New Petitions
Good morning colleagues and welcome to the eighth meeting this session of the Public Petitions Committee. We have, as ever, a busy schedule this morning. I reiterate the comments that I made to members earlier: we want to give everyone an equal opportunity to have their petitions heard, so I ask members to bear in mind the time. We try to allow everyone equal time and if we overdo scrutiny of some petitions, we do not leave enough time for proper scrutiny of others. It would be useful if we could retain our focus on all the petitions.
Childhood Vaccines (PE676)
The first petition this morning is PE676, on childhood vaccination programmes. The petition, which is in the name of Bill Welsh, on behalf of Action Against Autism, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to inform all relevant health care professionals involved in childhood vaccination programmes in Scotland that parents can opt for the mercury-free vaccine Infanrix for the immunisation of children against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Mr Welsh is here to give a brief presentation.
Bill Welsh (Action Against Autism):
Good morning. I am the chair of Action Against Autism, which is a children's charity. The story behind the petition is that in 1999 the United States Government started to remove childhood vaccines that contained mercury—I use the word mercury rather than thimerosal—because of parental pressure about the number of children who were being diagnosed not just with autism but with many neurological problems, as is happening in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It took the US Government two years to remove those vaccines, and other childhood vaccines were manufactured that did not contain thimerosal to replace those that contained the mercury. There was a free exchange system: the new vaccines, with the mercury removed, were put on the shelves and the ones that contained thimerosal were removed freely. There was no admission that mercury in the vaccines was in any way connected with neurological problems, but the suggestion was made that there was a suspicion that it might be.
About three years ago, I raised the issue with Susan Deacon, the then Minister for Health and Community Care. She said, "We are phasing out the use of mercury in childhood vaccines in the UK." I raised the issue again this year with Malcolm Chisholm and he said, "We are phasing out the use of mercury in childhood vaccines in the UK." Nothing has changed.
I had Nicola Sturgeon raise the issue in the Scottish Parliament. We are continuing to use this known neurotoxin in childhood vaccines. We are injecting mercury into the bloodstream of eight-week old babies—a procedure that has been banned in most other developed countries. The response from the Scottish Executive was that mercury is contained only in the DTP vaccine, which is given at two, three and four months—it is given to children three times—and that an alternative vaccine called Infanrix, which does not contain mercury, is available to parents if they wish it. Therefore, parents who are informed and who ask their doctors can have Infanrix.
I have provided members with a copy of the Official Report of the debate held on 6 February 2003, and it is pretty clear to me from letters in the newspapers that Infanrix should be available. However, the experience of parents trying to access Infanrix has been awful. Just last week, the immunisation co-ordinator for South Lanarkshire said that there was no way he would give Infanrix to parents who asked for it. He did not think that the Scottish Parliament had that sort of jurisdiction over a medical procedure. That is parents' experience, and it is driving a wedge between parents and doctors.
The deputy chief medical officer wrote to every doctor in Scotland and told them not that Infanrix was available but that there was no scientific proof that the use of mercury in childhood vaccines was causing neurological problems in children. He did not quote the debate and he did not send out the message, which should have been sent out, that if parents choose Infanrix, they should have it. The way to resolve the issue—I am an advertising man so advertising comes into this—is to advertise to parents and professionals the fact that the Scottish Executive has decided that a choice should be available should parents request it. That is the basis of my petition.
I sympathise with your cause, because I have been dealing with somebody, who I think was in South Lanarkshire, whose doctor was completely of the opinion that you outlined. That person was told, "You don't know what you're talking about; you can't have this."
I am totally behind what you are trying to achieve. My only worry is about how far we can go to make people aware. We talk about raising awareness, but what do we really mean by that? A full-blown advertising campaign would be needed to get the message across effectively, rather than just asking doctors to be more open about matters and to clarify the situation by putting posters up here and there in childcare centres. If you were given free rein, what would you like to happen, apart from banning the injections with mercury, which I do not think is likely to happen?
I have been advised that I cannot ask for that through the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is not a devolved issue.
Frankly, I think that ordinary general practitioners are victims in this case and a letter should go to GPs telling them that the Infanrix vaccine, which has been licensed for children of two, three and four months, should be made available to parents if it is requested. Just that simple step would resolve the situation.
At present, my charity is being contacted by parents who say that they are being refused that vaccine. When I give the parent a copy of the Official Report of the debate and they give it to their doctor, the doctor often says that they did not know and the parent will get the vaccine. Even a simple letter from the deputy chief medical officer to all GPs saying that the vaccine should be made available if parents request it might resolve the situation.
I am bothered by the "on request" idea. If that letter says that the vaccine should be available only on request, some doctors might not impart the information. How do we make sure that parents are knowledgeable about the subject, so that they will make that request?
The world is getting smaller and the internet is telling many parents about the problems with vaccination programmes that are being experienced throughout the world. A simple leaflet pinned up in surgeries would be enough. There is plenty information in doctors' surgeries and another simple leaflet would help. However, I am not an expert in that matter.
