Current Petitions
Scottish Prison Service<br />(Age Discrimination) (PE404)
The first current petition is PE404, which is on the Scottish Prison Service pension scheme. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to instruct the SPS to return to the pre-1987 agreement, as per the principal civil service pension scheme rules for groups of staff who are forced to retire before reaching the age of 60.
At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee considered the petition further and agreed to seek an update on developments in the continuing discussions between the SPS and the Prison Officers Association Scotland on retirement age rules for staff. The committee also agreed to write again to the Scottish Trades Union Congress to seek its views on the issues that the petition raises. From the responses of the POAS and the SPS, it appears that discussions between the two sides on retirement age in the prison service continue in the context of consideration of the impact of United Kingdom legislation on age discrimination, which is due in 2006. Do members have any views on the information that is before them?
I hope that the discussions are productive. I would be interested to know how many members of staff have suffered through being forced to retire. I imagine that the potential exists for employment tribunal cases and I encourage the Prison Officers Association to pursue any such cases. I would like the committee to keep an eye on progress and to keep open information lines, in the event that it becomes appropriate for us to pursue matters in the future, should the discussions come to an impasse.
The issue is certainly not closed yet, so we need to keep an eye on it.
The situation in England and Wales has been referred to several times today and it appears that the opportunity to continue in employment is available to prison officers there. It seems to be at best anomalous that the matter is only under discussion here, but I am sure that there is a lot of background information of which I am not fully aware. The situation seems to be odd.
Are members happy for us just to await the outcome of the discussions and to keep open the petition until we get an update on progress?
Members indicated agreement.
Sex Offenders (Home Office Project) (PE486)
The next petition is PE486, which is on projects to stop reoffending. The petitioners call on the Parliament to note the progress of the Home Office project to help sex offenders to avoid reoffending and the work of the Scottish Quakers to apply the scheme in Scotland, and to consider the scheme's possible application in Scotland.
At its meeting on 7 January 2004, the committee noted from the Scottish Executive's response that an evaluation of the effectiveness of the three pilot projects on circles of support and accountability that were sponsored by the Home Office was expected to take place, and that an exploration of the possibility of establishing similar projects in Scotland was at a very early stage. The committee agreed to seek an update from the Scottish Executive on whether such an evaluation had taken place, and to request details of developments of any plans to introduce similar pilot projects in Scotland.
The Executive states that, although it has received an application from Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending—SACRO—in partnership with the Church of Scotland,
"it was decided that the Executive required more evidence of the effectiveness of the approach before committing funding to pilots in Scotland."
The Executive provides details of developments on reducing the risk of reoffending by sex offenders,
"which continues to be a high priority for the Justice Department."
It is continuing to follow the progress of the circles of support project in England and Wales and to await the Home Office's three-year comparative study on the projects. I invite members' comments.
I have a request for information. On those pilot projects, does anyone know when the three years will be up? We should find that out. We will obviously want to learn from the Executive the outcome of the review, but it would be useful to know when that is likely to come.
I agree. I would also like to know how many offenders of the type who are under discussion are involved in progressive programmes of any kind and whether those programmes are being compared. I apologise if that is covered in the information that has already been provided. I would like wider information about how many sex offenders are outwith any progressive programmes, because that would help to put the circles of support experiment in context.
Are members happy for us to keep pursuing the questions on the issue?
Members indicated agreement.
Smoking in Public Places (PE503)
Our next petition is PE503, which relates to the banning of smoking in public places. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ban smoking from all public places in Scotland. The committee will be aware that the Health Committee has agreed to call for evidence from all interested parties on the general principles of the Prohibition of Smoking in Regulated Areas (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced as a member's bill by Stewart Maxwell MSP on 3 February 2004. The closing date for receipt of evidence was 23 April 2004.
