Current Petitions
Solvent Abuse (PE580)
Under agenda item 2, the first current petition is PE580, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the serious problem of solvent abuse in Scotland and to introduce preventive safety measures to help to combat it. The petitioner, John O'Brien, has provided further material, including an update on the progress of LOST—the Lee O'Brien Solvent Trust—which has been circulated to members.
I am pleased to introduce John MacDougall MP, who has taken a particular interest in the issue at Westminster on behalf of the petitioner. Members are aware that there are some issues relating to the petition that are reserved to Westminster and some that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I invite John MacDougall to make some comments about his involvement in the matter to help us to consider the petition further.
I apologise for not being able to make earlier meetings; I could not arrange a visit to the committee because of parliamentary business. However, that has meant that I am able to be here in the kingdom of Fife this morning, so it is no loss. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about solvent abuse, and for the excellent work that the Scottish Parliament has done so far on that important issue.
I am pleased to be able to talk today about solvent abuse, particularly abuse of cigarette lighter fuel. My interest in solvent abuse grew out of the tragic death of my constituent Lee O'Brien, who died after inhaling lighter fluid. Lee was only 16 when he died. I pay tribute to John O'Brien who, with other members of his family, set up the Lee O'Brien Solvent Trust, now known as LOST, in the youngster's memory. Lee's family immediately started a campaign calling for a change in the legislation on the sale of solvents so that the terrible tragedy that happened to Lee would not happen to other young people.
The family has campaigned tirelessly and has achieved a great deal in a short time. John O'Brien tells me proudly about his visit to London to attend a gala dinner that was organised by the Queen to acknowledge the efforts of various organisations that have carried out such work. He was given the opportunity to make his point personally to Her Majesty at that event. I tabled an early day motion in the Westminster Parliament last autumn, which secured the backing of more than 70 MPs, and I arranged for a petition containing 15,000 signatures to be presented at number 10.
Lee's death was not an isolated incident. According to Re-Solv—a national organisation that was established in 1994 to prevent solvent abuse and to deal with the scale of the problem—volatile substances kill more young people than any controlled drug. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Re-Solv for all its hard work, including its work with the all-party group in Parliament on solvent abuse.
Figures from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reveal that one in seven of Britain's 15 to 16-year-olds abuses solvents. Thousands of teenagers are putting their lives at risk by sniffing glue, lighter fluid and other substances. Some 1,700 deaths connected with such substances were recorded among young people in the UK between 1983 and 2000. On average, more than one young person dies in the UK every week because of solvent abuse. More worryingly, great concern remains about the number of deaths among under-18s from abuse of cigarette lighter fuel. Evidence suggests that butane cigarette lighter fuel refills now account for 64 per cent of all substance-abuse deaths.
The Cigarette Lighter Refill (Safety) Regulations 1999 were introduced by Parliament, and I believe that there is a need to review the effectiveness of those regulations in the light of the current figures that I have outlined.
The statistics go on and on. St George's hospital medical school's current report provides figures for 2001, which is the last year when deaths were recorded for solvent abuse and volatile-substance abuse. For the first time there was strong evidence that disposable cigarette lighters were involved in substance abuse deaths. For under 18s, there has been no sustained decrease in the number of deaths since 1999.
The problem is, indeed, nationwide. In my opinion, it requires joined-up thinking in the Government, and representative bodies' sharing their knowledge where possible. The problem is not confined to one particular area of the UK. Young people remain the group that is most associated with solvent abuse. Between 1971 and 2000, most deaths from substance abuse happened in the 14-to-18 age range, although children who were under the age of 10 have died from the effects of solvent abuse.
Solvent abusers can be male or female, although a high number of solvent-related deaths are of boys. The one thing that must be clear from the outset is that there is no stereotypical solvent abuser. People who abuse solvents can come from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, which means that we must combat the problem nationally and collectively.
Among the most distinctive factors about solvent abuse are that the products that are involved have legitimate everyday uses and that the age at which young people experiment with such substances is generally much lower than for controlled substances. There have been many debates, questions and early day motions in the House of Commons; it is now time to ask the Government to strengthen the regulations, especially on the sale of cigarette lighter fuel.