You said that the letter to GPs from the deputy chief medical officer had not made doctors aware of the existence of the alternative vaccine. Why did he not do that? I appreciate that that point is speculative.
It is speculative. I deal with such issues all the time and I do not think that the medical hierarchy respects the Scottish Parliament. It believes that it is in charge of things medical and it does not like interference. I have met Dr Andrew Fraser, the deputy chief medical officer, and I think that he is a very astute man who is also a very good politician. I have to be careful with my phraseology here but, perhaps by omission, he managed to cultivate a situation in which his view—and not that of the Scottish Executive—was presented.
Is it a matter of cost?
Yes, cost comes into it, although I believe that that would be denied. The Infanrix vaccine is double the cost of the normal DTP vaccine. It costs approximately £10 more and if each child is given that vaccine three times, that is £30 more per child. We are talking about 50,000 to 60,000 children per year, so the cost is almost £2 million more. Cost definitely comes into it.
I was concerned when I read your submission and the debate on—I will call it mercury because some politicians did not know how to use the terminology. The issue was first raised in 2000 and then, in February 2003, it was said that a vaccine without the mercury was available.
During the February 2003 debate, Frank McAveety said that the Executive was going to monitor what was happening. I certainly have not seen any figures that show that it has been doing so. He also said that parents were being given a choice, but you are saying they are not. Your submission mentions that you have further evidence; perhaps you could give me that evidence in your answer. The Executive also said that cost is not a factor, and whooping cough has been mentioned.
I know that I am asking you several questions. You have already answered the question about cost, saying that the mercury-free vaccine will cost more, but the Executive said that the vaccine that contains mercury is more effective and that it has a longer shelf life. Could that be the reason why doctors say that they will not give the injection that does not contain mercury? Do you believe that the GPs should ask the chief medical officer about parental choice? When a parent goes to their GP, surely they should be offered a choice of vaccine. Rather than have an advertising campaign or posters, would that not go a longer way towards alleviating parents' fears?
Doctors have to know that there is a choice, because at the moment they do not know that. In my experience, when a doctor eventually contacts the deputy chief medical officer for advice on this matter, he is told that the parents have a choice. We should be able to circumvent that and tell all doctors that a choice is available.
You are going to have to start at the beginning again, because you asked me so many questions.
Sorry. You covered costs, but what about whooping cough?
It is said that, according to research, the DPT vaccine, which contains mercury, is more effective against whooping cough than is Infanrix, which is why doctors suggest that they do not want to recommend a vaccine that is less effective. However, the truth of the matter is that mercury is not going to make any difference to the effectiveness of a vaccine. It is a preservative that increases the shelf life—as you put it—of the vaccine, but it does not increase its effectiveness against any disease. It is up to the manufacturers to produce vaccines that are both safe and effective. That is not an issue for parents.
My question is not specifically about the petition. I have a child who has not had the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Information is very important. The first thing that I do—and I think this is the same for a lot of parents—when there is a debate is that I use the internet to get a wide range of information. Why do you think that thimerosal has not been phased out? At the moment, the petition puts the onus on the parent to ask, rather than on the authorities to phase out the vaccine that contains thimerosal.
We are moving into an area—that of why the vaccine has not been phased out—that is outwith my petition. We have been looking at the role of vaccination and the number of children who are being diagnosed with neurological problems in the UK. The number of kids in Scotland, England and Ireland with mild to severe neurological problems has more than doubled in the past 10 years. A similar situation is occurring in many other parts of the world. We have to ask what is common to the children of Hawaii, Alaska and Edinburgh. The one thing that is common is vaccination programmes.
That work is all parent driven. We started to examine the safety and role of vaccinations because the medical hierarchy seemed totally unwilling to do so. It has a blind belief system as far as vaccinations are concerned. Let me give members a few examples. This year alone, we found out that the wrong haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine had been injected into every Scottish child, and that all Scottish children have to be revaccinated with the correct HIB vaccine. We found out that there is porcine gelatin—that is, from pigs—in the MMR vaccine that has been injected into Muslim and Jewish kids against their religion. We are finding out that mercury is still being injected and that it is not being phased out from earlier vaccines.
I am a businessman and people who do such things would not survive in my industry. There seems to be a cavalier attitude that vaccination is the greatest thing since sliced bread; however, I do not think that it is.
Why is mercury not being phased out in the UK? I have asked that question of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and the Medicines Control Agency. Frankly, they have not given any reasonable or plausible answers. They do not see the use of a neurotoxin in childhood vaccines as a danger, therefore they have no sense of urgency to remove it. They keep exonerating themselves by quoting the World Health Organisation, which states that there is no proof that using mercury in childhood vaccines causes damage. However, there is no proof because nobody has looked for it; nobody has carried out the appropriate research to find out if this neurotoxin is causing damage.