At its meeting on 3 December 2002, the previous Public Petitions Committee agreed to seek the views of the pupils of Firrhill High School on responses to the petition and to request an update from the Executive on progress in its public information campaign. Comments by the pupils at Firrhill have been circulated to the committee. The Executive states that it intends to adopt a two-phase approach to a consultation on smoking, which will include consideration of passive smoking. Phase 2, which is due to begin in the summer, will involve a period of comprehensive and inclusive consultation.
I suggest that we pass the petition to the Executive as part of its consultation. Stewart Maxwell is promoting a member's bill to ban smoking, so perhaps it would be helpful to pass him a copy of the petition.
I agree. We might also want to pass the petition to the Health Committee. As I am a member of that committee, I know that it is about to consider Stewart Maxwell's bill.
Will we close consideration of the petition after that?
Will we consider the petition to be closed after passing it to those interested bodies? Will that be our last dealing with it?
Members indicated agreement.
Strategic Planning (Fife) (PE524)
Petition PE524 concerns the strategic planning review. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reconsider its proposal in the "Review of Strategic Planning" to replace Fife as a single planning area.
At its meeting on 5 November 2002, the previous Public Petitions Committee noted that the Executive had made it clear that any strategic planning regime changes would require primary legislation and that a planning bill was likely to be introduced in this parliamentary session. In view of that, the committee agreed to defer further action on the petition until legislative proposals had been made. The committee has now received a response from the Scottish Executive that says:
"we expect to introduce a Planning Bill during the current Parliamentary session."
In relation to the call in the petition for Fife to be retained as a single strategic planning area, the Executive said that following the "Review of Strategic Planning",
"there would be city region plans for only the four main cities".
I suggest that we copy the Executive's response to Iain Smith and invite his comments, which we could consider at our next meeting.
Are members happy with that?
When is the planning bill to be introduced? Does anyone know the timetable for that? Is there a timetable?
The bill's introduction has not been scheduled.
If it has not been scheduled and the petitioner was told in May 2002—in the previous parliamentary session—that the bill was likely to be introduced in that session, that must be cause for concern. We are now being told that the bill will be introduced in this session.
The petitioner was told in 2002 that the bill was expected in this session, not in the previous session.
The planning consultation was announced just two or three weeks ago. I question what John Scott means by a session. If he means the period between 2003 and 2007, that period will have a planning bill, but a bill might not be introduced in the current parliamentary year.
The consultation finishes on 22 July.
Will we do what Helen Eadie suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Solvent Abuse (PE580)
Petition PE580 concerns measures to deal with solvent abuse. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the serious problems with solvent abuse in Scotland and to introduce preventive safety measures to help to combat it.
At its meeting on 21 January 2004, the committee considered a response from the petitioner to a response from the Executive. The committee noted that John MacDougall MP had proposed a private member's bill on the sale of butane gas and agreed to seek information on whether the legislative timetable would be likely to have sufficient time to allow the bill to be introduced in the UK Parliament. The committee also agreed to write to invite the Deputy Minister for Justice's response to the points that the petitioner made.
The committee has received a response from John MacDougall, which has been circulated to members. He says that he has not yet secured an adjournment debate on the subject but that the issue has been added to the ballot and that he will continue to make every effort to secure a debate.
In his response, the Deputy Minister for Justice says that he
"will be happy to keep the Committee informed of developments in respect of the issues highlighted in my original response."
John O'Brien and his daughter are attending our meeting and I repeat our best wishes to him for the stalwart work that he has done. The suggestion in our papers is that we ask the minister to keep the committee informed of developments in addressing the issues. That would be good, but we should also ask him to keep us advised of the pilot that he has helped to organise in Fife. That would be useful. An information paper has been handed out to us today by Mr O'Brien, which is good.
There is one other thing that I would like to ask. I have been working with Shell UK Ltd: members will see from the note in the papers that the point has been reached at which it would not be commercially viable to proceed with the project without full industry support. We could pick up on that point and write to the Department of Trade and Industry to ask whether it could collaborate with the industry. Shell UK has said clearly that that is possible and that the technology is available to inject a substance into the cartridges—although Shell would not do that; it would be done by the company that manufactures the cartridges—that would that would give off a noxious smell that makes people feel sick if they inhale it. The industry and the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on oil and gas believe that that would be a good step. I am a member of that group and I believe that it would be good to ask Patricia Hewitt MP to take up the issue and take an industry-wide approach.