Re-Solv was started 10 years ago to combat the problem and—with no criticism—I believe that its weakness is a result of the legislation. However, the situation remains in which young people are dying from inhalation of cigarette lighter fuel.
A high rate of crime is also associated with substance abuse. Many reports have shown that serious crimes are committed when people are high on lighter fuel. In Scotland, the LOST campaign has already prompted the introduction of a test purchasing scheme, which was piloted here in Fife. It was aimed at stamping out the illegal sale of lighter fluid to young people. Test purchasing should be increased.
One crucial method of preventing deaths by inhalation that I beg the Government to consider would be to reduce the size of cans to 25ml. That would reduce the amount of fuel and would thereby minimise the risk from inhalation when someone attempts to get a temporary high. I also believe that reducing the size of containers will not be enough on its own, unfortunately. We need co-operation from retailers and people in education in order that we can prevent young people from being drawn into the dangerous world of substance abuse. A retail campaign partnership between the British Retail Consortium, the Government and schools could produce dividends and so might be worthy of consideration.
I believe that the way forward is much tighter and stricter enforcement of the existing law. Staffordshire County Council has three trading standards officers to police the sale of cigarette lighter fuel. I am not saying that that would be the answer everywhere, but it is worth considering. The nomination of an enforcement agency, such as the Trading Standards Institute, would achieve much.
I am sure that the measures that I have outlined, taken together as a package, would do much to reduce the risk of unnecessary deaths, such as that of Lee O'Brien. There are no safe levels of solvent abuse; it can kill the first time or the 100th time. There is therefore an urgent need for us all to work together in the hope that we can make a difference and reduce the risks of our young people being drawn into such dangers.
Thank you, John. I hope that you do not mind if the committee now discusses the issue and perhaps asks you questions to help us to take the petition forward.
John O'Brien and his family suffered a tragic loss, but we can see the difference that one family can make to getting this awful problem addressed and I congratulate them on that. I also congratulate John MacDougall; it is good to know that he is taking up the cudgels at Westminster to ensure that the issue is addressed.
One particular issue that arises from the responses that we have had troubles me, and I wonder what John MacDougall can do to help. We had a reply from the Department of Trade and Industry in the form of a letter from the right hon Patricia Hewitt MP. I wonder whether it might be possible for you to seek a meeting with her. I presume that the letter was written by the private secretary who signed it, Shantha Shan. The letter states:
"While supportive of initiatives by companies to tackle social issues, the Department does not have particular views on the initiative outlined in your letter."
The particular issue that we were trying to address was getting a substance called Bitrex introduced into butane because that would produce such a noxious smell that nobody would want to inhale it.
We had a good response from Shell, which has tried hard to address that issue. However, its point is that unless it gets the collaboration of the industry that makes the lighter fuel, it will not be able to take forward the issue. It seems to me that the industry that produces butane is not getting its act together to inject Bitrex into butane. I wonder whether you agree that the DTI could play a bigger role than it accepts responsibility for. If so, I wonder whether you could seek a meeting with the minister to emphasise that point, which might address the problem almost at a stroke.
I have strong sympathy with your point. There have been that many changes in the Government's senior levels that I am not sure who the most recent DTI person I had a meeting with was, but I did meet someone about this.
A number of factors must be considered in terms of obnoxious components being added. First, there is a question about what the right one would be. Chemically, there are doubts about the impact that Bitrex would have on a person who inhaled it. The principle of doing something to discourage people from wanting to inhale cigarette lighter fuel and so on is commendable. That is why I emphasise the point about education. Adding Bitrex is an important point of the campaign, but at that stage we are talking about someone who is on the verge of trying something out and finding by that experiment that the substance makes them obnoxiously ill. There must be an effective education programme that discourages the maximum amount of children from wanting to experiment in the first place.
