Current Petitions
Deep Vein Thrombosis (PE1056)
Item 3 is consideration of 10 current petitions. PE1056 by Gordon, Jane and Steven McPherson is on DVT. Trish Godman has been waiting very patiently—over to you, Trish.
I am not going to say much but what fascinates me about the issue raised in the petition is that, despite the fact that medical people knew about the condition and how to treat it, they were not dealing with it. What happened to Katie McPherson is sad and unfortunate.
There have been a lot of moves since the committee first considered the petition, but I have to say that I am not 100 per cent satisfied with the results. Last year, for example, the RCN made it quite clear that the problem simply cannot be left to the medics and that there must be continuous assessment by nursing staff. I have discussed the issue with the minister, who said that although she had no objection to the formation of a group similar to the one that exists down south, comprising nurses, medics and a dedicated pharmacist, she had no plans to put it in place herself. Such an approach has been taken in Oxford, and the RCN did very well when it made that the main thrust of its work in this area.
Clinicians are now being asked to look at the Grampian risk assessment tool and at family history, which is an issue in which Jane, Gordon and Steven McPherson are very interested. It did not seem to be a well-known aspect; indeed, when the question arose whether anyone else in the family had the condition, the doctor did not know anything about it.
Although things have come on, I would have liked the matter to have been tidied up a bit more. The committee could, for example, flag it up in its legacy paper, because we have to examine the changes that have been made so far and the commitment made by clinicians to look at the matter carefully, carry out the assessment and bring people back after a certain number of days if they are not happy. We do not know what the result of all that is going to be; I do not know, for example, whether the procedure will need to be tightened up. I received an indication from the NHS in Dundee that, although it had set up a programme it did not have the appropriate codes—the NHS has a system of codes for different things. I have written to the minister about that, but I have not yet received a response and I do not know where things stand in that respect. As a result, there are a few loose ends that I am not totally happy about.
What the committee will do is, of course, a matter for it, but, as I have said, DVT is not a mysterious illness that nobody knows how to fix or sort out. It is known how people get it. Families are now looked at, and who is more at risk should be known, but no group like the English group has been set up. Nurses clearly say to me that they will do the work, as clinicians will not bother with it, but I do not know what the result will be. I do not think that things are as tight as they are in England.
17:00
I absolutely agree with Trish Godman. I am well aware of the vast amount of work that Gordon McPherson and his family have done to get things as far along as they are. We should keep the petition open. If we put the issue in our legacy paper for the next committee, perhaps we could suggest that it be referred to the next health committee to consider the outcome of what has been suggested. We are talking about a significant health issue. Can we do that?
I am sure that we can suggest that. Do members agree that we should keep the petition open, as there is more work to be done on it?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Trish Godman for attending.
School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
PE1098 and PE1223, on school bus safety, are from Lynn Merrifield and Ron Beaty. The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure provided us with an update earlier today. I seek members’ views on how we should proceed.
It is clear that work is in progress, and it is important that we continue the petitions until the matter is driven forward. We should push to get a meeting and get responsibility for seat belt legislation devolved as far as we can.
Are there any other views? There is frustration about getting a response from ministers down south. I sent a letter to Keith Brown on 16 December, but he has still failed to get a date with Mike Penning. There seems to be confusion about a letter not arriving with the minister.
The situation is frustrating. We are keen to take the issue further forward. I think that members take the view that there is scope for substantial progress to be made, but that is taking rather a long time.
We have got our teeth into the issue, and we will keep our teeth in it as long as I have anything to do with it.
We might get quite long in the tooth at this rate.
The committee has had some successes, and I hope that we will eventually put this issue on the list of successes. The frustrations between the Governments aside, is there any other outstanding issue that we should nudge forward? Is there any outstanding issue with any of the local authorities with which we have dealt—Aberdeenshire Council is one of the foremost of those—or are we really waiting for the Governments to put their heads together to work out how to delegate regulations?
One of the big issues is whether legislation should be changed to allow Scotland to legislate on school bus safety. We are waiting for that key issue to be addressed.
I notice that Keith Brown says in his letter that Aberdeenshire Council has just this week provided a report on the results of its school bus signage trial. Officials are now discussing that.
We should ask for an update from Aberdeenshire and express frustration about the slow progress that is being made. The petition is a long-standing one that people feel strongly about, and the slow rate of progress is becoming very frustrating.
