Public Petitions Committee, 26 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We move to the additional papers that have been given to members, which are petitions that have been before the committee previously. The first is petition PE148 from William Brian Anderson on behalf of the Organophosphate Information Network. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate various issues that relate to specialist referral and diagnosis of exposure to organophosphate chemicals.

Members will recall that, at our meeting on 12 September, the committee considered a response to the clerk's letter of 12 May to the Minister for Health and Community Care. The response was an explanation from Scottish Executive officials about why correspondence from the petitioner that was directed to the minister had not been responded to. The letter was copied to the Health and Community Care Committee to be taken into account as part of its on-going consideration of the petition.

The petitioner has been sent a copy of the response from the Scottish Executive and has written another letter to the committee, in which he disagrees with the Executive's explanation of events. More important, he points out that he has developed a good relationship with Department of Health officials in London, which in his view contrasts sharply with the approach that has been taken by Executive officials in Edinburgh. It is suggested that his letter should be copied to the Health and Community Care Committee to be taken into account as part of its consideration of the petition. We should flag up the contrasting approaches to the petitioner of Scottish Executive and Department of Health officials. The petitioner should be advised of that action.

I am concerned—this is the second petitioner who has written back to say that they have received no reply from the Executive.

It is worrying that the letters that we receive in response to petitions are, apparently, inaccurate. We have referred the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, so that committee should take up the matter. We can flag the problem up to the committee and ask it to pursue the matter.

I take some exception to a letter that was written to the petitioner by Jill Wylie. In the interests of fairness, I would like to see a copy of the letter from Jill Wylie, if that is possible. The petitioner makes a lot of allegations.

The letter to which the petitioner responded was available at our meeting of 12 September.

Sorry, I beg your pardon.

It might be useful to see both letters together to compare them.

I am concerned that, although we asked for the views of the Health and Community Care Committee and of the Scottish Executive, we have not asked for the views of the Health and Safety Executive. That we should have done so has become apparent only since a documentary about organophosphates was shown on television. I know that work is being done, but is it too late to get the HSE's views?

That is a matter for the Health and Community Care Committee, which is pursuing the substance of the petition. We are merely ensuring that that committee has all the information that it needs.

I must declare an interest in the matter, as I have been exposed to organophosphates. I know that the Health and Safety Executive has strong views on such substances, so it would be worth asking for its views.

Perhaps we should draw that to the attention of the Health and Community Care Committee and ask it to take evidence from the Health and Safety Executive.

I know that I may be going off at a tangent, but similar points have been raised in the context of gulf war veterans.

We shall refer the correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee, to draw its attention to the substance of the petitioner's letter and to the fact that the Health and Safety Executive has strong views on the matter.

The next letter concerns petition PE188, which is about Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. We have received a response from the Scotland Office, which sets out the Government's position on the matter. It would appear that steps are being taken by the Scotland Office—as the ferry route in question is a reserved matter—to seek European Community approval for a public service obligation. The letter indicates that, if such approval were secured, public subsidy of the route would not breach state aid requirements. Ministers expect the availability of subsidy to make the route more attractive to potential operators.

The response seems to be very positive, given the circumstances that surround the operation of the route. I suggest that the letter should be copied to the petitioner, to the Transport and the Environment Committee and to the Rural Affairs Committee for information. We could suggest to the petitioner that any further representation should be made to the Scotland Office, because the matter is reserved. It is recommended that the committee take no further action.

I have written to the chairman of Sea Containers Ltd to invite him to re-establish the link using Troon, Campbeltown and Ballycastle. That way, a ship would not need to be dedicated to that link. I am afraid to say that he did not respond favourably, but that would be a way of delivering a service to Campbeltown and Northern Ireland without having to dedicate a boat to the route full time.

Now that the Scotland Office is pursuing the matter at European Union level, subsidies might be made available, which should make the route attractive.

I also wrote to some Scottish MEPs to flag up the important matter of peripherality—from which many island communities in Europe suffer—and to ask them to argue for a special case to be made.

There is also an issue about interconnection. An interconnector is being built between Scotland and Northern Ireland—again I am declaring an interest—to unite the two countries. However, the ferry route would be a more practical and tangible way of demonstrating interconnection than the one that we are about to embark on.

Maybe we should not bring the Irish question into our discussions at the moment. Are we agreed that we should pass the letter to the committees and the petitioner for information, tell the petitioner to make any further representations to the Scotland Office and to take no further action?

Members indicated agreement.

The next letter concerns petition PE137, which called on Parliament to ensure that the relevant authorities provide a 24-hour police presence at the accident and emergency department of Glasgow royal infirmary. The North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust has sent a letter detailing the measures that it is now taking to respond to the petitioner's concerns.

The suggested action is that the committee should consider whether that response addresses satisfactorily the issues that are raised in the petition and whether the petition and response should be passed to the Health and Community Care Committee. I suggest that we should forward the response to the petitioner—who has not yet seen it—and ask whether she is satisfied. We will take further action if she thinks that that is necessary.

That raises many questions.

We should pass the response to the petitioner, as I see that it is addressed to the committee.

The next petition—PE223—from Mr and Mrs A McQuire, is on beta interferon. Members will recall that we wrote to the Minister for Health and Community Care and to Lothian Health Board, from both of whom we have received detailed responses. The minister's response is a bit more positive than that from Lothian Health Board. We need to decide whether the petition should be passed for further consideration to the Health and Community Care Committee, along with the responses that we have received.

An issue arises from the letter of 19 July to the clerk. There might be a duplication of effort in evaluation of who are the most suitable patients to receive beta interferon. It should be relatively easy to set guidelines and to carry out evaluations nationally, rather than having each health board in Scotland doing that work.

The substance of the minister's reply is that she expects the new Health Technology Board for Scotland to set national guidelines on access to beta interferon, although the board has not yet done so. The matter is for the Health and Community Care Committee to pursue with the Health Technology Board for Scotland. Lothian Health Board's response shows that access to beta interferon is haphazard.

It is prescription by postcode. I know that beta interferon is prescribed in my area. I commend the local health board for doing that. It is criminal that people in Lothian who need beta interferon do not receive it.

As the minister's response points out, she intends to have a national source of national advice on beta interferon, which should help to sort out the problem.

Petition PE229, from Lawrence Stewart, calls on the Parliament to introduce legislation to require financial institutions to place investors' money in the highest interest bearing account when account types are changed by financial institutions. That is a reserved matter. We wrote to the UK Government minister and have received a response. I suggest that the response should be copied to the petitioner and that the committee should take no further action—it is a matter for the UK Government.

Members indicated agreement.