I am sorry if I am drifting away from the point raised by Frances Curran. Mercury was introduced in childhood vaccines in 1934 and autism was identified as a new condition in 1943. I know that that is just a correlation, but it is such that it demands that somebody investigate whether there is any connection between the two. There was increased use of mercury in 1990 in America, and the United Kingdom has the most aggressive use of mercury in vaccines for children under four months old. The increased use, and the increasingly early use, of such vaccines have coincided with a massive rise in autism and neurological problems in children. I do not know why the use of mercury has not been phased out—it is a national scandal that it has not.
Do members have recommendations on how we should proceed with the petition?
I think that the petition is straightforward and sensible. We should write to the Executive to point out that the guidance that it has rightly given is probably not being followed in the spirit that was intended. We should ask the Executive to demand that those who can make a difference are a bit more proactive about doing so. We should use the petition's terms—or stronger ones, if possible—to express that.
Would it be within the committee's remit to raise the issue about phasing out the use of mercury?
That issue is not raised in the petition. The petition asks us to take specific action and we must decide whether or not to do so.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Would it make sense to suggest to the Executive that, in the meantime, it makes doctors and, indeed, parents more aware that an alternative vaccine is available?
Yes, the committee could include that view in its comments to the Executive. We would expect the reply to relate to Linda Fabiani's comment about how information gets into the public domain, but there would be no harm in our saying that we would like the Executive to be proactive about ensuring that the information is publicly available. Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Unfortunately, the petitioner who was due to speak next has not yet arrived. With members' permission, we will hold PE677 in abeyance until the petitioner is here.
Listed Buildings (PE662 and PE678)
I suggest that we take the next petitions together, as they are both from Mr David Wilson and relate to the same issue. PE662 is about disputes that relate to applications for listed building consent and PE678 is about the preservation of listed buildings, with particular regard to listed building consent for demolition. The petitions are detailed and, with members' permission, I will provide some of that detail for the record, as it is important that as much information as possible is placed in the public domain.
The petitioner's main objective appears to be the restoration of Museum Hall at Bridge of Allan, which is in the process of being sold to a developer by Stirling Council, following a Court of Session ruling that granted permission for that disposal.
PE662 calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to employ the services of an independent reporter to adjudicate in disputes that relate to applications for listed building consent. The petitioner claims that Historic Scotland gave a commitment to take into account public opinion in the event of any application for listed building consent, when in fact the decision on the redevelopment of Museum Hall had already been made.
The petitioner argues that Historic Scotland and the Executive would inevitably have shown bias in any subsequent application for listed building consent and that there is therefore a need to appoint an independent reporter to adjudicate in disputes relating to such applications. The additional papers provided by Mr Wilson this morning include a letter from Historic Scotland, which refutes his claims and assures him that, should an application for listed building consent be made for works to the hall
"all representations will be … taken fully into account when a decision is being made whether the application should be called-in for determination by Ministers rather than the Council."
Historic Scotland makes it clear that any decision on the matter is "certainly not … predetermined."
Petition PE678 calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to honour published Government policy in respect of the preservation of listed buildings with particular regard to listed building consent for demolition. The petitioner refers to the opinion of the Court of Session on an application by Stirling Council for approval to dispose of Museum Hall, which was held as common-good land. He claims that the court decided that the hall, a grade B, band 1 listed building, has insufficient heritage value to attract lottery funding and suggests that that would mean that no building in the UK in the same category would be eligible for such funding. However, nowhere in the opinion does Lord Penrose specifically mention that the hall has insufficient heritage value to attract lottery funding, as the petitioner suggests.
Lord Penrose concluded:
"the structure of the Museum Hall has so deteriorated that its restoration cannot be justified in view of the total cost which would fall on the wider community, and I am satisfied that authority must be given for its disposal."
In addition, in the papers that have been handed out this morning, the petitioner has included a letter from the Heritage Lottery Fund that makes it clear that the Court of Session's opinion in no way prevents that organisation from funding buildings other than those that are listed at grade A. In that letter, the Heritage Lottery Fund confirms that it would consider any application for funding for Museum Hall and offers to provide Mr Wilson with an application pack. It is therefore clear that it is for Mr Wilson, Stirling Council or any developer to pursue the matter further. It is not the Parliament's role to interfere in individual listed building cases.
Do members have any comments on the petitions? Although the petitions ask for general actions to be taken in relation to the way in which such issues are dealt with, they are specific to one building. I wonder whether the committee would be stepping into territory into which it has so far made it clear that it does not want to step. We do not sit in judgment on the decisions of other bodies. There are procedures and processes that Mr Wilson can go through to raise his concerns over Museum Hall.
I think that you are absolutely right. We spent a lot of time on previous petitions by the same petitioner, which are closely related to the same issue. I do not think that we can go any further with the petitions.
Do members agree? We should make it clear why we take that view. It is not that we disagree in any way with what Mr Wilson says about the building in question; it is simply that it is not the Public Petitions Committee's role to sit in judgment on the decisions of any local authority or non-departmental public body that has the role of making, or the authority to make, such decisions.