The minister’s letter also refers to the guide to improving school transport safety. The minister has pointed out that a short survey is being commissioned for next month to gather initial reactions on the effectiveness of the guide and states that the survey results will be published on the Transport Scotland website. That is another aspect that is fairly immediate.
Given the enthusiastic responses that we received at the October meeting when we had everybody round the table, it is disappointing that no progress has been made on the legislative framework. The transport ministers in Scotland and in the UK Government indicated that that might be problematic, but they gave a clear assurance at that meeting that they would try to resolve the issues quickly so that the Scottish Government could get legislative competence to act, as has happened in Wales, to resolve some of the issues that have been identified through the petitions. If we are writing to the UK and Scottish ministers, we should express our frustration that they have not responded as eagerly as they indicated that they would at the meeting in October.
Absolutely. Are we agreed that we will continue with the petitions in the hope that we can get a resolution or some success before the Parliament rises?
Members indicated agreement.
Befriending Services (PE1167)
PE1167, by Christine McNally on behalf of Clydesdale Befriending Group and other supporting organisations, is on the issue of befriending services. Do members have a view on how we should deal with the petition?
I see that the recommendation is to close.
It is up to the committee to decide what it feels is most appropriate.
I do not know whether there is anything further that the committee can do—that is the problem. The Scottish Government has confirmed that local authorities can, if they so wish, fund befriending services for adults with learning disabilities, despite such services not being part of its “The same as you?” strategy. The Government is reviewing that strategy to evaluate what impact the policy has had on the lives of people with a learning disability and their families, and to identify what future work needs to be done. That is the Government’s response. With the best will in the world, there is nothing further that we can do, other than monitor the progress that will, I hope, be made through the work that the Government has set in train. With regret, we have to close the petition, because there is no further locus for the committee.
I support Bill Butler’s suggestion that we close the petition, as we have taken it as far as we can. The befriending services in Clydesdale, where the petitioners are from, like those in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, do an absolutely first-class job, not just for people with learning difficulties, but for elderly people and people with disabilities who otherwise would be sitting in their house without a friend to pop in or to accompany them out. Organisations such as the Clydesdale Befriending Group have got across their argument about how much benefit they can bring to a community. I just hope that local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland and the Government recognise that and will fund them accordingly so that they can continue their good work.
I support Cathie Craigie’s points. Several voluntary organisations throughout Scotland provide befriending services. Clydesdale Befriending Group has highlighted the issues. Although we are closing the petition, I express reservations about the delay in the publication of the responses to the consultation on the Government’s “The same as you?” strategy. We have been told that they should be pulled together in the summer of 2011. I suggest that when closing the petition we write to the petitioner to say that they should keep a watching brief on the report that is produced at that time. If there are any issues of concern, they can submit another petition highlighting those concerns to the committee at a later date.
Does the committee agree to close the petition on those terms?
Members indicated agreement.
General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)
PE1220, from Alan Kennedy, is on general practitioner dispensing practices. Do members have a view on how we should deal with the petition?
There is not much more that the committee can do to take forward the petition. We have received information that the Government has laid the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 today. It is hoped that guidance to NHS boards on how to ensure that local authorities fully understand and are encouraged to participate in the application process will follow, once the regulations come into force in the spring. The committee has done all that it can at the moment. Hopefully, the regulations that have been laid today will be of advantage and will address the petitioner’s concerns.
It may be useful for the Government to seek the petitioner’s views when it conducts its review. We agree to close the petition.
Same-sex Marriage (PE1239)
PE1239, from Nick Henderson, on behalf of LGBT Network, is on the right to same-sex marriage. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
I preface my remarks by saying that I am fully supportive of the legislation on civil partnerships that was passed in 2006. Personally, I am not absolutely convinced of what the petitioner proposes—the right to same-sex marriage—but I am open to persuasion. However, that is just a personal opinion. I’m no agin, and I’m no absolutely for—I am persuadable.
We must be frank with the petitioner that there is nowhere else that the committee can go with the petition. That does not mean that the issue will not appear before Parliament again. Inevitably, it will, because there is a body of opinion that supports the right to same-sex marriage. However, we are faced by the fact that the Scottish Government has repeated on no fewer than six successive occasions that it has no plans to change the law in the area and that the issue is not a priority. The Government has responded to many specific points that were made by the committee by saying that it does not consider it necessary to conduct research to ascertain how the constitutional difficulties that are attached to same-sex marriage can be resolved. At the moment, I do not see what else the committee can do. On that basis alone—the practicability of the Public Petitions Committee taking the petition forward—I suggest that we are forced to close it.