I am sure that all members know that there are two major cigarette lighter fuel companies. I had better not mention their names in case I am called up for advertising or something like that. One has a more enthusiastic view of the Bitrex proposal than the other, although I am not saying that the second company is against the proposal. Lots of discussions are needed and we must also consider the international platform of trade. As I said, I have pursued the issue with the DTI and I would be happy to take it up with Patricia Hewitt to try to find a way forward.
I, too, offer my condolences to the O'Brien family and my admiration for their huge and sustained effort. I am glad that Helen Eadie mentioned the letter from the DTI because I was disappointed in how flat it was. I think that it would be beneficial for the DTI to hear what we are hearing. It is much better to do that face to face and perhaps John MacDougall could take all that information to the DTI.
Education is important. Solvent abuse has been going on for a long time. When I was a child, it was a popular way of getting a buzz. I knew people who died even back then. There does not seem to be the same education about solvent abuse as there is about the use of drugs such as heroin and cocaine. That is important, given that solvents are so easily obtainable and so quick and easy to use. It is just too easy for a crowd of kids in a tunnel to carry on like that. Often, they do not know the repercussions of solvent abuse—the damage and the death that result. Perhaps we should talk about getting information on solvents out there along with information on other drugs. Do you agree that, at the moment, there seems to be a hierarchy in the information that we give young people?
That is a valid point. I knew the time that I had for my opening remarks and I did not want to take up too much of your time with a lot of detail, but the evidence shows that, although we focus on drugs such as heroin—the controlled drugs, for want of a better phrase—the number of deaths from substance abuse is even higher. There is almost silence about the seriousness of the situation and decisions at various levels of Government—including decisions by local authorities—are taken in the absence of knowledge about the serious impact of solvent abuse throughout the UK and internationally. We need to work together on this serious problem and to share information where we can. The more knowledge that we have, the greater the likelihood of our decisions having an impact and making a difference.
I, too, congratulate Mr O'Brien on his hard work. Solvent abuse has been a problem for a good number of years. It is not just lighter fuel; years ago, it was glue and so on. Those things are not controlled drugs and they can easily be bought over the counter. Perhaps that is why solvent abuse is so prevalent. Because of the price—maybe £1 or 50p—solvents are within the reach of younger people.
I am interested in the points that you raised and the answers that you gave. As you said, education is important. There have been advertising campaigns about solvent abuse but they are mostly aimed at retailers. They are told that under-18s are not allowed to buy solvents, but there is nothing aimed at the kids who buy them. We need a campaign to tell kids how bad solvent abuse is for them and that it can end in death.
I ask you to clarify a couple of things. You said that, although there are advertising campaigns, the number of deaths has gone up, so it seems that they have not worked. I think you said that, as well as lighter fuel, kids are buying disposable lighters over the counter. They can buy four of them for £1. Westminster has legislated on the age at which people can buy cigarettes and lighter fuel, but what is the position regarding kids buying packs of cheap lighters?
Also, you said that you were trying to secure an adjournment debate. How far have you got with that? We need a two-pronged approach. Some matters are reserved, so the Westminster Government and the DTI need to act, but the Scottish Parliament can work on the health and education aspects. If we work in partnership, we can develop good practice, educate kids on solvent abuse and develop enforcement to ensure that shopkeepers do not sell such products to them.
I mentioned joined-up thinking. Retailing is the responsibility of local authorities and the Scottish Parliament, but we must consider the size of containers and the issues that Helen Eadie mentioned, which have been raised with Patricia Hewitt at the DTI. By working together, we can try to make a convincing argument for change. If we all keep ourselves neatly boxed in our own little corners, we will be less effective than if we work in a joined-up way. That is why I emphasised that point.
I continually lodge motions for an adjournment debate and attempt to get a private member's bill, but it is a lucky dip. Members put their names into a ballot, but the odds are something like 640:1. I have never been good at horses, never mind getting an adjournment debate, but 640:1 would be substantial odds for someone who wanted to hazard a flutter on a Saturday. I continually aspire to raise the profile of this matter at Westminster, but I am not foolish enough to think that it will happen next week. That said, it would be just my luck if it did happen next week. It is a continual effort, but the odds are stacked against an adjournment debate.
