Public Petitions Committee, 23 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 23, 2001

Official Report 196KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

Wildlife Legislation (PE387)

We will take the last of the current petitions, PE387, first because Robin Harper is present this morning. He has other appointments, but wants to contribute to our consideration of the petition.

Members will remember that the petition was submitted by Mr Stuart Housden on behalf of RSPB Scotland. The petitioners take the view that the legislation governing the protection of wildlife in Scotland is out of date and requires strengthening. Although the petition welcomes the proposals that the Executive made for legislation in "The Nature of Scotland", the petitioners are concerned about the time that has been taken to make those proposals.

We wrote to the Scottish Executive about the petition and received a response from Rhona Brankin, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. I draw members' attention to the fact that Rhona Brankin wrote directly to the principal petitioner, welcoming the support of the RSPB and the signatories to the petition for the proposals that are contained in "The Nature of Scotland". It is good that ministers write to petitioners; we should welcome that and Rhona Brankin should be congratulated on setting that precedent.

Rhona Brankin indicated in her letter that pressure of parliamentary time has prevented her from being able to introduce a bill in the current session. She intends to introduce such a bill at some point in the future. She also says that the Executive hopes to implement many of the proposals that are contained in "The Nature of Scotland" through

"policy measures and positive incentives".

In view of the Executive's clear commitment to introduce appropriate legislation at the earliest opportunity, I suggest that the committee make a copy of the response to the petition available to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information only and recommend that no further action be taken. Before we come to that, I invite Robin Harper to make a contribution.

I thank the committee for rearranging its timetable to suit mine. I declare an interest in the matter. I am a member of the RSPB. I ask whether, in the light of the Executive's response, the committee could seek further clarification of its proposal to address some of the concerns that are expressed in the petition through

"policy measures and positive incentives".

It is not unreasonable to ask the Executive to explain precisely what it means by that. As an addendum, I ask the committee to ask the Executive whether it plans to bring in legislation in the next session.

I must say that my memory does not serve me well. I ask Robin Harper to explain in a nutshell what is defective about the present legislation.

The defectiveness of the present legislation, in a nutshell, is that English legislation is ahead of Scottish legislation because it provides protection against the raiding of birds' nests—that is why the RSPB introduced the petition. Other details in English wildlife legislation have been improved. When it comes to depredations on wildlife, Scotland is now a target for egg collectors, who can get away with things in Scotland that they cannot get away with in England. People are coming from the continent to raid Scottish nests. That is one of the principal defects.

The criminal aspect.

I apologise to Robin Harper, because I did not hear everything that he said.

Some years ago at Westminster, George Kynoch introduced legislation that was in line with the RSPB's requirements regarding protection from those who steal eggs. From recent contact with the RSPB, I understand that that legislation has been reasonably but not wholly successful. Might a few additions to the miscellaneous provisions of the criminal justice bill that the Executive is about to introduce strengthen the existing legislation? If such a measure helped with the problem that Robin Harper has highlighted, would it not be worth asking the Executive to consider it?

I am sure that the RSPB would welcome such a move, which is why I am asking the committee to seek further clarification from the Executive. As it has said that it will examine

"policy measures and positive incentives",

I would like to know its exact proposals in this area. The response is rather vague.

Clarification is one thing. However, if simple steps can be taken to protect birds of prey, we could be a bit more positive and ask the Executive to build them into its criminal justice bill.

As Robin Harper has suggested, we can perhaps seek clarification of the

"policy measures and positive incentives"

that will be used to introduce some of the required measures, draw the Executive's attention to Phil Gallie's comments about that problem and ask when the legislation will be introduced. There must be clarity on this issue. We need to know whether the legislation will be introduced before 2003 or whether it will be put off until a future parliamentary session.

I do not oppose any of the proposals that have been suggested this morning. It is vital that we protect birds of prey, because we do not do so at our peril. However, how do we balance that with the protection of other activities in Scotland? For example, the Scottish pigeon-racing fraternity feels that its sport is being threatened by the increase in the number of birds of prey, which it believes has led to the loss of large numbers of its pigeons.

That is an issue for full-scale investigation and considered legislation. It could not be addressed simply by the Executive's short-term measures.

I remind members that a petition from the Scottish Homing Union is being considered by other committees. I am sure that, whenever legislation is introduced, it will address the issue in a forthright manner.

