Contents
New Petitions
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (Prosecutions) (PE1786)
Agenda item 3 is new petitions. The first new petition for consideration is PE1786, which was lodged by Andrew Muir. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to investigate why there have been no prosecutions under either section 315 or section 318 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.
Although the petition states that there have been no prosecutions under sections 315 or 318 of the 2003 act, recent information provided by Scottish Government officials indicates that, during the 10-year period from 2008-09 to 2017-18, there were 40 prosecutions under section 315 of the 2003 act, with 25 resulting in conviction. There were, however, no cases under section 318.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I ask Jackie Baillie to contribute again.
My constituents have been busy in submitting petitions to the committee. I know the petitioner, and that the petition is born out of personal experience of the mental health system. I recognise that the petition calls for an investigation into why no prosecutions have occurred under sections 315 and 318 of the 2003 act but, as the convener helpfully pointed out, there appear to have been some prosecutions under section 315.
I will therefore focus my comments on section 318, which relates to the making of false statements in a written document relating to the 2003 act. Detentions need consent from a specialist worker, which is usually a specialist social worker who is designated as a mental health officer. However, we know that compliance with that requirement varies dramatically across the country. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway, the figure is 83 per cent, but in my patch, in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area—which is where the petitioner comes from—the figure is as low as 33 per cent. That suggests that there is a failure to observe the law. If that is happening routinely, the question is why there are not more prosecutions under section 318.
I would be grateful if the committee would consider taking the petition further to find out whether the law is being upheld, why there have been no prosecutions under section 318 and whether there is a more serious underlying problem of people not observing the law, which exists for a good reason.
I am fully aware of the case and entirely agree with what Jackie Baillie says. It is incredible that there is not the same level of compliance everywhere. That could clearly lead to some of the issues that the petitioner has highlighted. Therefore, I support that suggestion.
I fully agree. We should write to the Scottish Government to ask for its views on the petition, and to any other relevant stakeholders.
We can ask the clerks to look into that. One of the most obvious is probably the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. We could write to ask for its views on the petition. Given what Jackie Baillie has said about what might underlie the issue, we would want to get more information about it.
Does the committee agree that we should write to the Scottish Government and the Mental Welfare Commission to seek their views, and to any other relevant stakeholders that the clerks may identify?
Members indicated agreement.
Cytomegalovirus Screening in Pregnancy (PE1788)
The second new petition for consideration today is PE1788, which was lodged by Alexander Tiffin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce screening for cytomegalovirus for all pregnant women. CMV is a virus similar to the herpes virus that causes cold sores and chickenpox. It can infect people of all ages, and most adults and children with the virus will have no signs or symptoms. CMV can cause problems in unborn babies if the mother catches it when pregnant, which is known as congenital CMV. It is estimated that around 2,000 children are born with CMV in the UK each year.
In 2012, the UK National Screening Committee recommended against screening for CMV. That decision was reviewed in 2017 and the recommendation was still considered to be valid. Screening is not recommended in pregnancy, because there is still no reliable screening test to detect CMV infection during pregnancy and no treatment has been identified that could prevent the developing baby in the womb from getting the CMV infection from their mother.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The evidence that we have in front of us—that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the NSC do not recommend screening at all—leaves us with nowhere to go. The committee has no option but to close the petition.
I do not know about that. This is an important issue for women, so I do not feel comfortable about closing the petition. We should write to the Scottish Government. I understand what David Torrance has said about NICE and so on, but my hunch is that we should progress the matter a bit further and find out what the Scottish Government says. In the light of that, we can consider where we go with the petition. The petitioner is looking for confidence.
We have to decide whether there is a benefit in writing to the Scottish Government. It may just reflect back what we already know, which is that screening is not recommended, because there is no reliable test. Even if there were such a test, no treatment has been identified.
We have been informed that, although the NSC’s recommendation is against screening, that will be reviewed in 2020-21. If we close the petition, we could provide the petitioner with information about that review, and they might be able to engage directly with it. The NSC might take the same view after that review, but perhaps it could at least consider the petitioner’s views when it looks at the issue.
Will the review results be published in 2021?
We are told that the matter will be reviewed in 2020-21, so I assume that its conclusions will be published in 2021. If the petitioner could engage with that review, that might be the most positive way for them to try to shape the thinking. I sense that the matter is kept under review all the time, but there will be a formal review between 2020 and 2021.
So the NSC keeps a close watch on the issue.
Do members agree to close the petition, on the basis of what we know about the most recent review, with the recognition that the issue will be reviewed again and that the petitioner can engage with that review?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for engaging with the committee. They have the opportunity to engage with the review and could bring back the petition in a year’s time if they felt that that would be worth while.
I now close the public part of the meeting and move us into private session.
10:37 Meeting continued in private until 10:59.Previous
Continued Petitions