I am not sure whether the law says that people must be 18 to buy disposable lighters, or whether they can be younger. The ability to buy a couple of dozen for a few quid makes them as lethal as butane. Could you clarify that?
The retail issue is more for local authorities to discuss, but if they will not be offended, I am happy to comment, even though it is not in my remit. I agree that it is a concern. We must look at all this in context. I have heard of youngsters who were probably under 16—so could not buy cigarettes—walking into a shop and leaving with half a dozen tins of lighter fuel that would probably last a lifetime for somebody who smokes 60 cigarettes a day. That happens at a time when we are trying to encourage people to stop smoking. Somebody should be aware that that lighter fuel is not being purchased either to sustain a smoking habit or to light the fire.
We have to think about cigarette lighters. The amount of fuel that youngsters can acquire at source causes the big problem. That is why I suggested that the volume of the tins be reduced to something like 25ml. That would reduce considerably the amount of fuel that is available. I have no statistics about whether the fuel from a cheap cigarette lighter can be as damaging as the fuel in tins. It is a concern; I take your point. We need to look further at that. Information is available, but what I have given you this morning is some flavour of what I have collated through working with the LOST campaign and its excellent efforts and with other organisations in the Westminster Parliament.
Most of the topic has been covered, but I will pick up on one comment. John MacDougall is right to say that co-operation between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament will be the key to unlocking and resolving some of the problems.
You said that enforcement should be delegated directly to local authorities' environmental health departments. May I press you on that? The Scottish Executive could clearly take a lead in supporting what you do. Is the sale of cigarettes currently enforced by a local authority's environmental health department? Are there similarities between selling cigarettes and selling lighter fuel?
You cannot divorce them. The efforts that have been made in Scotland to combat smoking cannot be divorced from what it takes to light a cigarette in the first place. There is an obvious connection, and there are things to take into account in that respect.
As regards the issue itself, I do not really—will you repeat the first part of the question?
You are absolutely right to say that co-operation between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament will be a great help in resolving this problem. However, I specifically asked about enforcement, and you targeted the environmental health departments of local authorities. I want to see whether we can do anything to help in that regard.
I mentioned that Staffordshire County Council employs three trading standards officers dedicated to that kind of enforcement, although that may not work everywhere. It depends on the issues that the council has to deal with. I am not criticising local authorities or saying that they are failing in some way because they do not have three local officers who are dedicated to that task. I just point that out as a way of tackling the problem. Any area that has had a similar problem is worthy of further examination if it has found a way, through such a support agency, to monitor the situation and make it less easy for young people to purchase the numbers of tins of cigarette lighter fuel to which I referred. I hear all too frequently about such problems throughout the UK. Finding methods to reduce the opportunity to purchase would make a difference.
My final point is a statement rather than a question. I hope that John MacDougall's luck changes and that he obtains his adjournment debate and his private member's bill.
I, too, hope that you secure a debate, for several reasons. The issue is a social problem and the discussion needs to be expanded. Talking about having smaller canisters is important and reminds me of the reduction that was made in the amount of paracetamol that can be bought in one go. A person could go from chemist to chemist and buy as many tablets as they liked, but that move raised awareness of the lethal dose. Such a measure is something to consider. Changing the smell is another option, but the evidence that we have been given is that young people who are so minded will sniff deodorant or other aerosol substances. The broader question is why young people do that. If you secure the debate and get the discussions moving—I hope that we in the Scottish Parliament will do that, too—we can ask why young people feel the urge to destroy their minds.
All those initiatives will raise the issue, which is what we hope to do, and will get people talking about the social problem, speaking to expert organisations and tying that up with other abuse. I do not know the figures—perhaps you do—but I bet that it is poorer kids from poorer communities who abuse such substances. The issue is about education, aspirations and a whole load of other stuff. Only a broader political debate will cut to the chase.