I want to put on record the fact that I, too, am a member of the RSPB. However, the motive for my membership is to keep an eye on the organisation, because I do not always agree with some of the extraordinary things that it does. In fact, it has done some really wicked things. For example, although locals in Fair Isle have taken eggs out of the skuas' nests on the cliffs for hundreds of years, the RSPB asked them not to do so for 20 years. Fair Isle is a great place for twitchers—birds pass the island on their various journeys—but as a result of the RSPB's actions, the skuas now have control. Not only do they take the eyes from lambs, they attack children and have stopped them using the one place where they can take their tricycles. Furthermore, they have more or less destroyed many of the other species of birds.

We should point out that the organisation is not necessarily the goody. Often the crofter is the best protector of the birds; indeed, the birds exist only because of hundreds of years of crofters respecting nature. Sometimes organisations such as the RSPB come in, make rules and alter the balance, not always for the good. That is why I am a member—to keep an eye on the organisation.

That is exactly why I am a member of the Labour party.

I suppose that that remark was off the record.

My understanding is that we are talking about targeting bird-egg collectors, not about preventing people from looking after the land and other species, as they feel appropriate. I made my comment to target egg collectors.

I think that we should stick with the first two parts of the recommendation—to copy the response to the petitioner as well as to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its information. However, rather than then taking no further action, I suggest that we write to the Executive to ask for clarification of the interim measures that it intends to take and to ask when it intends to introduce the legislation. We should also draw its attention to the issues raised by Phil Gallie and ask for a response. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Allergy Clinics (PE276)

PE276 is a petition from Ms Elizabeth Girling on behalf of Lothian Allergy Support Group, which calls for the establishment of specialist clinics for the diagnosis and treatment of allergies in national health service hospitals in Scotland. At our meeting on 24 October 2000, we agreed to seek the comments of the Scottish Executive on its current policy and to ask whether it had any proposals to establish such clinics. Members will note that the Executive's response has been received almost a year after it was requested and that the officials who prepared it have apologised for the delay. We need to take that into consideration.

The detailed response offers information on the current provision of immunology and allergy services. It makes it clear that it is not the Executive's policy to establish clinics for any condition directly and that the NHS in Scotland is funded in a way that gives maximum flexibility to NHS boards and trusts to allocate funds and develop services according to their assessment of local needs. It points out that the Executive is making funding available for two new consultant immunologist posts, which was the main recommendation for improvement in the Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee report of September 2000.

It is suggested that we send the Executive's response to the petitioner and to the Health and Community Care Committee for information and then take no further action—unless anyone has further comments.

I would like to place on record my concern that it has taken almost a year for the Executive's response to come. However, I am pleased at the reassurance that money can be made available for research. At the end of Trevor Lodge's letter, it says that the chief scientist officer would be pleased to consider any proposals for allergy research. I am pleased about that, because I am particularly interested in that area and I happen to agree with a lot of the comments made by the petitioners.

I would like to receive a copy of the full report from the clerks. It would be interesting to find out what else is being said on the subject. By and large, I am pleased with what the Executive has said, because it seems that we are pushing at an open door and that the Executive is willing to be helpful. It is incumbent on the rest of us to push the health boards and the trusts to ensure that we get the local provision that we need.

I am sure that the report is available to any members who want it.

I have had asthma all my life and was subject to infant eczema, but I was never aware that I had asthma until I was an adult. I thought that my breathing difficulty was related to the tuberculosis that I got at the University of Glasgow and not to asthma.

I know that young children get a marvellous, really wonderful allergies service—I speak as a grandparent. Most allergies can be detected in young children. People who have escaped the net might be looking for a service that does not exist. I believe that young children get an allergies service and can find out what they are allergic to from the time that they are born, which is good.

Is it the case, perhaps, that England can afford to have so many clinics because it is a more populous country? Members who represent the Highlands and Islands will know right away that it is unlikely that there are specialist allergy clinics there. I notice that England has a professor solely for allergies. Could not we ask the British Medical Association for its view on whether enough services are available to analyse people's allergies?

I imagine that we could, but I am not sure that the BMA is necessarily the best organisation to ask.

The petition mentions NHS services in England and that there is a full-time professor in one of the universities.

As Dr Ewing knows, the Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee published a report in September 2000. We could ask the SMSAC whether it thinks that the steps that the Executive is taking are appropriate and in line with the findings in the report or whether it thinks that more should be done. We will do that rather than ask the BMA.

