Gender-neutral Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (PE1477)
Thank you, convener. It should certainly be welcomed that the JCVI interim report recommends the targeted extension of the HPV vaccine to include men who have sex with men aged 16 to 40 years old and who attend genitourinary medicine and HIV clinics in the United Kingdom. However, it is disappointing that there has been no discussion about the significant added value of vaccination before initial HPV infection. It should be highlighted that there is increasing support for vaccinating boys from a wide range of public health and patient organisations as well as from others, including Professor Heather Cubie from the University of Edinburgh and Professor Margaret Stanley from the University of Cambridge.
Clearly, we have to await the formal guidance from the JCVI. However, it would be good if Scotland could lead the way on introducing an HPV immunisation programme that includes adolescent boys as well as girls.
In general, I agree with Angus MacDonald. However, I know of a situation—it is not necessarily related to this—in which girls aged 11 to 15 years old are being vaccinated and there have been certain, severe consequences. I cannot remember what the vaccination is for—actually, I can remember what it is for; I just cannot pronounce it.
That situation concerns me because we have just been talking about guidelines. We need to know what the consequences of these injections may be for individuals and what the authorisation process is for that age group. In relation to the particular constituency case that I have, it is disconcerting that even three, five or 10 girls can be impacted by injections. We need to be extremely careful that the appropriate authorisation and the appropriate checks are there to make sure that there is no consequential damage to girls or boys.
I am happy to go along with both statements.
I will point out to Mr Brodie that vaccination of adolescent males is already under way in Australia and the USA, so presumably a number of checks have been made in those countries.
There has been a suggestion that we seek the petitioner’s view on the JCVI’s interim statement and then consider the petition again once we have that information back. Does that tie in with your recommendation, Mr MacDonald?
Yes, I am content with that approach.
I am content with that.
I am too.
So are members agreed that we will seek the petitioner’s view on the interim statement and consider the petition again as soon as we get the information back?
Members indicated agreement.
We move on to agenda item 4, which is consideration of a further seven current petitions.
The first is PE1477, by Jamie Rae, on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation, on a gender-neutral HPV vaccination. Members have a note by the clerk and a copy of the interim statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
I ask Angus MacDonald for his views on the petition.
National Bird (PE1500)
I am not sure whether a debate at this point would be helpful but, if that is the will of the committee, that is fair enough. I would certainly be loth to close the petition, given its importance. If the debate would help to move the issue on, I would be happy to go with that.
I am happy to debate the issue in the chamber.
With the committee’s permission, we will make a bid at the Conveners Group or via the clerk for a future plenary session to debate the issue in more detail. Do members agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE1500, by Stuart Housden OBE, on behalf of RSPB Scotland, on declaring the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions.
This is quite a significant petition in that, as the name suggests, it is the 1,500th petition that the committee has considered. There has obviously been a bit of debate about national symbols. One view is that we could seek time in the chamber to debate the petition in a plenary session. There are time constraints on that—we cannot have a debate every week that we would wish to have one—but certainly, in the past, having a plenary debate on a petition topic has been very effective.
Members may have different views. We could ask individual members to lodge a motion, which could then be debated, or we could ask RSPB Scotland to contact VisitScotland, business leaders and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to look at wider interest and support for the designation of national symbols.
What are the views of the committee on the various steps?
I am somewhat amused that this petition has come up this week. I bought one of those beautiful stone pheasants—my granddaughter calls it Geoffrey. I do not know why she calls it Geoffrey, but it is Geoffrey the pheasant. I was surprised to get a photograph from my good lady saying, “Look at this,” and there was a lady pheasant next to Geoffrey, who could not understand why she was getting no reaction. I am sorely tempted to say that we should move to having the pheasant as our national bird but, anyway, I believe that it might be worth while debating this and listening to a rerun of Jackson Carlaw’s statements.
Thank you, Mr Brodie. I was really wondering where that story was going. Nevertheless—
I stopped in time.
Unmarried Fathers (Equal Rights) (PE1513)
Child Court Reform (PE1528)
The next petitions are PE1513, by Ron Park, on equal rights for unmarried fathers, and PE1528, by John Ronald, on child court reform. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. Do members have any views before we consider the next steps?
This is a very difficult issue. I know of a couple of situations in which fathers are being denied access to their children. I would like the matter to be pursued to its conclusion.
Like Chic Brodie, I have a number of constituents who have been denied access to their children, so I would like to take the petitions all the way.
I have similar views.