Is that the committee’s view?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition will be closed.
Disclosure Scotland (PE1289)
PE1289, from Dr David McNally, is on the simplification of Disclosure Scotland procedures. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
The recommendation is that we should close it.
For what reason?
We have taken the petition as far as we can. I see no benefit in holding on to it any longer.
We have been able to deal with some of the issues in the petition. There is a scheme that removes the need for people to complete multiple disclosure applications. That certainly deals with the issue of teachers working for more than one local authority having to get multiple disclosure certificates.
17:15
I understand that the petitioner has been contacted but has not expressed a view. In line with paragraph 161 of the public petitions process, we can assume that the petitioner does not wish to pursue the petition any further. If the committee agrees, we will close the petition.
Mobile Phone Coverage (Rural Areas) (PE1359)
PE1359, by Daphne Jackson on behalf of Ettrick and Yarrow Community Council, seeks improved mobile phone coverage in rural areas. I seek members’ views on how we should deal with the petition.
Again, convener, I do not think that we can do anything further. It is coming to that time in the diet when our ways of making progress are blocked off because, for example,
“The Scottish Government has been actively making and continues to make regular representations to all the UK mobile telecoms operators, with a view to improving mobile phone coverage throughout rural Scotland and the country as a whole.”
The Government has also promised that it is working on an integrated mobile broadband solution. There is nothing else specific that we can press the Government on. We just have to wait and see whether the promises can be fulfilled. However, the specific terms of the petition mean that the committee can do nothing else to progress it at this stage. I suggest that we close the petition.
Is that the committee’s view?
Members indicated agreement.
Gypsy Traveller Community (Government Apology) (PE1363)
PE1363, by Ken MacLennan, seeks an apology from the Scottish Government to the Scottish Gypsy Traveller community. How should we deal with the petition?
The fact is that the Scottish Government cannot apologise on behalf of other Governments and public bodies. That is just the way things work. However, it recognises that Gypsy Travellers are among the most disfranchised and discriminated against people in Scotland. We have been well aware of that during the past 12 years since the Parliament was set up, and we have had meetings with Gypsy Travellers and listened to their concerns. That specifically answers the petition in that respect. The Scottish Government, in recognition that Gypsy Travellers are a distinct ethnic group that has suffered particular discrimination, is working to address the priorities that have been fed into the race equality statement as a result of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s second inquiry.
We have no option but to close the petition. The Government is doing what it can, but the one thing that it cannot do is apologise on behalf of other Governments and public bodies.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
The next petition is by Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie, on behalf of Justice for Megrahi. Christine Grahame is here. Christine, would you like to address the committee and then we can go to questions?
Thank you, convener. I commend the members of the committee for their stamina in these late sittings. I do not know if I have it.
I refer to point 2 of the Scottish Government’s letter of 7 January, which states:
“A second appeal, following a referral from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, was abandoned by Mr Al-Megrahi. The conduct of his defence during his trial and the appeals, including his decision not to give evidence at trial and the decision to abandon the second appeal, was entirely a matter for Mr Al-Megrahi and his legal advisors.”
The letter goes on to say that the petitioners invite the Government to do something that falls properly within the criminal justice system and that there are routes available within that system, so that should be an end of the matter.
If I may say so—and I am quite ready to challenge my own Government—those are not the facts. First, we know why Mr Megrahi abandoned his appeal, because Maggie Scott QC told the court why he did so. I will paraphrase, but she said words to the effect that her client, Mr Megrahi, believed that doing so would assist with his applications—plural—meaning his applications for prisoner transfer and for compassionate release. Prisoner transfer, of course, required abandonment of appeal and compassionate release did not. We can struggle over why he abandoned it and who said what to whom, but that is a fact and what he believed, so these are extraordinary circumstances.
We must then challenge whether there is a route open to Mr Megrahi within the criminal justice system other than a public inquiry. If members will bear with me, I will refer, I hope in a rather lawyerly way, to the legislation that was brought in recently to deal with people who were not being represented when they were charged. I will get the name of it in a moment—bear with me. I will just make my submission, then I will tell you the name of the act. Here we are. It is the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010. If members recall, we dealt with the legislation all in one day, from stage 1 through to stage 3. There is a section in it that I tried to have deleted because it did something radical to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which you will know is an independent body that was set up in 1999 to deal with miscarriages of justice independently of the courts and independently of us, thankfully. Section 7(3)(2) of the act does something strange in relation to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. It states:
“In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made, the Commission must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings.”