I broadly share that view, but I have only just had the chance to read through the papers from Mr Wilson that were on our desks when we came in this morning. I do not quite understand how Historic Scotland gets to the point that it reaches in the final paragraph of its letter of 17 November to Mr Wilson, because I understood that Stirling Council was on the point of disposing of the building. I do not know whether disposing of the hall means selling or demolishing it or something else. In the final paragraph, the director of Historic Scotland, Graeme Munro, says:
"I hope you can be persuaded to view recent events positively and constructively as steps towards promoting the retention and re-use of significant elements of the Hall."
That seems to be a more positive position than the one that I understood we were in when I read the papers prior to the meeting. The case might not be as black and white as Mr Wilson has suggested.
The information that I have received is that one of the conditions is that part of the building be retained by any developer. In other words, some aspects of the building must be preserved.
We understand that that is not enough for Mr Wilson, who wants the building to be preserved in its current state.
That seems to be the case. I think that he wants it to be retained entirely for community use, but that is not a decision on which we can sit in judgment.
No, we cannot do that.
Do members agree that we should write back to the petitioner to advise him of our inability to sit in judgment on the decision in question and to tell him that the due processes are there for him to take advantage of?
Members indicated agreement.
I support that. The petitioner is calling for a reporter to be introduced for cases that go to arbitration. From my experience of reporters, I would prefer the determination of such matters to be left in the hands of local government rather than handed over to a reporter in a central agency. I do not agree that it would be wise to go down that route. I support the view that the convener and other committee members have expressed.
Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
HMP Peterhead (PE667 and PE675)
We still do not have the petitioner to speak to PE677, so we will go on to PE667 and PE675. We will take them together, because they are fairly closely related. PE667 is about alleged discrimination against convicted sex offenders and PE675 deals with conditions at Her Majesty's Prison Peterhead. Stewart Stevenson has joined us this morning to speak to the petitions.
The very nature of the Public Petitions Committee means that some of the petitions that come before us raise media attention. That is fine and we should not complain about it. We should not shy away from issues that become the focus of media attention. That is not the purpose of the committee or of the Parliament. However, I am disappointed that two MSPs, Nicola Sturgeon and Margaret Mitchell, acting in their capacities as their parties' shadow spokespeople for justice, saw fit to respond to press coverage by suggesting what we should do with PE667 and PE675. It is not appropriate for any MSP, regardless of their role in their party, to instruct the Public Petitions Committee on what we should do before we sit down to deliberate the petitions that come before us. It was totally inappropriate for them to go to the media and make the comments that they did.
I would not tell any other committee what it should do, whether that be one of the justice committees or the Education Committee. I do not believe that it is right for members of those committees to instruct the Public Petitions Committee on what we should consider and what we should decide in respect of the petitions that come before us. Regardless of the source of petitions, if they are valid, they will be heard by the Public Petitions Committee. We will deliberate on them and make our decisions. Interference from MSPs from outside the committee is not welcome and I will not tolerate it.
Petition PE667, which was submitted in the name of Mr R Carruthers, calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate alleged discrimination against convicted sex offenders who are held at HMP Peterhead. The petition was prompted by the petitioner's own experiences. He is 64 years old and claims that, even though he is medically unfit, he is being denied a transfer to an open or semi-open prison. The reason given is his refusal to undertake the sex offender treatment programme in 2000. He describes conditions at HMP Peterhead as Victorian and lists slopping out, no power or television in the cells, continual cuts to the food budget and no pension for the elderly or disabled. He also argues that it is inappropriate for social workers to conduct risk assessments.
Petition PE675, which was submitted by Mr Robert Moffat, calls on the Parliament to investigate the suitability of Peterhead prison for the long-term imprisonment of convicted sex offenders. Again, the petition draws on the petitioner's experience as a prisoner and raises similar concerns about poor conditions at the prison. Mr Moffat also says that prisoners are being refused transfers to other prisons and that they are bullied to undertake prison programmes with threats of the refusal of parole. Mr Moffat further suggests that only 24 of the 300 prisoners at Peterhead are enrolled on the STOP programme. Members might wish to note that Mr Moffat claims in PE675 that he was told that he would be severely dealt with if he approached other prisoners to ask them to sign his petition for the closure of Peterhead prison.
In 2002, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons reported that the conditions in which some prisoners were being held at Peterhead were among the worst in Scotland. By 2003, the situation had not improved. Indeed, there was an increase in the number of prisoners who double up in cells that are suitable for only one prisoner. Furthermore, due to limited availability, most prisoners are not undertaking the STOP programme. Given that Peterhead is the main prison in Scotland that deals with long-term sex offenders, opportunities for transfers to mainstream prisons in the central belt are limited.
Members are reminded that the committee is unable to become involved in the individual cases of the two petitioners. However, their evidence, together with the conclusions of the most recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons for Scotland, suggests that there may be a need to consider some of the general issues that are raised in petitions PE667 and PE675.