Do any members have views on that? Are we happy with that suggestion?
It seems to me that we have almost exhausted the possibilities.
Yes, but it would be useful to get a reply from the DTI about its involvement, if any, and we can consider that when we get a reply.
Members indicated agreement.
High Court (Appeals System) (PE617)
Our next current petition is PE617, which concerns proposals for a system of independent appeals against High Court decisions of the Crown. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to establish a system of independent appeals against High Court decisions of the Crown.
At its meeting on 27 November 2003, the committee considered a response from the Scottish Executive along with one from the petitioner and the Crown Office, and agreed to invite the petitioner to comment further on the responses from the Crown Office and the Executive. The petitioner states
"It would appear that the Scottish Exec. has totally misunderstood the point of my petition. We have never at any time sought to have the right of appeal to court decisions".
The petitioner also raises concerns as to why, after spending considerable time in the witness room, witnesses are not offered an explanation when they are not called to give evidence.
The Executive's response makes it clear that it would not, in principle, be in favour of a third-party right of appeal in criminal proceedings in the High Court. The Executive also explains why it considers the petitioner's proposals to be unworkable.
We have to be sensitive in our dealings with the petition. Mr Crossan and his family have every right to be angry about how they have been treated.
The Executive's response seems to be geared towards a specific aspect of the petition and not towards helping Mr Crossan and his family to find a resolution or reassurances that there will be measures to help others avoid some of the events and injustice that they describe. I am not qualified to judge whether Mr Crossan's specific request is workable or right, but there has been a misunderstanding about what he is asking for. Many of the concerns he raised about the procedures, the evidence that was submitted, the length of the trial and the actions of the police are informative about what should happen and what we would like to happen.
I propose that we seek Mr Crossan's views about what he is specifically asking for. It is not exactly clear to me what he means by a right of appeal if it is not what the Executive is responding to. I would like Mr Crossan to be more specific about that, so we should seek that information. Thereafter, it would be worth while for one of the justice committees to examine everything around the case. If we do not allow the petition to progress in some way, we would be doing Mr Crossan and his family a disservice.
I do not disagree with that, although it might be a bit premature to say that we will make a decision to send the petition to a committee before we have seen the petitioner's response. I am, however, open to that being the eventual outcome. Your initial proposal to ask the petitioner to clarify specifically what he wants would allow us, once we have that information, to decide whether to ask a parliamentary committee to consider the issue. We should proceed in two stages rather than make a commitment now to do both things, if that is okay.
I am happy with that.
We have to clear up the inherent contradictions. The petition begins:
"I, James Crossan, call on Parliament to establish a system of independent appeals against High Court decisions of the Crown".
However, the letter from James Crossan states:
"We have never at any time sought to have the right of appeal to court decisions."
We need to clarify what the petitioner means.
I surmise, perhaps wrongly, that what the petitioner is looking for is almost a grievance appeal to get redress for how a case is handled, rather than an appeal against the outcome of a trial. However, we should clarify that.
That is a useful suggestion.
Point 7 in our brief is about witnesses not being offered an explanation when they have spent considerable time in the witness room but have not been called to give evidence. Neither the Crown Office nor the Executive dealt with that point, although I suppose that the matter is for the Crown Office. I have come across examples of people being perplexed when they are simply told, "You are not needed today—away you go." An effort could be made to explain why that happens. A court officer should have that responsibility.
What do you suggest we do?
We should ask the Crown Office about the matter. As far as I can see, the letter that we received from the Crown Office does not deal with that point; it is more about the victim information and advice service. We could ask a general question, not relating to Mr Crossan's case, about why witnesses who are called to give evidence are suddenly turned away. That can often be seen by those involved in the case to make no sense, particularly given the outcome.