I am concerned that it has taken almost a year for the most basic of replies to come from the Executive. We all have sympathies for people who have a paper mountain with which to deal—and the Executive has more of a mountain that most—but to take a year to reply is ridiculous. Other cases of tardiness are referred to in the documents for the meeting and regularly in other committees' documents. We hear a lot about information technology nowadays; the Executive is always talking about it, but it seems to use pigeons to communicate. It is not good enough that a committee or a petitioner receives a response almost a year after the petition has been submitted.

The response from the Executive does not contain great detail or research and it could have been written within at least a few months. It is easy-peasy stuff. Although I am delighted about the £223,000 of funding for three projects in the related field of asthma, which is near the top of the heap of problems in Scotland, the Executive's reply does not address the type of allergies to which the petition refers. The petition refers to allergies to "foods, chemicals or environment". There is no mention of that in the Executive's response or of the 50 specialist clinics in NHS hospitals throughout England and Wales. We should have roughly five specialist clinics in Scotland, but we have none. The problem of eczema is massive and there are all sorts of food-related allergies because of the increasing amount of chemical-laden trash that is pumped down the throats of the population.

The reply from the Executive is neither satisfactory nor respectful, considering the length of time that the petitioners had to wait. For instance, I want the Executive to tell us more about links with the Transport and the Environment Committee on the matter.

The Executive's response refers to

"consultant-led immunology and allergy services … in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow."

Are those the kind of specialist centres that the petitioners want? There are four in Scotland and they act as reference centres for other areas in Scotland. When we ask the Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee for its reaction to the Executive's response, that point might be covered.

I understand that the Executive is taking action to try to address the problem of the time required for replies. The Executive took six months to reply to the petition that we will consider next and at the end of that response Trevor Lodge, who is the official dealing with the matter, gives an apology for

"the trend of lengthy delays at this end in responding to you on Petitions."

He goes on to state that

"there may be very good reasons why it may not be possible to comply with your deadlines".

However, he also states that

"we ought to be able to improve significantly on our past performance. I shall be looking into this. In future, I shall ensure that, where it is not possible to respond within your deadline, you are sent a holding reply explaining the reason for the delay and when you may expect a substantive response."

The Executive is beginning to react to the delays.

Do members wish to write again, emphasising the need for sharp responses to our letters?

If a Government or an Opposition were to deal fairly, well and fast with the public, that would be the best spin that they could put on anything. The Executive spends a fortune on spin-doctors, but most members would prefer it to spend a fortune on clerical services and researchers to help the public. That would give the Executive all the good spin that it wants, for nothing.

Pigeons can travel from France to Scotland in three weeks.

Exactly. In that case, people should get a reply in three weeks.

Never a Public Petitions Committee goes by but one learns something new.

Can we resolve this issue? We must send the Executive's response to the petitioner; perhaps we should ask both the petitioner and the Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee for their reactions to the Executive's response. In the meantime, we will send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for information. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Cancer Rates (East Lothian) (PE349)

PE349, on cancer cases in East Lothian, is from Mr Thomas Stevenson. Members will recall that we agreed to pass the petition to a series of organisations for their responses. We have now received responses from British Energy, East Lothian Council, the National Radiological Protection Board Scotland, Lothian Health, East Lothian Environment Group and the Scottish Executive. Those responses are detailed in the papers that are before members.

The responses from Lothian Health and the Scottish Executive make clear their view that the figures from the information and statistics division's report, which gave rise in the spring of 2001 to the original press reports that East Lothian had higher cancer rates than elsewhere in Lothian, had been taken out of context. They claim that when the age of the population in East Lothian is taken into account, the figures are broadly similar to those for other areas of the region.

There are two suggested courses of action. We could agree that the explanation that has been provided by Lothian Health and the Scottish Executive for the higher cancer rate figures in East Lothian is reasonable and take no further action, other than to pass copies of the correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee for information only. Alternatively, we could agree to invite comments from the Health and Community Care Committee on whether it considers that further investigation should be carried out into the issues raised by the petition, without formally referring the petition to that committee at this stage.

It is clear that not all the responses agree with one another. The Executive and Lothian Health seem to think that there is nothing in the figures, but other organisations are less certain. For example, East Lothian Council thought that an inquiry should be held and that such an inquiry should report back to the Public Petitions Committee.

