Public Petitions Committee, 23 Apr 2002
Meeting date: Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Official Report
293KB pdf
Inadmissible Petitions
Victoria Hospital Kirkcaldy (IP23)
We move on to the next item—
Convener, I have to go, but I agree with all the recommendations.
That is excellent.
Members will see that there are two petitions under this heading. The first is petition IP23, which was lodged by Mr James A Mackie. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to instigate an investigation of the fire safety precautions that were put in place at the Victoria hospital, Kirkcaldy. Petition IP23 is inadmissible on the ground that the Parliament cannot interfere in an operational matter. I should point out that another petition on the issue, which is admissible, is to be lodged this week. It will appear on a future agenda.
Are we agreed that petition IP23 is inadmissible?
I accept that the matter is operational and, on that basis, it is fine to treat the petition as inadmissible. I had cause last week to visit the Victoria. The very nature of the build of the hospital raises some doubts in my mind about how to deal with a fire there, but the experts have given it a fire certificate and procedures are in place. Would it be reasonable to suggest to Mr Mackie that he make contact with the Victoria to find out what procedures are in place? I am sure that, if he were to do so, he would receive the assurances that he seeks.
The convener rightly says that the issue will be addressed in a more general way in the petition that is to be lodged this week. I have an interest in that petition, as people from my constituency are leading the delegation to lodge it. Mr Mackie should be reassured that the other petition addresses the more general principle that he raised.
One thing that has not made the press headlines as yet, but which I am sure will do so in due course, is what happened after Guy's and St Thomas' hospital in London was rebuilt in the way that it is proposed to rebuild the Victoria hospital. When Guy's hospital was rebuilt, it could not get a fire certificate to house patients above the sixth floor.
Mr Mackie is rightly concerned about the Victoria hospital, as the hospital proposes to put acute patients above the sixth floor. If it was not possible to do that at Guy's in London, I cannot see how it will be possible to do that in Scotland. That more general issue will be addressed by the petition that is to be lodged this week by people from my constituency of Dunfermline East.
When we inform Mr Mackie that his petition IP23 is inadmissible, he will be told that another petition on the same issue is to be considered by the Public Petitions Committee. He will be kept fully informed of the progress of that petition. Are we agreed?
I agree. Given that Mr Mackie has taken the trouble to lodge the petition, I was trying to be helpful.
Members indicated agreement.
State Hospital Carstairs (IP24)
The next inadmissible petition, IP24 on the state hospital at Carstairs, was lodged by Mr James Kelly. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the infringement of patients' human rights by the compulsory installation of prison-style barred windows at the state hospital in Carstairs. In a subsequent letter, the petitioner highlighted his concerns as to the treatment and care that was provided by hospital staff to patients who signed the petition. He asks us also to examine that.
The patients' advocacy service at Carstairs has written to the Committee on the petitioner's behalf. The letter highlights concerns that a decision by the clinical team to increase Mr Kelly's medication, contrary to the opinion of his responsible medical officer, is related to the submission of his petition.
The clerks also received a copy of a letter dated 21 March, addressed to Mr Kelly, in which the state hospital confirmed that the replacement of the windows was designed to protect the safety of staff, patients and the general public. The hospital also acknowledged the issues that Mr Kelly had raised regarding ventilation. It is currently examining ways in which to improve the ventilation panels on the new windows to improve air quality in the rooms.
The petitioner is asking the Parliament to intervene in an operational matter that is the responsibility of the state hospital. That is something that the Parliament is unable to do, as it cannot interfere in or overturn the executive decisions of individual hospitals in Scotland.
I recommend that the Committee agrees that the petition is inadmissible. However, we may wish to advise the petitioner to pursue the matters that he has raised with the patients' advocacy service.
Members indicated agreement.
As there is no convener's report, that concludes the business for this morning. I thank everyone for staying with us for so long.
Meeting closed at 12:40.