For the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is an independent body, to say that there might have been a miscarriage of justice is no longer good enough. It has to say, “We think there might have been a miscarriage of justice, but nevertheless, because of the need for finality and certainty, we are not going to refer it to the High Court.”
However, say a case did pass the test and the commission referred it to the High Court. Previously, the High Court had to accept a referral with no ifs and no buts, but that also changed under the emergency legislation. The act states:
“In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed, the High Court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings.”
So we have the first hurdle, and if the SCCRC says that the case passes the test of finality and certainty and passes it to the High Court, it sets the test again—the very High Court that heard the case in the first place. To me, that is not a just system.
Going to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is no shoe-in. Many people apply but few get to the stage of a referral. However, referrals can be very successful. If we look at the commission’s success rate, we see that it made four referrals on sentencing in 2010, two of which were successful and two of which are still being determined. For sentencing alone—obviously, if someone’s conviction has gone, they have no sentence—there were four referrals, two of which were successful, one of which failed and one of which is still being determined. The commission does not make referrals willy-nilly, and they are quite successful.
My concern is that that route will no longer be open, not just to Megrahi but to others. My understanding is that, in certain circumstances, the SCCRC can make a referral even though an appeal has been abandoned.
The circumstances of the case are very strange and there are so many unanswered questions, whether for people who believe he is guilty, people who believe he is innocent or the victims’ families. No line has been drawn in the sand on the matter.
The route that I mentioned has now been blocked. To give the cabinet secretary his due, he said when I raised the matter that he would review it. A panel of judges is reviewing the legislation and he will review how it operates.
I have taken the time to say that because, first of all, the Government is saying that Megrahi closed the appeal himself—well, we know why. Secondly, the Government is saying that the criminal justice system has a route, but I think that the SCCRC has been neutered in many respects.
I wish the committee to continue to pursue the inquiry route, and not to close the petition. Convener, I suggest that you confirm with the SCCRC whether it can re-open an abandoned appeal on its own and I would also like to know the SCCRC’s views on that limiting of its powers—if any—and when the review panel will report on the functioning of the legislation.
The committee may feel that that is not pertinent to the petition, but I feel that it really is. If members do not know about that bit, they do not know why people are pressing so hard for a public inquiry; it is because they have concerns that everything else is being shut down.
The statement of reasons has not been published, because the subordinate legislation says that if any third party has given evidence—even indirectly—and they do not want it published, it will not be published, so we will pretty well not get anything. This is the final court.
On the mace, it says that we will have justice, integrity and compassion. No wonder the petitioners call themselves Justice for Megrahi—frankly, at the moment, there has not been justice for anybody in this particular case.
Okay, thank you.
I suggest to colleagues that we continue, and I will delimit the way in which we do so. I was going to say that this committee had no further locus, because we have been told that the Scottish Government has again stated that it has no plans to initiate an inquiry on the issue and has clarified why it does not consider an inquiry to be necessary. Christine Grahame referred to that statement in the letter from the Scottish Government that we received.
We have to realise that this is simply a public petitions committee, and we certainly cannot make a judgment in a formal way. However, it would be at least worth while—I am not sure how colleagues feel about this—if we did two things.
First, we could, as Christine Grahame suggests, write to the cabinet secretary to ask whether he will review the application of the emergency legislation as he has promised. If that is his intention—which I do not doubt, because he told Christine Grahame, a member of the Parliament, that that was his intention—when will his review take place, and when and how will his decision in that respect be made known? Secondly, on another point that Christine Grahame raised, can the SCCRC open an abandoned appeal?
Those are the two questions. On the first, we hope that we know the answer, or part of it. On the second, we really do not. We can continue on those two specific points.
I must say this, however. Once we ask those questions, unless someone is ingenious enough to come up with other ways in which we could legitimately continue the matter as a public petitions committee—because the arguments and the controversy will continue—we will have to close the petition. However, I suggest to colleagues that it is worth while for us to continue by asking the fairly narrow questions that Christine Grahame has suggested we ask.
17:30
I support what Bill Butler has said, particularly in his final summary. We must go back and ask for a further couple of points to be clarified. If we do not get anywhere, it is difficult to see where the committee can go.