Other measures can be put in place to turn kids off abusing substances, but a kid with a mind to do it might go from shop to shop or might do something else instead. I worry that we will be back here with another person talking about another substance that has killed another kid. I hope that you will secure the debate and that we can lift the issue off the ground. I thank you for all the information that you have brought.
Thank you for your comments, with which I agree. We heard this morning of the tragedy that an 11-year-old in Pollok had been experimenting with another drug. We are not here to talk about that, but that highlights the early age at which youngsters are experimenting. Given the age at which they are experimenting with substance abuse, early stages of education could change the direction in which those youngsters are going. That is why education is a key issue. I am well aware of the existing responsibilities on education, so initiatives must be properly considered and measured. The effectiveness of measures and what form education would take must be considered. I have heard horror stories of the experiments that youngsters have carried out.
I will talk about a report that I read, although I do not want what it said to be advertised widely—the controversial element of the discussion is that if we mention something innovative, a youngster might try it. I speak genuinely against that temptation. I read that people were lighting items such as plastic rubbish bins in order to inhale the fumes. All that I say, in case any youngster finds anything out from today's meeting or reads any report on it, is that inhaling such fumes could kill someone immediately. The report said that there is no guarantee that someone could inhale those fumes a second time—that depends on the individual's make-up. One youngster could get away with that and encourage another to do it, but the other could die immediately from it. That is the danger and the message that we must convey to young people.
That is a strong message to put out and I am sure that the committee endorses it. You have raised an awful lot of issues and it would be useful for the committee to take them to the Scottish Executive. We have crossover issues when legislation from Westminster must be implemented in Scotland through agencies that are the Scottish Executive's responsibility. We just have to look for joined-up government, as we have when dealing with fireworks. I am interested in finding out from the Executive how the piloting of purchasing schemes is progressing, because they are an important way to address the issue.
Although a person can buy a lighter and cigarettes aged 16, they have to be 18 to buy a lighter refill. We should look to see whether the issue is being addressed properly, and the test scheme that you have outlined would give us an indication of that. We have been given an awful lot of food for thought this morning, and we will take matters up with the Executive. Any information that you could give us in the future, as you pursue the issue, would be most welcome and would allow us to continue to press the issue with the Executive.
I would just like to say that I also picked up the earlier point about the Data Protection Act 1998.
Building on what you have said, convener, I offer three specific suggestions in relation to the Executive. First, I understand that the test purchasing pilot scheme in Fife was successful and that, when the Executive wrote to us at the end of 2004, it said that it was going to start a Scotland-wide campaign in the autumn. The obvious questions are whether there was such a campaign, whether it was successful and what lessons were learned. Secondly, the debate around who should be responsible for enforcement might do something to raise awareness on the ground. Thirdly, I pick up the point that other MSPs have made about education. Alongside giving out messages about other drugs, how are we dealing with this in schools? It might be useful to involve various parts of the Executive, not only the Deputy Minister for Justice, who has been corresponding on the issue.
Convener, I agree with what you and Jackie Baillie have just said. This illustrates one of the best ways of working between Westminster and ourselves. A lot of excellent work has been undertaken and the minister who wrote to us has been very supportive of this initiative.
Following on from the point that you made about the test purchasing pilot scheme, I remind the committee that the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, told us that the Lord Advocate will consider in the early spring whether current prosecution policy, which prevents criminal proceedings for alleged illegal sales of age-restricted goods on the basis of test purchasing by children, should be revised. We could write to the Lord Advocate—although by the time that he writes back we will probably have some idea of his views on whether that policy should be reconsidered.
The Scottish Retail Consortium has talked to the committee about a national proof-of-age scheme. The minister has been trying to do something in Scotland by funding dialogue youth, through Young Scot, to roll out to all 32 local authorities a young person's card incorporating voluntary proof of age. Good progress has been made on that.
There is a lot for us to work on. Good luck with your campaign: I hope that you continue to make progress on it. I do not know which is the greater priority for you—winning on the horses or having your early-day motion selected for debate.
I will settle for the latter.
