Chamber and committees

I preface my remarks by saying that I still feel as if I am serving my apprenticeship on this committee, so it may be slightly premature for me to say this. I wonder whether we are moving a bit beyond the specific ask in the petition towards a general tour-de-table discussion about the rail service in Scotland. That is perfectly interesting and valid, but to go back to what the petition says, it is very narrowly focused. I am not dismissing any of the points that have been made before the committee today, but is it not our primary role to focus pretty forensically and ruthlessly on what the petitioner has actually asked for, rather than fish every sea in the ocean? Let us stick to our own waters.

Good morning to both witnesses. I would like to ask both of you two questions. First, how important do you feel it is to embed the medication-assisted treatment—or MAT—standards in practice, especially for ensuring that individuals receive appropriate medication while in police custody? That is a point that David Strang made clearly in his opening remarks.

Thank you. I thought that that would be the answer; obviously, it is the answer that one expected.

I have one more question, which has two parts to it. First, are the witnesses aware of any data on the availability of healthcare staff to administer methadone in police custody? I ask that general question because questions have been raised by the petitioner and others about there perhaps not being sufficient, appropriately qualified medical staff to do the job of ensuring proper treatment in police custody.

Secondly, the petitioner has asserted that, in NHS Grampian, there is inappropriate prescription—as he considers it—of a drug. From memory, I think that it is dihydrocodeine. Is either of the witnesses able to comment on whether that is inappropriate, in their view? Do they have any information with regard to that?

In saying that, we will perhaps make direct inquiries to NHS Grampian to be fair to it, and put that point to it, as is right and proper.

I am most grateful to Dr Hunter for that very useful clarification. We can pursue that further.

I go back to the first question, about the availability of healthcare staff. As neither of you is able to give us information about that, can you suggest from whom we may be able to obtain information? If the answer is that there is nobody from whom we can obtain such information because records are not properly kept, does that not point to a lacuna in the system of oversight of the application of correct treatment and sufficient medical personnel available to deliver it for those people in police custody who require it?

Yes. I agree with Mr Stewart.

The petitioners are probably not alone in suffering inconvenience from the illegal parking of camper vans in inappropriate places, and there is no doubt that it happens. However, the Scottish Government response might be correct in that I am not sure that the particular prescription advocated by the petitioners will necessarily solve the problem.

It also occurs to me that, as a matter of road traffic law, and perhaps criminal law in relation to illicit parking or local byelaws—I am sorry; I do not know whether you have considered that—the petitioners’ reference to aires is very helpful. I discovered when I was tourism minister that aires exist as facilities for caravans, camper vans and so on outwith settlements, with provision of services such as water and sewage facilities. They are serviced sites. They are very prevalent in France, which apparently has a network of aires, but we have not got off the mark with them here. I wonder whether, in an effort to solve the issue another way, we could ask the Scottish Government to consider promoting aires—I know that VisitScotland is keen on that—as something that would qualify automatically under the rural infrastructure fund, which again appears in our deliberations today.

I realise that that is not quite what the petitioners want, and I have some sympathy with them, because this is a big problem in the Highlands, particularly on the single-track roads that serve small communities. Illicit parking in lay-bys is another problem, particularly on the NC500 in the Highlands.

Aires would be the proper long-term solution. It would make everybody happy; holidaymakers could enjoy the countryside as they travel around in their camper vans, if that is what they choose to do, and locals could avoid being inconvenienced by that third-party pleasure.

Yes—I am happy to do that.

I entirely endorse what you have just said, convener. Nicola Murray’s evidence was profoundly moving and extremely effective. We all commended her bravery in speaking out on a matter that could not be more sensitive.

There is more evidence that we have yet to hear—we need to obtain, collate and consider it—but, at present, I am minded, on the principal matter in the petition, to go down the route of recommending that there should be a specific new statutory offence.

I have raised with witnesses—including, at our previous meeting, Dr Neal, Dr Scott and Mr Tidy—the possible alternative of seeking to use the existing law of assault by libelling these particular circumstances, or the alternative of an aggravated offence, which Mr Sweeney raised as well, as far as I can recollect. Those might be alternatives.

However, the evidence at that meeting—in particular, Dr Neal’s dismissal of those alternatives—was compelling. I took from her evidence the argument that, although in theory the alternatives might work, in practice they would not, and that a matter of such gravity as the loss of an unborn child merits a proper, distinct and separate new statutory offence. She also pointed to the fact that such an offence exists in England and elsewhere, albeit that the law in England dates back to 1929 and was conceived for a different purpose altogether.

Be that as it may, and subject to learning a bit more information from the various legal authorities and relevant bodies from whom we can obtain that evidence, my feeling has changed from thinking that there might be an easier way—an existing alternative—to agreeing with the evidence that we heard, which was that there should be a new statutory offence.

Another important point, although perhaps not the main one, is that the circumstance that the petitioner described in which she found that the charge had been reduced without her being consulted is, I think, profoundly wrong. All the witnesses that we asked about that said so, and it must be changed. Some recommendations there anent would be appropriate, in my opinion.

I have a suggestion for consideration, although I have not really thought it through and, as I said, there is more evidence that we have to obtain. Because the issue that the petitioner has raised is of such gravity, I wonder whether it might be a candidate for a debate that the committee brings to Parliament, so that we have the oxygen of transparency and openness, and the opportunity for other members to contribute.

I know that we want to use that approach sparingly, and I do not have knowledge of how sparingly it has been used in the past—although you will know, of course, convener. Nonetheless, I feel instinctively that, because this is such a profoundly emotive, important and sensitive issue, there would be considerable interest from other members in hearing more about it.

The Deputy First Minister in his reply said that it would be open to the Fornethy sufferers of non-recent abuse to apply to the existing scheme; in other words, he did not say that they were ineligible. In fact, I think that the implication of his reply to the committee was that they may be eligible. The difficulty is, as you have said, convener, how that can be proven if the records are not there.

I wonder whether we might suggest a solution for the Fornethy victims that, given that it is not possible for them to demonstrate how they came to be in care, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Would that be possible? If someone is denied the opportunity to provide evidence because of the fact that public authorities have not kept that evidence properly—they have mislaid it or cannot find it—that is not the fault of the survivors. I know that that is not an in-principle answer, because if one has suffered in care, the explanation of how you came to be in care is not relevant. A victim is a victim, and as Victim Support Scotland argues in its submission, all victims should be entitled to redress.

That principle is easy to expound but more difficult to put into practice. I know that it has been considered by the previous Education and Skills Committee in far more detail, but I confess that I have not studied that, so I should put that on the record. Perhaps there are other arguments that I have not considered, but, in order to get a solution for the petitioners, I wonder whether we might make the point that it is simply not possible for those victims to provide evidence that they came to be in care because of a decision that was taken by a public authority. It appears that that is almost certainly the explanation for most cases of children who found themselves at that unfortunate place.