As no member of the committee has any comment to make on the petitions, I invite Stewart Stevenson to speak to them.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will split my remarks into two parts. I will preface them by saying that, although I have had communication with these prisoners, as I have with many others on many other aspects of the running of the prison, I am not before the committee at their request. My objective in being here today is to inform the committee and supplement what is before you so that you are able to make the decisions that are rightly and properly yours to make.
First, the two prisoners make the point that slopping out continues and that there is no power in the cells. They state that the location of the prison discriminates against prisoners from the central belt. They raise the refusal of requests to transfer and the lack of protection for prisoners in the prison. They also make reference to multiple occupancy of the cells. They mention prisoners being blackmailed into taking part in the STOP programme and other programmes—there is a wide range of programmes in the prison. They say that they want to choose the communities into which they are released. They make various comments about social workers, particularly in relation to top-end prisoners who are heading for release. Finally, they express their general concerns about the parole system.
I will now move to my observations. The prison was built in 1888—it is certainly a Victorian prison. The physical structure remains sound but, clearly, it does not have the facilities that we would want to have in a prison that is suitable for the 21st century. Like other prisons, Peterhead's role is to protect society from offenders by implementing the sentence of the court. Most critically, however, it is also supposed to reduce the risk of reoffending by prisoners following their release. It is fairly well recognised that Peterhead plays a substantial role in achieving that in relation to sex offenders. Of course, it is a prison within which only long-term sex offenders—those with sentences of more than four years—are incarcerated.
The Scottish Prison Service has just commenced a £1 million programme to put power in the cells. That will take a year to achieve. During that year, conditions will worsen in many ways, because cells will have to be taken out of commission and doubling up will therefore increase. It might be that a committee of the Parliament will want to consider that.
Until recently, there was no doubling up in the prison. However, there is increasing pressure on the Prison Service in relation to sex offenders. It is worth pointing out that it is believed that, in France, more than half of prisoners have a sex offending element to the offence for which they are incarcerated whereas, in Scotland, the figure is under 10 per cent. However, the number of sexual assaults in Scotland has risen by something like 50 per cent in the past 10 years. The problem is increasing.
On matters of fact, one of the petitions makes the point that 95 per cent of prisoners in Peterhead are from the central belt. That is not the case; they are from all over Scotland and the proportion from the central belt is substantially lower than 95 per cent, although it is the majority. Members should consider that many of the sexual offences have been committed against members of the offenders' own families and that families often desire the removal of the offender from the immediate area.
Finally, I will deal with the point that is made about my colleague Mr Salmond and an agreement that was achieved with the Prison Service on the discharge of prisoners. Prisoners are returned to the communities from which they came, which means that the community in Peterhead takes back those offenders who come from Peterhead but does not end up with a disproportionate share of such offenders, which might happen if they were all discharged into Peterhead. Wherever the prison is, that measure is an essential part of ensuring that the facility is accepted in the local community.
I am clear that the petitions have some merit and I continue to campaign for the building of a new facility in Peterhead as that will be necessary to deliver the facilities that are required for any prison in the long term. The key test, however, is whether Peterhead, in its current state, can deliver public safety through its programmes. It has some difficulties in that regard, but it does extremely well.
Incidentally, there is one matter that I have so far failed to address. Given the fact that prisoners are at Peterhead for a very long time, the number of them who are doing programmes at any one point is comparatively low. However, over the period of their sentence, very nearly half the prisoners will do serious programmes to address offending. The two prisoners in question are both from B hall, which contains the prisoners who do not wish to acknowledge their crimes and who therefore do not wish to address their offending behaviour by participating in programmes. I hope that that background information will help the committee in its deliberations. I will be happy to answer any questions that I am capable of answering.
You seem to be aware of the percentages for where prisoners are from. Could you give us an indication of those?
I would dearly love to but, unfortunately, I could not locate the relevant bit of paper this morning. I will pass that information to the committee later. A breakdown of where prisoners have come from by local authority area is available.
Would it be accurate to say that the majority of prisoners come from the central belt, but that that majority is not as high as 95 per cent?
That is correct.
Much of what we have heard is not very relevant. What is absolutely relevant, however, is the terms of the petitions. Despite the dreadful nature of the crimes that the prisoners have committed, the prison conditions, which are essentially medieval, are unacceptable. The petitions address the suggestion in the inspectorate's report that the conditions at Peterhead are among the worst in Scotland, and we should concentrate on that point. I am flabbergasted to learn that there is no electric power and no night sanitation in the cells. We really need to invite the Executive to look into that.
If I may clarify, there is electric lighting in the cells, but there are no 13 amp sockets to power radios, televisions and so on. However, the Executive and the SPS are undertaking a programme that will deliver that facility within about 12 months from now. That particular provision is in course.