Point 3 of the Government’s letter refers to the Inquiries Act 2005. The Government’s reason for saying that it cannot conduct a public inquiry is weak—I will not use the same words as the petitioners used in their submission. The Government is hiding behind an excuse. Every time the Government touches the Megrahi case, it seems to do something wrong and to move the goalposts.
I support my colleague Bill Butler’s suggestions. We should see whether we can get responses before the next session.
I note the length of time that the Government took to respond to our previous letter on a Megrahi inquiry. I know that the convener has written to the First Minister about that. I am sure that a whole load of civil servants are familiar with every detail of the Megrahi case and could put their hands quickly to writing the response that we will request.
I do not know whether the clerk or the convener will write the further letter to the Government, but I suggest that we ask for a quick response, because we want to deal with the petition in this session.
Once we have a response from the Government, there is little prospect that another response will be different, but banging on the door will do no harm. It occurs to me that—as far as I can recall—we have not yet written to the Lord Advocate. As the senior independent law officer, does she have from somewhere in the mists of time residual powers to investigate this, that and the other? That might be clutching at straws, but it is one sack of straws that we need to consider. Do the law officers have a residual power to investigate or reconsider a case in such circumstances? I would not even define the circumstances; we should just ask the Lord Advocate to think about what she might be able to do.
Considering that the petition is extremely limited—it asks us
“to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry”—
and that we have been told at least twice that the Government has no intention of so doing, we have every right to close the petition. However, I have listened to Christine Grahame’s arguments and I feel that, for the petitioners’ sake, it is worth writing to ask the SCCRC for its opinion, which can be forwarded to the Government for a response. As it is seven weeks to dissolution, that process is extremely unlikely to be completed before dissolution, so we must think of the matter as part of our legacy to the next session’s Public Petitions Committee.
Do we agree to continue the petition in those terms?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Christine Grahame for her attendance.
I was going to say thank you and goodnight.
Not yet.
Not for us.
For Christine Grahame, maybe.
I know.
Football (Corporate Governance) (PE1371)
PE1371, by Iain Jack, is on corporate governance in Scottish football. How should we deal with the petition?
The evidence session on the petition was good and informative. It helped to bring out issues that people who are involved in sport face every day, particularly in the move to elite sport. That applies not just to football. A number of points were raised that we could follow up, particularly the points that were made by—I cannot remember their names.
Am I on the wrong petition?
Yes.
This is PE1371, on Scottish football corporate governance.
Oh, sorry.
No problem.
We can do nothing further, because the second report by Henry McLeish on the structure, leadership and governance of football has been delivered to the Scottish Football Association and it is now up to football’s governing body, in conjunction and co-operation with sportscotland, to determine what it can do with the recommendations. That is the proper way to proceed and we have no further locus in the matter.
Is that the committee’s view?
Members indicated agreement.
New Teachers (Jobs) (PE1374)
The last petition today is PE1374, by Ronnie Smith, on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland, on jobs for teachers.
I should declare an interest as a member of the EIS, but I do not think that it will be happy with what I am about to say.
The Government’s response clearly says that it has given sufficient resources to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities through the budget agreement with a commitment to ensure maximum employment opportunities for teachers. In other words, the Government will not guarantee that teachers who successfully complete their induction year will get a job. That is the bottom line. Teacher employment issues have been brought to the Parliament and the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee on a number of occasions. There was recently a further oral evidence-taking session with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, so the Government is well informed of the position at the moment. The matter will be taken forward during the budget debate and wider parliamentary scrutiny of the budget.
There is not much more that we can do in the limited time that we have.
The proposal is to close the petition.
My entry in the register of members’ interests indicates that I am a member of the EIS.
I do not disagree or, rather, I agree—no double negatives—with my colleague Robin Harper. The committee has taken the petition as far as it can. The matter will be the subject of intense debate not only in the budget process that is about to unfold but in the election campaign that is coming up. It is a policy matter and, therefore, we cannot take it any further. I agree with Robin Harper that we should close the petition.
Is that the committee’s view?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition will be closed. That concludes the meeting. I thank all the members of the committee for their forbearance in tackling the range of petitions before us.
The next meeting will be on Tuesday 8 February at 2 pm. From now until our final committee meeting on 8 March, we will focus on current petitions only.
Meeting closed at 17:38.