It would be useful if we were to follow the suggestion of asking the Health and Community Care Committee to consider conducting further investigations without formally referring the petition to that committee. Although we see what is said in the papers about East Lothian having a larger proportion of elderly residents, it is equally true to say that the other papers that we have received take account of that fact. Both sides of the argument have addressed that point, but neither agrees with the conclusion that the other arrives at. We must be seen to be lifting every stone in our efforts to ascertain that there is nothing in the petition. That can be done only by making further inquiries.

I believe that there is a cancer cluster in Caithness, but that has always been denied. From my decades of representing the Highlands and Islands, I know the amount of money that people will get if they move out of the district and die elsewhere. However, no one for whom I acted would allow their name to be put in the press. That is still going on. When people say that there is no cancer cluster, I simply do not believe it, and I certainly do not believe the letter from British Energy.

The response that we received was insufficient. There is an elderly population in East Lothian, but we will never be able to prove anything. All we can do is hope that our treatment of cancer continues to improve, which seems to be happening.

Winnie Ewing is right. British Energy failed to respond to the petition in any way.

Such companies always do that. They do not admit that people have died in the Dounreay area, although people do not die there, because they are paid to move away.

Convener, just because you have an energy plant does not necessarily mean—

I wish to correct a point. Dounreay has nothing to do with British Energy.

It also has nothing to do with this petition.

All the bodies, including one of the ones that has a letter—

Convener, I was going to say that just because you have an energy plant in a given area does not mean that it is the problem. Many factors govern whether people have cancer. I know that national studies have suggested that the movement of itinerant workers into an area can bring viruses and spread germs. None of us knows the reasons. As I said at the beginning, more light should be shed on the issue. We should ask the Health and Community Care Committee to think about it and when it can hold an inquiry.

Do we agree to approach the Health and Community Care Committee informally and ask it to indicate whether it would be prepared to consider the petition further, and put it into its forward work programme? There is uncertainty in the responses that we have received from different groups. It is for the Health and Community Care Committee to decide whether it wishes to consider further the issue, but we will not refer the petition to the committee formally. The Health and Community Care Committee will respond to us and we will consider its response at a future meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Local Authority Homes (PE356)

The next petition is PE356, from Mr Hendry Williams, on behalf of Troqueer homeowners committee. We agreed to refer the petition to the Local Government Committee on the basis of information that we received. The Local Government Committee has written to us, saying that following its meeting on 11 September, it agreed that the petition would be better dealt with by the Social Justice Committee. Therefore, it is suggested that the petition be referred to the Social Justice Committee, as suggested by the Local Government Committee, together with the related petition PE391, with the recommendation that the issues raised be taken into account when the report of the housing improvement task force is considered. The Local Government Committee originally asked for petition PE356, but then discovered that it was not for the Local Government Committee, but for the Social Justice Committee.

Do members agree to transfer petition PE356 to the Social Justice Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Sleep Apnoea (PE367)

PE367, from Mr Eric Drummond, is about services for the diagnosis and treatment of people suffering from sleep apnoea. We received responses from the Scottish Executive, Greater Glasgow Health Board and Lothian Health at our meeting on 11 September, and agreed to write to Lothian Health, asking it to provide details of the results of its review of the sleep service when they are available.

We now have the results of that review, and the three recommendations are, first, to explore ways of improving the interface between primary and secondary care for the patient group; secondly, to maintain the same level of service this year as last year; and thirdly, to ensure that future plans to develop the sleep service are widely debated as part of the health plan for 2002-03. Most significantly, Lothian Health has put forward the case that the consumables that are associated with the treatment of sleep disorders—that is, the machines that cost about £300 a time—should be included in the Scottish drug tariff, which, means that in future, the cost would not come out of the budget for the sleep service, but would come out of the primary care budget. That is positive, and would be a good thing.

That appears to be a fairly positive response, but in view of the petitioner's direct involvement with the sleep service, it is suggested that we agree to seek his views on the action that is being taken by Lothian Health before dealing further with the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Foot-and-mouth Disease (PE386)

PE386, from Mr Les Ward, on behalf of Advocates for Animals, concerns the handling of the recent foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Scotland and calls for an independent public inquiry into all aspects of that outbreak. We agreed at our meeting of 11 September to refer the petition to the Rural Development Committee for further consideration, and to seek the views of the Executive on the issues raised. We now have the Executive's response, and as we have already referred the petition to the Rural Development Committee, it is suggested that we simply pass on the Executive's response to the Rural Development Committee for it to consider as part of its consideration of the petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The Executive's letter states:

"A number of inquiries are already established".