This is not really a question for Stewart Stevenson, although I would welcome any comments that he has to make in response. The two petitions before us deal with different things. In PE667, Mr Carruthers refers to discrimination against convicted sex offenders. Our briefing on the petition says:
"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Report (2003) stated that most prisoners are not doing STOP due to the limited availability of the programme."
That is different from Mr Carruthers's point. He says that he does not want to do the programme, and I understand that individuals are allowed to opt out. If the programme was introduced because it seemed that it would be beneficial to offenders, I would be concerned about its limited availability, and I think that we should take up that point with the Executive. There is also the question of the coercive nature of programmes. Are prisoners freely able to decide whether to participate in the STOP programme? If they decide not to participate, are they discriminated against as a result?
In PE675, Mr Moffat asks for Peterhead prison to be closed, which is rather odd to see. He asks for prisoners to be moved to a new sex offenders unit in the central belt. I recall the campaign that was started when the Executive and the Prison Service announced that they wanted to do that. There was a huge local outcry and, ultimately, the Executive changed course and decided to retain Peterhead. If there was a proposal to build a sex offenders prison in the central belt, there would be even more outrage there than there was in Peterhead at the suggestion that that prison would close.
If there is a community that wants to keep a sex offenders prison in that community, that is positive. For that reason alone, the central-belt argument would fall. I do not think that the area that the majority of prisoners come from should be the issue. As Stewart Stevenson said, the prisoners are from all over Scotland, and the important issue is what is done in the prison and the treatment that prisoners are offered there. Perhaps that point ought to be made in response to Mr Moffat. We need to get indications from the Executive of when the sort of changes that Stewart Stevenson mentioned—the provision of power points in cells—will be completed.
Stewart Stevenson might have hit on a related issue: what will happen when the cells are being modernised and the prisoners have to double up? That could have implications that should at least be thought about. There is potential for problems there. Peterhead has had trouble with prisoners in the past, although perhaps not in that block. Members will recall demonstrations, rooftop occupations and so on.
I will take that as a recommendation that we write to the Executive and ask those questions.
Mike Watson has covered most of what I was going to say, but I emphasise that I am shocked that the availability of the STOP programme is limited, because I was under the general and mistaken impression that, as Peterhead is a centre of excellence for such treatment, the programme was available to all prisoners apart from those who refuse for various reasons to go into it. I want to emphasise that to the Executive and ask for further information on that point.
Is everyone happy with that? Mike Watson has recommended that we write to the Executive asking for a time scale for the improvements.
I will not go over what Linda Fabiani and Mike Watson said—I was going to raise those points as well—but one of the other issues, which I think Mr Moffat raised, was that the prison authorities would deal with him severely if he asked any other prisoner to sign the petition. That issue is separate from what we have already mentioned, but could we ask whether there is any truth in it?
Without any evidence to that effect, it is an allegation, and I wonder how we would be able to obtain any information, whomever we wrote to. I am not against the idea of asking the question, but the committee cannot ask a question about every allegation that comes before it. We were in the same situation a couple of weeks ago when we asked for information about allegations that could not be substantiated, and we must be careful not to set a precedent that, every time someone makes a claim to the committee, we try to find out the substance of the claim. It is for petitioners to prove the substance of their claims before they make them to us.
Yes, but it is a worry—
It is a worry if it took place, Sandra, but what evidence is there that it happened?
It is in the petition—it is there in black and white—so would the Prison Service not wish to reply to it?
We could ask for a general comment on the allegation.
I was going to suggest that. We could say that the allegation has been made to us and that the committee would be concerned if there was a culture of prisoners not being allowed to petition us—I was going to use the word "freely". No matter where people reside, they have the right to petition the Parliament and should not be stopped, so we should make a general comment in our letter to the Executive.
Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Schoolchildren (Bullying) (PE668)
Petition PE668, from Mr Frank Harvey, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to protect children from being bullied by other children in Scottish schools. The petitioner believes that effective action to prevent bullying in schools has yet to be taken and highlights a number of recent cases in which it is believed that bullying led to schoolchildren committing suicide. He argues that every school should employ an extra janitor to patrol the playground and take care of the children; that children who are accused of bullying should be expelled from school until a complaint has been resolved; and that the police should be informed immediately if it is considered that a victim is in any danger. Mr Harvey has supplied additional papers that have been handed round.
As committee members will be aware, the Executive is taking a hard line on bullying in schools and has introduced a number of measures that are aimed at tackling it, including monitoring how local authorities are implementing the recommendations of the discipline task force's report on bullying and indiscipline and providing funding for the anti-bullying network, the Scottish schools ethos network and the ChildLine anti-bullying helpline.
The previous committee considered two petitions—PE81 and PE412—on bullying in schools and agreed to take no further action, on the basis that the Executive was tackling the problem through a number of initiatives. Committee members will note that the petitioner has submitted a total of 55 petitions on a wide range of subjects, and, although there is no doubt that he is well intentioned in raising issues of concern, the majority of those petitions relate to high-profile issues that are already recognised and being addressed by the Parliament, the Executive or other public bodies.
