Official Report 229KB pdf
The first current petition is PE227 from Mr Alistair MacDonald. The petition called on the Parliament to approve a thorough investigation of the actions of the National Trust for Scotland on its current proposals and policies for Glencoe, which involve the creation of a woodland grant scheme and a new visitor centre at Inverigan. Some committee members visited Glencoe on 2 October last year. At our meeting on 24 October, we agreed to pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its views. We asked it to consult the Rural Affairs Committee as appropriate. We also agreed to pass the petition to the relevant Scottish Executive ministers for comments.
The issue might be considered when evidence is taken on the bill on land reform. Not just the Rural Development Committee, but one of the justice committees might be involved. It has not yet been decided how the bill will be split between committees, if it is split.
John Scott and I went to Glencoe with others. The petitioners' concerns were about those two projects, which have gone ahead. To a large extent, the petitioners' interest has been overtaken by decisions. The only outstanding question is whether there should be an inquiry into the National Trust for Scotland's role as a landowner in the area. The Rural Development Committee might wish to conduct an inquiry into that, but it would be for that committee, rather than us, to make that decision.
In fairness to the petitioners, the matter should be referred to the Rural Development Committee because there is still a huge amount of feeling about it.
To be fair, the Transport and the Environment Committee has considered that and has agreed to take up with the Executive the matter of what steps might be taken to improve consultation.
I suggested that the petition should go to one of the justice committees or to the Rural Development Committee—whichever committee deals with the proposed land reform legislation—because there are complaints along those lines throughout the Highlands about landowners going against the wishes of communities. That matter will have to be looked at as part of the proposed land reform legislation. It is not clear what committee will deal with that—that is why I suggested also sending the petition to one of the justice committees. The committee conveners would then decide which committee would take on the matter and perhaps consider it as part of its consultation.
As well as sending the petition to the Rural Development Committee, therefore, we will send it to one of the justice committees. The clerks can sort out which one. They could ask the committees if they would be interested in considering the petition as part of their consideration of the proposed land reform legislation.
I often visit National Trust for Scotland properties and it is not very common for the trust to seem to be in competition with local businesses as it is in this case. Usually, the trust complements rather than competes. In this case, the problem is that the people in Glencoe village feel that they will be in serious competition. It is a fragile village at the best of times.
The issue has divided the village. A new visitor centre was erected that was badly needed because the old visitor centre was in a dreadful state.
The next response that we have received relates to PE246 from Kildalton and Oa community council, Kilarrow and Kilmeny community council and the Kilchoman and Portnahaven community council, and Councillors J Findlay and R Currie. The petition requests Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Executive and the appropriate minister not to proceed with the designation of the south-east Islay Skerries special area of conservation.
It is an inescapable fact that all the local democracies involved in arriving at a decision as to whether the designation should go ahead are against it. Yet a position has apparently been reached at which, because a designation has been made by SNH, that is it. SNH must consider if it wishes to proceed in the face of enormous local opposition. The option is open for SNH to withdraw the designation. It does not have to proceed with the designation, but it appears that there is no recourse other than to ask SNH to withdraw it.
The third paragraph of the petition says that the proposal has "no scientific legitimacy". Those are genuine grounds for appeal. All the councils are saying that. The proposal has neither electoral support nor scientific legitimacy. Is that not a good reason to support those communities?
That is the problem. SNH takes the view that it has scientific evidence.
Why does the common seal need protection? We need protection against the common seal.
For the record, some elements of the community—environmentalists for example—support the designation.
The community councils are against it and the Argyll and Bute Council voted unanimously against it.
There are, however, other people in the area who support the designation.
Why do we need to protect the common seal? Common seals are on the increase everywhere in the Highlands and Islands. There is a legitimate argument for culling a lot of seals because of the damage that they do to fish stocks. That is not a popular thing to say. I am an animal welfare person and always have been, but the common seal needs to be culled. Why on earth are we protecting the common seal? They are not birds.
To be fair, the petition is being considered by the minister as part of the consultation process into designating the area as a special area of conservation. However, a legitimate issue of processing is involved. It appears that social, economic and cultural factors cannot be taken into consideration until after an area is designated. By that time, it is too late.
In this case, not only social and economic factors are involved.
There is an argument over the scientific factors.
On those grounds, can we not ask for the proposal to be withdrawn?
No, because the minister has taken the petition into consideration as part of the consultation process in deciding whether to proceed with the designation.
Can we draw his attention again to the point about scientific legitimacy?
That has been done.
We could refer the petition to the European Committee, as suggested for an earlier petition.