It is fair to say that the issue is extremely difficult. We have taken some good evidence on it. It is very difficult for families who are in such circumstances. Because the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 makes provision for specialist family law sheriffs, there might be an argument for closing the petition on the basis that there is, we hope, some change ahead. If members are not happy with that, we will obviously need to think of a practical next step in managing the petitions.
When will those changes come about?
The Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill was recently passed and has received royal assent, although I am not sure when the act will be implemented. There are positive changes on the horizon. If we close the petitions, it is possible for another petition to be lodged after 12 months, which would allow us to analyse how the new legislation is working.
I think that we should continue the petitions, because I would genuinely like to see how effective the changes are when they come in.
That is a fair point. Why do we not just wait until the bill is implemented?
That is what I was just going to suggest. It is clear that members feel that the petitions are important and we should not close them, so do we wish to continue the two petitions until the act is implemented and we see how it works in practice?
We can take evidence on that.
Yes. Perhaps we could return to the issue in six months. Do members agree to continue the two petitions and to look at them again in light of the working of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Court Orders (Enforcement) (PE1529)
We have just dealt with PE1513 and PE1528 on child court reform. PE1529 is a separate petition about the enforcement of child court orders. I am not sure that the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 would have any bearing on this particular petition.
Could we ask for further information?
We could do that if members thought that that would be helpful. We could ask SPICe to double-check that the new legislation has no impact on the petition.
The clerk has advised me that the legislation has no impact on the petition.
If the new act has no bearing on the petition, we have no option but to close it, given that the Scottish Government is not supportive of the petitioner’s proposal.
Do you agree, Chic?
Yes.
This was a very good petition. It is regrettable, but I cannot see what further work we can do. I thank the petitioner for the work that he has carried out. On the basis that the Scottish Government is not supportive of its aims, we have no choice but to close the petition.
The next petition is PE1529, by John Ronald, on the enforcement of child court orders.
We could request further information or we could close the petition on the basis that the responses that the committee has received from the Scottish Government are not supportive of what the petitioner seeks, which is the establishment of a new Government agency to oversee enforcement.
This is another good petition, but on many occasions a good petition goes to the Government, which makes it clear that it will not enact the proposal, and we then have the difficulty of where to go with the petition. I seek members’ views.
As I understand it, this is another petition that relates to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. On the basis of what we did with PE1513 and PE1528, unless the advice is strongly to the contrary, we should keep the petition open until that act is implemented.
Wi-fi in Public Buildings (PE1524)
The next petition is PE1524, by James Macfarlane, on free wi-fi in Scottish public buildings. Members have the clerk’s note and submissions.
Given that the Scottish Government has responded positively to the concept of developing national standards or guidance, the committee may wish to press the Government to ask whether it will undertake the work. Therefore, I suggest that we write to the Government to ask it to do so. We are pushing at an open door as it is very supportive of the petition’s terms. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Access to Justice (PE1525)
The final petition is PE1525, by Catherine Fraser, on access to justice. Members have the clerk’s note and submissions. As I have flagged up before, members will know that Catherine Fraser is a constituent of mine. She approached me in advance of the petition appearing on the agenda.
I was interested in the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s analysis of the petition. To summarise, it said that the denial of legal aid deprives the applicant to present a case fairly, which it refers to as
“an unacceptable inequality of arms”.
The SHRC says that that is a violation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
Members will also note that, since 2007, legal aid has been awarded only four times. Internal Scottish award criteria were developed following a test case.
My view—members know of my interest—is that it might be useful to invite the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice to come along and have a discussion, because the issue goes much wider than access to legal aid for defamation; rather, it is about access to legal aid generally. The Law Society of Scotland reflected that in its submission. However, it is important that committee members have their view.
I am not sure that bringing along the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice will necessarily present a change of view. We previously had a fairly lengthy discussion about the petition. I know that we have had the SHRC’s view, but I am not sure where the petition would go.
We want to try to work consensually. Members will know that, because I have a particular interest, I take a slightly different view. An option would be to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, which may be looking at legal aid in due course, and present all the evidence to it. Would that be acceptable?
I am happy enough with that suggestion.
Obviously, we cannot dictate the Justice Committee’s programme, so I cannot promise the committee that it will actively consider the matter; we can say only that it is the committee with responsibility for the policy.
I am happy to go with that recommendation on the condition that the petition is not parked by the other committee. Could we defer a decision until we hear from the Justice Committee?
We could discuss the matter with the Justice Committee’s clerks. That is perfectly acceptable, if the committee would rather get some further information.
We will defer consideration of PE1525 until clerks discuss the matter. We cannot dictate what another committee does, but we will come back with further information at a future meeting. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our current petitions, which brings us to the end of the meeting.
Meeting closed at 11:39.Previous
New Petition