I was interested in the petition when I read it. In fact, I have done some work on the matter in my constituency. It is true that the Executive has taken on a host of issues—anybody can look on the internet to see the extent of the work that it has undertaken—but one or two questions need to be put to it. How does Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education monitor the work to deal with bullying in schools? In that monitoring, does the inspectorate examine schools' codes of practice and guidance notes to parents and pupils? In dealing with a local secondary school from which the parents of a child had moved their child because of bullying, I examined such documents, which showed me, the parents and my researcher insufficient evidence that matters had been taken on board satisfactorily. Those questions about monitoring by the inspectorate could reasonably be put to the Executive.
I do not necessarily dissent from that view, but the petitioner does not ask us to ask those questions. I accept that the issue is serious, but it could be pursued in other general ways. I do not want to discourage petitions, but I am slightly concerned that this is the 55th petition from Mr Harvey. If we have taken no further action on two previous petitions because the Executive is taking the matter seriously, we need to be consistent and take no further action on this petition.
I do not want to discourage petitions, but I wonder whether we could have a word with Mr Harvey about focusing petitions not on general issues about which everybody shares legitimate concerns but on specific matters on which we might make progress. I do not know whether the clerks can do that or whether it is appropriate to write to him.
Helen Eadie has asked us to do something and Jackie Baillie has made a suggestion.
I take a similar view to Helen Eadie's, because we must monitor what is happening. The Executive has produced anti-bullying measures but, sometimes, they do not work. If Helen Eadie wants to press her view, I will support her. Obviously, her questions can be pursued in other ways. I am sure that she knows that she can write to the Executive. I leave the matter with her; if she wants to pursue it, I am more than happy to back her.
I am with Helen Eadie on the issue. The question must be asked whether local authorities are implementing in schools the measures that the Executive has introduced. That has been an issue in my constituency and I would be happy if the Executive produced a response. Is HMIE checking on the matters that have been raised?
I have sympathy with what Helen Eadie, Sandra White and John Scott said, but the reality is that we are the Public Petitions Committee. We have a petition from Mr Frank Harvey and we must decide what to do with it. He asks for an extra janitor for every school and the expulsion of children who are accused of bullying, even if not convicted—I know that that is the wrong word; I should have said "proven to have bullied". He also asks for the police to be informed immediately about a victim in danger. We have covered all those points before, so we should take no action on the petition.
We all have cases about bullying and we are all concerned about it, but such matters can be raised elsewhere in the Parliament. It is not for the committee to decide to raise issues of its own through this forum.
I will focus on the three points that Mr Harvey makes in his petition. Two of them do not have merit, and the other suggestion would be followed anyway. The petition says that every school should employ an extra janitor to patrol the playground. Two schools in my constituency have more than 1,000 children. How can one janitor patrol the playground of such a school, or the corridors when children leave school? That is unrealistic.
The petition also says that children who are accused of bullying should be expelled from school until a complaint has been resolved. In this country, people are innocent until they are proved guilty and not the other way round. As for reporting a victim in danger to the police, any teacher or head teacher who was worth his or her salt would do that anyway.
I do not think, therefore, that the petition has merit. I am also concerned about the fact that Mr Harvey's letter, which is dated 12 September, quotes an incident about which he read in the Scottish Daily Express on 11 September. The petition seems to be a knee-jerk reaction, and I do not think that what he proposes has merit. For that reason alone, I do not think that the petition should go any further.
I have sympathy with Helen Eadie's general concerns about bullying. We all share those concerns, but our specific job is to address what Mr Harvey is asking us to ask the Executive to do. We must focus on that.
I accept that it is unrealistic to ask for every school to have an extra janitor. That is not the way forward, and there are other issues that need to be addressed. I can ask my constituents who have had to take their child out of school and move them to another school to present their own petition to the Parliament, outlining their specific concerns. If they want to do that, that will be down to my constituents. I have already suggested that to them. The committee can then discuss the subject in that context. I am happy to accept the reservations that colleagues have expressed.
Okay. I seek the committee's agreement to follow Jackie Baillie's suggestion to write to the petitioner, advising him that he must, in future, adhere to the guidance on petitions. We must encourage petitioners to follow the guidance on petitions, and I am not sure that, in submitting his 55 petitions, Mr Harvey has always done so. We can reassure him that we have attempted to address his concerns in other ways before—it is not that we are dismissing his right to petition the Parliament or his concerns. However, the committee has to act appropriately. We can also make the point that, although there is no doubting his good intentions in raising these issues, the majority of his petitions have related to high-profile issues that are already recognised by the Parliament and the Executive. We must highlight to Mr Harvey that we are not dismissing his concerns about the issue, but that the Parliament is already trying to do something about the issue. Is everyone happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Motor Neurone Disease (PE674)
Petition PE674 is on funding of services for sufferers of motor neurone disease. It is the last of the new petitions that are before us and comes from Jan H van Atten, who is based in the Netherlands and is a member of the Scottish Motor Neurone Disease Association. The organisation informs and supports health and social care professionals who work with people who are affected by MND, and it raises awareness about and promotes research on the condition.