That is true, but it is not the stated intention of the Governments in London or Edinburgh to have a public inquiry, which is what the petitioners are asking for. A public inquiry must happen, because we must know more about what happened to cause that devastation.

The petition calls for a public inquiry and the committee agreed that that should be referred to the Rural Development Committee as a matter of urgency; it is for that committee to pursue it.

Have we heard from that committee yet?

No. It has probably not received the Executive response yet. We will pass this on to it.

We will wait. I am very much in favour of a public inquiry.

The wording of the petition is "including … animal welfare." The major concern of Advocates for Animals and many similar groups is whether, as a result of this tragedy, we will improve matters so that there is no more mass live animal transportation, except for breeding animals. Could letters be sent to the appropriate ministers asking what—if anything—they propose to do on the transportation of live animals, on the transportation of carcases only and on the reopening of local abattoirs? I am sure that a truthful inquiry will find that it was the transportation of animals into all sorts of areas of the country that caused the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Could we also write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to ask him what his intentions are concerning future animal welfare during live transportation?

The problem is that it is not our petition any longer; it is now with the Rural Development Committee. All we can do is pass the Executive response on to that committee and draw its attention to the points that you have raised. It is up to that committee to pursue the issue; it is not for us, because we would then cut across that committee's investigation, and we should not do that.

Could we emphasise that point to the Rural Development Committee?

Yes.

Sea Cage Fish Farming (PE96)

Hepatitis C (PE185)

We have already dealt with petition PE387, so we move to the paper that gives us an update on various petitions. Does anyone wish to raise points on any of those?

On the petition about salmon, it looks as if things are going ahead there.

Which petition is that?

PE96.

On the hepatitis C petition, have we extended the original decision to help some but not all people?

That was the recommendation in the Health and Community Care Committee's report. The committee has not agreed to a full public inquiry, but it has recommended that compensation be paid to all affected people.

That is good news.

On the salmon petition, it is always surprising to people that it is the fish farmers themselves, a great many of whom are in Shetland, who are demanding a public inquiry. They are not against it, but for it. It seems that things are happening there.

It is actually going ahead.

Criminal Injuries Compensation (PE375)

The report about Mrs Elaine Crawford's petition PE375, with regard to the criminal injuries compensation procedure, says that the Justice 1 Committee agreed to consider the issue of sentencing policy once the outcome of its current research study on attitudes to sentences was known. It also agreed to write to the Public Petitions Committee to ask it to contact Victim Support Scotland to inquire whether that organisation is content that recent improvements instigated by the Home Office and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority are sufficient. Have we written to Victim Support Scotland?

The letter from the Justice 1 Committee was received only recently and we have not yet written to Victim Support Scotland.

I am pleased to hear that, because I was going to ask the clerks to ask Victim Support Scotland whether there has been widespread concern over the issue of compensation for victims of sexual abuse. I understand that such victims are inhibited from going back prior to 1979 to seek compensation. I would hope that we would take some interest in that.

I do not know whether the clerks heard those comments. Perhaps when we write to Victim Support Scotland to ask it whether it is content with the proposals, we should also ask the organisation whether it can identify any widespread concern about the fact that compensation is seemingly not available to victims of sexual abuse involved in cases before 1979.

I want to make a point about this particular case, as the petitioner lives in my constituency area and came to me for help. The case is not connected with sexual abuse at all; it centres on a particularly horrible murder in which the petitioner's husband was killed by a gang that chased him down the street. I wonder whether we could also ask Victim Support Scotland whether it has any views on what can be done to maintain victims or families of victims in their own homes after such horrendous happenings. Very often people have to flee from the area, especially if a gang is involved. Now this lady and her four children are about to be evicted. She fled to her mother's house—which is rented from a local housing authority—after her husband was killed in their own bought home. Because the mother has subsequently died and the petitioner is not the rightful tenant, the housing authority says that the house is overcrowded; it cannot find her anywhere else to stay and is proposing to evict her very soon. I do not know how much more can happen to this poor lady.

Could we therefore ask Victim Support Scotland whether it can give any help or advice to victims and their families about keeping their roof over their head? It is not uncommon for an innocent person to flee with their family after a crime is committed in case they are harassed further.

We can certainly ask Victim Support Scotland for its comments on that issue.