We could certainly ask that committee for its comments on the process.
Who is the minister responsible for the environment now?
Ross Finnie.
I agree with Rhoda Grant. I think that the petition should go to the European Committee. We need to know and are entitled to know what on earth the scientific justification is.
It would be fair to say that many designated sites throughout Scotland are meeting enormous objections. It would be equally fair to say that those sites are the difficult ones that SNH has left until last.
Except on scientific grounds.
In my view, that is not enough.
The area may have been included in the list of designated areas that was recently sent to the European Union. We will check that out.
Should we refer the matter to members of the European Parliament? It is their legislation that we are burdened with, over which we have no right of appeal.
I am worried that that would go way beyond the bounds of what the petitioners are asking for. That is not the role of the committee. Individual members can take the matter up with MEPs if they so wish. Does the committee want to send the correspondence that we have received to the European Committee, asking it to examine the designation process?
There is enormous opposition to this designation and to others. Berneray is a case that springs to mind, where the whole population is against the designation. However, they did not produce scientific arguments.
We can ask the European Committee's view on the correspondence and the designation process, to find out whether any changes to that process can be suggested.
That committee's view could also be sought on how the local community's feelings might have an effect on the decision-making process.
Is that agreed?
Petition PE262 is from Louise Robertson, on behalf of the Save the Vale campaign, and it contains more than 6,500 signatures. It urges the Scottish Executive to provide funding for the NHS to ensure that the Vale of Leven district general hospital has the level of health care that it deserves.
I have not seen that document.
We have only one copy.
It is the statement about full consultation that interests me. That would fall within our remit more than some of the other aspects.
Staff involvement in the consultation is referred to in the final paragraph of the document. The consultation has not begun yet. When it is initiated, the staff will be involved. A redesigned project steering group has been set up, which has produced a report that is now being considered by the NHS trust. The consultation has not begun yet.
It is just about to start. We know what it was like in Glasgow, when consultation was carried out on the acute hospitals service review. That was not consultation at all: it was, "Here is what we are going to do to you. Say yes or no." No alternative plan was provided.
The chief executive and other representatives of the trust met local community councils this month, to provide an update of the position and to answer any questions on the trust's proposals. They are genuinely trying to involve everyone concerned—staff and the community—in the proposals for change, and there is a detailed plan of consultation. That is what the petitioners are looking for. Like you, Dorothy, they feared that they were going to be railroaded. However, the trade unions have been involved, as we are told in the final paragraph of our briefing.
It is ironic that, years ago, maternity cases were transferred from Oban to the Vale of Leven hospital. That caused enormous concern because of the road down the side of Loch Lomond. People nearly died on the way. Women pretended that they were not in labour, so that their babies could be born in Oban and they would not have to go down the Loch Lomond road. I am therefore concerned that the NHS trust is considering interfering with local maternity services at the Vale of Leven hospital, as that upsets local communities. However, it is not clear whether that is going to happen.
The proposals have not yet been finalised.
There should be adequate consultation and people's responses should be listened to. That would be better than the NHS trust telling the local communities what is best for them. If the communities' concerns were listened to once in a while, consultation might be a worthwhile process. It obviously failed in the case of the Glencoe petition. There may also be difficulties of communication in Argyll, because of the distances that are involved or because the local press is not reporting the issue as it should. The fact that the consultation is being carried out should be well publicised, so that people can take advantage of it.
We are always available to hear from people if they think that the consultation process is not being carried out properly. Members will remember that representatives of Tayside Health Board were pulled before a parliamentary committee following the board's failure to consult properly on its proposals for change.
But did that make any difference?
It did. The process of change in Tayside has slowed down enormously and there is full consultation on the proposals.
The situation is still bad at Stracathro, and the petition in that case drew 25,000 signatures.
But no decision has been made on Stracathro, partly because of the Parliament's response to the petitioners. The situation is being handled very carefully by the local health board and the NHS trust, which are trying to ensure that public opinion is on their side. It does make a difference.
The word consultation still troubles me. Someone could phone the unions for two minutes this afternoon or receive a letter from the Royal College of Midwives and ignore it. There should be no objection to certain key bodies attending the meetings of those who are appointed by the NHS trust to carry out the review.
As I said earlier, the redesigned project steering group includes representatives of primary care trusts, individual GPs, local and national childbirth trusts and clinical teams for each of the units. There have also been open forum meetings with the staff who are involved and informal and formal meetings with employees and trade union representatives. There are locality-based focus groups, groups of consumers, open hearings, eight value-based workshops incorporating the views of 120 members of the public, which are held in four different areas, and a range of other consultation measures that are mentioned in the trust's document. The trust is making a genuine effort to consult.