The petitioner calls on the Parliament to consider the funding of services for people who suffer from motor neurone disease in the context of the SMNDA's manifesto for the Scottish Parliament, which calls for increased funding for the overall care, treatment and support services that are provided by the national health service to those who suffer from MND. It also calls on the Parliament to ensure that the SMNDA can continue its valuable work.
The SMNDA manifesto calls for: a commitment from Parliament to encourage NHS boards and trusts to work with the Scottish MND community in raising awareness, and to direct resources to services for those who are affected; a requirement that all health and social care staff who are involved in the care of people with MND undergo specific MND awareness training; and recognition by statutory authorities of the rapidly progressing nature of MND and the need to fast-track requests for services from people with MND.
Given the nature of the petition, it is perfectly legitimate for us to write to the Executive and to seek its comments on how it intends to take action in those areas. It is ultimately down to NHS boards and trusts to decide how they operate and interface with the Scottish motor neurone disease community. Nevertheless, the Executive has a pivotal role and, as a first step, it would be useful if we wrote to find out what it is doing.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Shop Workers (Safety) (PE677)
I am advised that the petitioner cannot make it to the meeting after all, but that does not prevent us from considering the issues in PE677. The petition is about safer shopping partnerships and was introduced by Sir Bill Connor on behalf of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to work in partnership with retailers, the police and local authorities to improve the safety of shop workers by promoting and resourcing safer shopping partnerships.
I am perfectly happy to deal with the petition just now, although if Mr Connor has been delayed, perhaps we should delay consideration of the petition until another meeting. I see that he is based in Manchester.
Apparently it is not that he cannot make it, but that he is not coming. We have discovered that only now. However, he is happy enough for the petition to be considered. The clerks were in touch with his office this morning to see whether he had been delayed, but apparently it is just that he will not be here.
As the petitioner is not here to give evidence, I should mention something about the papers that he has submitted. The petition is prompted by concern over the apparent recent increase in the number of incidents of violence and abuse against shop workers. The papers highlight statistics from 2001 that show that 31 per cent of Scottish shops have experienced at least one violent incident against a shop worker. However, it is argued that the figures underestimate the scale of the problem because many incidents go unreported. The petitioner therefore requests that the Scottish Parliament
"work in partnership … to improve the safety of shopworkers by promoting and resourcing Safer Shopping Partnerships",
and that Parliament
"introduce a police Key Performance Indicator for retail crime to ensure that the police can give this growing problem the attention it deserves."
USDAW launched its freedom from fear campaign in September 2003. Safer shopping partnerships are being promoted by the British Retail Consortium in co-operation with local authorities. It is reported that such partnerships have been successful in reducing violent retail crime in many shopping centres. Under the schemes, local retail businesses work with police and local authorities to share information about known troublemakers and to ensure that all shops have a decent standard of crime prevention.
I should declare an interest—I used to be a shop steward with USDAW, although I have never met Sir Bill Connor.
We should consider the issue seriously, because it is a worry. I know that, in some areas in Glasgow, shops have what is called a panic button underneath one of the shelves. If workers are assaulted or there are problems, they immediately push the panic button and the police arrive fairly quickly. However, only some shops have that. I suggest that we write to the Executive to highlight the concerns that the petitioners have raised and to ask whether any detailed measures are being considered to prevent the continuation of such problems in shops.
I agree with what has been said and I know that there has been a campaign on the issue. I have also met Bill Connor—or Sir Bill Connor. I have no problem with the first part of the petition, but can someone explain what is being called for in the second part? What does it mean concretely?
I think that it is about the Scottish Executive getting behind the safer shopping campaign. The campaign is being promoted locally and the petitioners want to flag it up nationally.
Given that the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament, we could ask the Scottish Executive whether the campaign would fit with the bill's antisocial behaviour strategies. I agree with Sandra White that we should ask the Executive what it will do, but we could also ask specifically whether the Executive sees any scope within the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Bill to deal with the issue.
We could invite the Executive to consider the petition in its deliberations at the various stages of the bill. The Executive could then decide whether the issue was relevant.
I am still not clear about the second part of the petition. If the Executive accepted what the petition asks for, would that mean that specific concrete measures would be introduced? There is no action point—it is almost as if the petition calls for a discussion. What does "police Key Performance Indicator" mean? Is there a resources issue? Would such a key performance indicator release resources for the police to address the problem? I do not have any problem with asking the Executive, but I am not clear about what we would be asking it to do.
I think that the petition's second point is essentially that, when something is measured, it is exposed and therefore given importance that might result in resources following thereafter. At the moment, the question is whether the problem is measured adequately and whether we understand its scope. Given that we are into evidence-based policy making, it is legitimate at least to measure the scope of the problem.
Are members happy to ask those questions of the Executive?
Members indicated agreement.