than by Shell. We must find a way of exerting pressure and I endorse the suggestion in our briefing papers that we invite John MacDougall MP to the committee.

We can certainly ask John MacDougall if he wants to attend a meeting of the committee or submit written evidence, to help us to consider the matter further.

I am surprised that John MacDougall has not been able to secure an adjournment debate—that was the situation when the committee discussed the petition in April. No doubt there is much competition for the slot. It would be advisable to invite John MacDougall to the committee. We could invite Marilyn Livingstone to give evidence at the same time, given that she has been working on the matter, as Helen Eadie said.

Are members happy to invite John MacDougall and Marilyn Livingstone to meet the committee and discuss the matter or at least to submit information?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Bone Marrow Register (PE687)

Petition PE687 was lodged by Ms Geva Blackett, on behalf of Millie's Campaign and Ms Katie McCulloch, on behalf of the Anthony Nolan Trust. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to run a campaign encouraging the donation of bone marrow and blood stem cells through a bone marrow register and to recognise and support organisations that recruit bone marrow donors.

At its meeting on 29 September, the committee agreed to invite the Minister for Health and Community Care to comment on responses from the petitioner and the Anthony Nolan Trust. The committee also asked whether the Executive intends to publicise the donation of bone marrow and blood stem cells at blood donation centres and doctors' surgeries throughout the country. In his response, the minister says that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service

"has recently reviewed its policy on the recruitment of bone marrow donors and has agreed that this should be changed so that new blood donors would be invited to also become bone marrow donors. SNBTS hope to be in a position to introduce this change in the near future and will produce information leaflets to raise awareness of the facility."

The minister also said:

"the Executive, SNBTS and NHSScotland recognise and appreciate the importance of the work of the Anthony Nolan Trust and have taken on board the concerns which have been expressed in relation to the need to raise awareness and recruit more bone marrow donors in Scotland."

Do members have views on the petition?

The minister's response was very helpful. I am glad that SNBTS is taking the action that his letter describes, which meets the points that the petitioners raised. We should close the petition.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Public Water Supply (Fluoridation) (PE775)

Petition PE775 was lodged by Lois MacDonell on behalf of the Highland movement against water fluoridation and calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to prohibit the addition of any artificial water fluoridation to the public water supply in Scotland.

At its meeting on 27 October, the committee agreed to ask the Minister for Health and Community Care why it has taken so long for the Executive to take action on the issue and to provide details of the timescale for the publication of conclusions from the consultation and for the announcement of its decision on the fluoridation of drinking water. In his response, the minister says:

"the First Minister set out the Executive's position on this issue in his response to Nora Radcliffe at Question Time on 18 November. He confirmed that we are currently considering our full response to our consultation on improving the oral health of children in Scotland. The First Minister also said that, having listened to the views expressed in the consultation, we will not be changing the current legislation on fluoridation of water supplies in this Parliament."

Does that conclude the matter? What do members think?

On the basis of the minister's response, I suggest that we close the petition.

Okay, we will leave it at that. That ends consideration of current petitions.