The consultation process seems better than most. However, surely sensible and knowledgeable people—one representative from the Save the Vale campaign and one representative from the Royal College of Midwives—should attend the project steering group meetings right through the process. They should not have to rely on public meetings on a wet Monday night, which few people would attend; they should be able to see that the trust has consulted fully.
To be fair, the impact of the Parliament and the fact that people come here to complain about the way in which consultation is carried through at the health board level is having an effect. The health boards are taking a much more sophisticated approach to consultation than they previously did. The Scottish Parliament has proved to be a weapon that can be used by local communities against local trusts and boards.
The situation is much better than it was before, but we still do not have people in at the beginning. They are kept at arm's length.
I am sure that the Health and Community Care Committee will examine the matter when it deals with the administration of the NHS in Scotland. Dorothy-Grace Elder and I are both members of that committee.
Highly unbiased ones.
Are we agreed to follow the suggested action?
On a point of clarification, can someone tell me what a value-based workshop is?
Not off the top of my head.
Dear me, what can it mean?
Something that sounds like consultation.
I am sure that it is worth while.
I know quite a bit about the prisons crisis that has arisen since 1 November 2000, when the prison doctors service was privatised. Over Christmas, I got desperate calls from prisons in Scotland. It was claimed that three prison doctors walked out of the prison in Dumfries because they were disgusted by the new conditions that were being forced on them. That holiday period, of course, is one of the peak times for suicide.
I have no reason to disagree with anything that you say, but what concerns me is the petitioner. The petition is asking for a certain action that I think may already have been taken. It is open to anyone to send in a further, more general, petition about these issues. The petitioner was asking for an inquiry into the safety and welfare practices in operation at Jessiefield prison in Dumfries, which has now taken place. It may be difficult to build a more general inquiry on the back of this petition.
Perhaps we could send some letters to the Minister for Justice.
We could even pass the petition to the justice committees to see whether they are interested.
How on earth can someone from Yorkshire be responsible for this? What is the point of that?
Quite.
We are supposed to have devolution.
The document is dated 1 November 2000.
Do we know who is responsible?
It was the Scottish Prison Service, which is under the Executive.
The decision was taken under the devolved Administration.
Can we not go back and ask what on earth people were playing at?
That is the whole problem.
These issues are of great interest to us as individual members, but it is not in our role as a committee to go into such matters. We can do so individually; there is nothing to prevent any of us from doing that.
The letter from the SPS does not answer the petitioner—it was pretty obvious that the woman's son died because the check did not involve seeing the face of the prisoner and getting a response. The SPS says that that has been dealt with.
That was done in answer to previous correspondence.
That is good. However, I am concerned by what Dorothy-Grace Elder says about doctors being called to incidents within half an hour, when they physically cannot do it.
The half-hour time limit has always been in place for urgent cases. Doctors are now asking how they can meet that target when they have to run between prisons, Dumfries being one of them.
I am not opposed to any further inquiry into that, because I, too, feel that it is a serious issue that requires investigation. All that I am saying is that the petition is not the right way of doing that. An additional petition might allow us to investigate further, or to get the Parliament to investigate further. However, we cannot do that on the back of this petition.
I entirely agree with that, but we must bear in mind the fact that, at any time of year, not just at Christmas and new year, it can be almost impossible for members of the general public to get a doctor, never mind being guaranteed one within half an hour.
I agree.
We are talking about young lads who are trying to take their lives.
I am talking about young children as well, and elderly people.
The response from the Executive refers to the "outsourcing", as it is now called—which means the privatisation—of medical services, which has
I accept everything that you say about the necessity for investigation. However, I think that we should pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and explain that the committee is of the view that further work needs to be done by the Parliament and that we would welcome a further petition from interested parties. I think that we should wait for a further petition, because we do not want to get this wrong and be ruled out of order by other committees or by the Executive.
I agree.
Would it be improper to pass the matter as it stands to the justice committees?
The justice committees may feel that the response deals with the petition and that there is nothing more that they can do. The wording of petitions is important. We are considering the response that is before us today without remembering the first response, which dealt with the issues that the petitioner raised about her son's case. However, there is a wider issue about the prison doctor service and the implications for the safety and health of prisoners, and we need another petition on those lines.
The prison doctors should send a petition if they are concerned.
I can let them know, but do not forget that they are hauden doon on those contracts.