I wish you good luck with it. We will continue our dialogue and we are grateful for the information that you have provided so far. I hope that we can continue to work together to make progress on the issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this. I also thank the committee for its questions. I have taken on some interesting points as well, and I will take up some of the matters that have been raised with me today.
Road Design Standards (PE838)
Petition PE838, by Sheila Carribine on behalf of Low Valleyfield community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament, in the interests of road safety, to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy in relation to road design standards and to encourage the publication of such standards and their proper and consistent application across Scotland.
At its meeting on 9 November 2005, the committee considered responses from Fife Council, the Scottish Executive, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and the Institution of Highways and Transportation and agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on those responses. A response has been received from the petitioner, which has been circulated to members. Do members have any comments? Have we taken the issue as far as we can, on the basis of that response?
I recognise the petitioner's desire for us to press Fife Council for explanations. That is not the committee's role, but hopefully the petitioner is now armed with sufficient information to enable her to do exactly that. I do not think that we can take the petition any further, so I recommend that we close it.
Are members happy for us to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Traffic Calming (PE840)
The next petition is PE840, from Judith McCrorie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on traffic-calming measures, such as road humps and road cushions, in order to ensure that the impact on disabled users and the elderly is adequately addressed.
At its meeting on 11 May 2005, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Automobile Association, Age Concern Scotland, the mobility and access committee for Scotland, the Disability Rights Commission, Capability Scotland, the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Ambulance Service, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association of Scotland, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Road Safety Campaign. Having felled another forest to do that, we have received responses from those organisations. Do members think that we should just send them to the petitioner for her views, which we can then consider?
I agree. However, I am sure that a couple of months ago I read that there was a move to remove speed humps from all roads.
We should ask specifically about that.
We should. I certainly read that that was the case. Many people, especially disabled people, have written to me about speed humps. We should seek the petitioner's views on the responses.
There is a huge need for further research into speed humps. Earlier this morning, I asked one of the clerks to review the correspondence that we received about the problem in London. From the evidence that she had gathered, the petitioner reckoned that more people were dying as a result of speed humps than were having their lives saved because of them. Speed humps prevent ambulances from getting to hospital in time. Regrettably, at the moment there are huge controversies about the closure of accident and emergency units throughout Scotland and the extended journey times that that will cause in many constituencies. We need to get the design of speed humps absolutely right. We cannot get anywhere near a resolution on the petition without ensuring that we address that problem.
I agree entirely.
It strikes me that there are two separate issues. Most of the responses that we received acknowledge that speed humps play a valuable role in reducing the number of accidents, speeding and injuries to child pedestrians. However, only one of the responses addresses the issue of standards, design, material and layout. I had the impression that the petition was calling for a review—not necessarily for the abandonment of all speed humps, but for making them of a consistent design and standard, so that they do not cause the difficulties that they are clearly causing at present. Some speed humps are veritable mountains, whereas others are more akin to molehills. There is an issue of consistency of design across the board.
In their responses, Capability Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service expressed a severe degree of frustration at the fact that they are not being consulted in the way in which they should. We should take seriously the point that the Scottish Ambulance Service made about ambulances that may need to speed when they have on board patients with spinal injuries. We should implore those who are involved in designing the roads to take on board that crucial point.
I am not entirely sure how we will achieve that. Perhaps we are too late in the process. The Transport Research Laboratory used to look into such issues. At the end of the process, we may want to refer the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee, with a view to commissioning research. There must be a uniformity of design that can allow ambulances to travel more safely in situations where they need to go faster than the speed limit.
If we contact the petitioner and get a response from her, it may be suitable for us to send the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee for further consideration. Are members happy for us to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Affordable Housing <br />(Scottish Executive Policies) (PE877)
Our last current petition is PE877, by Janet Walton, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policies on the provision of affordable housing, particularly in relation to the impact on the elderly and those on low incomes.
At its meeting on 8 September 2005, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, Communities Scotland, the Scottish Tenants Organisation and Fife Council seeking their views. Their responses have now been received. Are members happy for us to seek the petitioner's views on the responses before we consider the petition further in light of her opinions?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of current petitions.
Meeting closed at 12:55.