Are members happy to write those letters and to keep the petition open until we receive the replies?
Members indicated agreement.
Childhood Vaccines (PE676)
Petition PE676 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to inform all health boards, health practitioners, immunologists and organisations that are involved in the childhood vaccination programme in Scotland of the opportunity that is now available for parents to choose the mercury-free Infanrix instead of vaccines with thiomersal, which contains mercury, for the immunisation of children against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.
At its meeting on 26 November 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to seek its comments on the issues that are raised in the petition. The committee expressed concern that parents may not be aware that the mercury-free vaccine Infanrix is available on request, despite an apparent commitment by the Executive to the provision of choice about the vaccine during a parliamentary debate on 6 February 2003. The Executive's response states that the balance of benefits and risks of thiomersal-containing vaccines remains overwhelmingly positive. However, it has for some time been the intention of the UK health departments to phase out the use of thiomersal-containing vaccines as and when equally effective thiomersal-free alternatives become available and are licensed for use in the UK. Work is proceeding to that end.
Members will recall that there was a members' business debate on the removal of thiomersal from vaccines on 6 February 2003, during which the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care stated:
"It is at the heart of our policy to ensure that parents are given facts about vaccines in a dispassionate and accurate way, in order to enable them to make informed choices."—[Official Report, 6 February 2003; c 17983.]
I am extremely concerned about a number of issues because of the insufficient explanation that the Executive has offered. There is a wee bit of playing with words. The response mentions the recommendation of the thiomersal-containing vaccine, but it does not explain why it is recommended and does not go into issues such as the fact that the thiomersal-containing vaccine is cheaper. Perhaps the Executive is not trying to represent the matter in this way, but the response is constructed to make it sound as if a preservative that increases a vaccine's shelf life somehow has some relationship to its efficacy and ability to provide immunity. That is utter nonsense. The response does not help us to get right into the issues in question.
Since the petition was submitted and presented to the committee, further research carried out in the US suggests that thiomersal might have a relationship with autism. On the basis that we should follow the precautionary principle, a thiomersal-free alternative should be available and the matter subject to parental choice. The vagueness of the timetable and the Executive's lack of willingness to ensure that there is publicity and that parents can make a proper, informed choice about a thiomersal-free vaccine are unacceptable.
As someone who has worked in the health profession, I know that there is an absence of audit of, consistency in or control over informed choice across a spectrum of drug and vaccine administration issues. I am not convinced that parents are aware that there is a choice. The Executive has a responsibility to make that choice available.
More important, given that developed countries have withdrawn vaccines that contain thiomersal and that there is certainly evidence to warrant concern and the application of the precautionary principle, I want the Executive to tell us why that has not happened here and whether it comes down to cost. I am always concerned when I see references to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, because its members have more than 100 direct and indirect vested interests in pharmaceutical companies, research and so on.
As a result, I am disappointed but not surprised by the Executive's response. We should raise some of the concerns that I have referred to and perhaps ask it to reconsider its decision on promoting thiomersal-free vaccines. For example, is the Executive able to show that parents are being informed about alternatives in the health service? I am not convinced that that is happening.
I want to focus on the fact that the Executive has not responded adequately to the contents of the petition, which urged it to inform health boards, GPs and so on about the thiomersal-free option. Has the Executive done so? If so, what method did it use? After all, such information can be set out in a wee paragraph in a 10-page circular that goes into a filing cabinet drawer and is forgotten about.
Moreover, the response appears to contradict what ministers have been saying about parents being given every opportunity to make informed choices. For example, the letter says:
"The Executive has no immediate plans for further publicity"
on this matter.
As I have said, I want to know what has been done, how it was done and how the Executive plans to give people an informed choice if it is also saying that it is doing no further publicity. Our concerns and the question at the petition's core have not been answered.