Any individual can petition the committee. The petitioner does not have to be an organisation.
Nevertheless, please can we write to the Minister for Justice, referring to the fact that the Executive's response is not wholly accurate—to put it mildly—and to our concerns about the prison doctor service?
The clerk suggests that it might be better if individual members, rather than the clerk, were to write to the minister.
A letter would have more clout if it came from the committee. The Executive knows that I am always banging on about prisons.
I could write.
I would be grateful if you would, convener. Could someone write to the mother to thank her, as her actions may have saved lives in the future?
She should be thanked for her action.
She has been marvellous.
We will do that.
She is a brave woman.
Do members agree to take that action?
The final response is to petition PE324 from Ms Kay Reid, which has nearly 5,500 signatures and which calls on the Parliament to call for a fatal accident inquiry into the sudden death of Dwayne Hood. It also requests the Scottish Executive to institute a right of appeal to the Lord Advocate when a fatal accident inquiry has been ruled out. At our meeting in December, we agreed to pass a copy of the petition to the Lord Advocate for his comments.
It is not up to us to decide whether the law is inadequate, although it might be up to us to decide whether the petition should be referred to one of the justice committees.
We could pass the correspondence and the petition to one of the justice committees and ask that committee to consider whether there is any merit in making further changes to the law.
That might be an appropriate step to take.
The letter from the Solicitor General has not answered the point about appeal very well.
If there was to be a change, I think that it would be made through an addition to the list of cases for which an FAI is mandatory. The Solicitor General seems to be suggesting that any right of appeal in this case could be provided only through such a change.
Kay Reid has not produced independent medical evidence. I do not think that she would be able to pursue a civil action, but it is an option.
I hate to tell the suffering public to take any form of civil action, because we know the cost, stress and agony of doing so. Civil actions can go on for years, constantly reviving memories of a child's death. I would have thought that a civil action was the last resort in almost every case and that the state must have some responsibility. It is a difficult issue. I really do not see why having no right of appeal in such cases is regarded as just.
We should note that there is a right to judicial review in the system as it stands—other members will correct me if I am wrong about that. That offers almost a de facto right of appeal and it is why the system is regarded as adequate. That is also why changes have not even been suggested since 1976. Nonetheless, we should pass the petition to one of the justice committees.
We cannot possibly suggest that the list of mandatory FAIs should include deaths in hospitals.
I accept what the convener says—the list of mandatory FAIs could be extended.
Let us be clear about what we are agreeing. It is recommended that a copy of the Solicitor General's letter be sent to the petitioner; that we advise the petitioner that it is open to her to pursue civil proceedings if she feels that there is evidence of negligence; and that we pass the petition and the correspondence to one of the justice committees to find out whether there is any merit in changing the law, particularly in relation to the mandatory list of fatal accident inquiries, or to any other issues that are considered relevant.
The petitioner has collected 5,443 signatures. Imagine what that woman has been through to do that, since the death of her child—a youngster—on 9 June 2000. She will be haunted by that for ever.
Is the course of action that I just described agreed?
For the benefit of new members, I will explain the final matter under this agenda item. The document entitled, "Progress of Petitions Considered by Committee at Previous Meetings" is produced periodically. It sets out the petitions that are still on the books for which we await responses. If they think that further action is required, members of the committee can approach the clerks at any time to raise issues in relation to those petitions. We will receive the document quarterly.
I have an issue in relation to petition PE45. I understand that as recently as last week, courts in England found that compensation should be awarded to sufferers of hepatitis C that had been induced through bad blood transfusions. I would like to know whether the Scottish Executive will take that ruling into account and whether it will make similar compensation available to sufferers of hepatitis C in Scotland who contracted the disease in the same way as the people who are to be compensated in England.
Dorothy-Grace Elder and I are aware that the Health and Community Care Committee recently took evidence from the sufferers themselves and from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. The committee is currently considering what action to take as a result of that evidence. No doubt we will see the Minister for Health and Community Care about the matter again. It is a live issue and it is likely to be progressed in the near future.
The courts in England certainly decided last week that they are going to—
That factor will be included in the Health and Community Care Committee's consideration. I cannot speak for that committee, but I stress that it is a live issue.
So you can assure me, convener, that you will do all in your power to ensure that the Health and Community Care Committee takes account of the English courts' decision.
We can write to the Health and Community Care Committee, drawing the English ruling to its attention and requesting that it ensure that it takes it into consideration.
Yes, please.
If no other issues arise from the "Progress of Petitions" document, we will move to the second last agenda item.
Previous
New Petitions