I do not disagree with Linda Fabiani's point; however, I feel that Carolyn Leckie went over the top a bit. The Executive's response says that the chief medical officer's advice
"is that there is no evidence of harm caused by doses of thiomersal in vaccines".
Who are we to say that such harm has been caused? I do not know whether Carolyn is suggesting that the chief medical officer is not being truthful. Why would he give that advice if it was not the case? We are in no position to question the chief medical officer's opinion, which is down in black and white. Indeed, what reason would we have to raise such questions, other than the information that we have received from the petitioners? I think that Carolyn has overreacted. I endorse the point about keeping parents informed, but to suggest that the chief medical officer is lying is to make a serious charge and I see no basis for that.
Carolyn Leckie said that vaccines that contain thiomersal have been withdrawn from use in other countries. In which countries has that happened?
The United States of America.
Have any other countries withdrawn vaccines for the same reason?
Many other developed countries have done so.
I respond to Mike Watson's comment, because he makes a serious allegation. I have not accused the chief medical officer of lying. I do not dispute that the chief medical officer has his opinion on the matter, but I think that that opinion is wrong when considered in the context of the available research. I have scanned the research and there is a swathe of evidence that it is not appropriate to use vaccines that contain thiomersal. That evidence has been accepted by the United States Senate. We should ask the chief medical officer and the Executive why they consider that that evidence should be disregarded.
It is interesting that Carolyn Leckie prays in aid a decision of the United States Senate. She might not care to endorse some of the Senate's other recent decisions. That is not a solid basis on which to proceed and I cannot understand why she is taking such a strong line on the matter. If we do not accept that the chief medical officer is taking advice on the basis of medical opinion in this country, we are basically saying that he or she is a liar, which is a very serious allegation. I do not think that I am overstating the case.
I do not accept the infallibility of anyone.
I would prefer to accept the opinion of our chief medical officer than that of the American Senate, if I had to make the choice.
If we question the chief medical officer's decision, we will stray into dangerous territory, because that is not the subject of the petition.
That is a separate issue.
The petition calls for parents to be informed. I also point out that the regulation of vaccines is a reserved matter. We should not stray into territory that does not relate to the petition.
I am happy to ask questions, but we must ensure that those questions relate to the petition and are valid in the context of what the Public Petitions Committee can consider.
I think that we can all agree that the Executive's claim to favour parental choice in the matter is contradicted by its actions. We should ask the Executive what it has done to inform health boards about alternative vaccines, as Linda Fabiani suggested. We should ask what freedom health boards have and whether the financial implications of using alternatives are the motivation behind the Executive's failure to provide information and promote choice.
I am happy to ask such questions and I do not suggest that Carolyn Leckie is not asking valid questions. However, we must remain focused on the petition's aims. We will serve the petitioner better by asking the Executive the questions that the petition raises than by challenging the chief medical officer's decisions. Are members happy to focus on the petition's aims?
Members indicated agreement.
We are being pulled back into line.
We will await a response to our questions.
Bone Marrow Register (PE687)
The final current petition for consideration today is PE687, on the donation of bone marrow and blood stem cells. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to run a campaign that encourages the donation of bone marrow and blood stem cells through a bone marrow register and to recognise and support organisations that recruit bone marrow donors.
At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care to seek his views on the issues that the petition raised. In his response to the committee, the minister states that he met one of the petitioners, who lodged the petition on behalf of the Anthony Nolan Trust, and suggested that they might
"apply for project grant funding from the Scottish Executive … A project could be designed to address both the areas identified in the petition."
The minister's letter also says:
"I agreed that officials would investigate ways in which the Executive might be able to assist in the promotion of the work of the Trust in Scotland."
We could ask the petitioners whether they are satisfied with the Executive's response. Do members agree that that should be our starting point?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of current petitions.
I do not know whether this suggestion is procedurally competent, but can we also ask the petitioners on childhood vaccines to respond formally to the Executive's response to their petition PE676?
I have no problem with that.
We come now to item 5, which the committee has agreed to take in private.
Meeting continued in private until 12:39.