Contents
New Petitions
Local Authority Complaints Body (PE1659)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As members will recall, the committee agreed at last week’s meeting to defer consideration of six new petitions to today’s meeting.
The first new petition is PE1659 by Bill Tait, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent body with a remit to make findings of fact in complaints involving local authorities. Members have a copy of the petition and a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing.
The background information to the petition outlines concerns relating to the manner in which different councils handle similar issues, and the petitioner suggests that that might result in a
“lack of equity in the treatment of the Scottish people.”
The petition also comments that the current routes to making council complaints do not have
“the teeth to set in motion action to bring parity and justice”
to council complaints across Scotland.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
You will have to excuse me, convener—I think that I have come down with the lurgy or something.
I am sure that we have all been contacted by constituents frustrated with the way in which our local authorities operate, and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman does not always provide a satisfactory route for addressing those issues. The petitioner reflects the views of quite a number of people who have contacted me in the past with regard to local authority complaints, and I am certainly keen to see the petition move forward.
I agree. This is someone who is challenging the status quo, and it would definitely be worth taking forward the petition to find out the opinion of the Government and various stakeholders. It is a really interesting petition, and we should take it forward.
I think that many of my constituents will be very interested in this petition.
I think the same. The petition looks at what happens with outcomes, while others tend to narrow things down. As a result, I would really like to take it forward.
The petition raises an interesting argument about putting in place this kind of independent body versus having democratic accountability at a local level, which, inevitably, will mean that different places are different. There is also the fact that people’s degree of satisfaction with a decision sometimes depends on the extent to which the decision was the one that they wanted. We are all like that—it is entirely natural—but I suppose that it would be interesting to identify the fundamental principles with regard to fairness in the treatment of complaints.
I do not think that the process need necessarily be identical—I would not like to see it set in stone—but, as with common law, there would need to be a degree of consistency. If someone was not happy with something, the issue in question would need to be tested against what other people were doing. That is what this proposal is really about, instead of nailing it to an absolute and saying that everybody must do exactly the same thing. There needs to be checks and balances.
The ombudsman process can often be frustrating for people, because it looks only at the handling of the complaint rather than at the fundamental underlying issues.
I think that it has been suggested that we write to the Scottish Government. I believe that you mentioned other stakeholders, Rona. Whom would you suggest?
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would definitely need to be consulted, along with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Citizens Advice Scotland and anyone else who might have an interest.
I do not know whether there is a specific advocacy support organisation that we could write to. Those sorts of organisations might have a view, as they often get involved in supporting this kind of thing.
It would be useful to get the views of local government officials who manage the process and hear how they deal with complaints, but I do not know what the appropriate representative body would be. Obviously, there is COSLA, but I am just thinking about officials. It would not be the education body, but you know what I mean—it would be the body that represents not quite the chief executives but the folk who have to deal with complaints.
It might be worth getting the ombudsman’s view, although I guess what it would have to say would be fairly predictable. Nevertheless, we should consult it, given that we are talking about it.
Indeed. I think that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers is the body for the chief executives. It would be interesting to hear from it, given that its members have to manage complaints and the administrative process.
There are issues here that we can take forward and the committee clearly regards the petition as an interesting area to explore. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (Review) (PE1660)
Legal Profession (Regulation) (PE1661)
The next two new petitions are PE1660 by Bill Tait and PE1661 by Melanie Collins, both of which raise similar issues in relation to the current system for complaints about legal services in Scotland. Members have a copy of the petitions and the respective SPICe briefings.
PE1660 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the operation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to make the process of legal complaints more transparent and independent. PE1661 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform and amend the regulation of complaints about the legal profession in Scotland, which is currently delegated to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, by creating a new independent regulator of legal services with powers equivalent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Legal Ombudsman, the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, all of which serve consumers and clients of legal service providers in England and Wales.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on the petition?
First of all, I note that there is a review under way. However, although it was launched in April, it is not due to report until the end of next year, which seems an awfully long time.
I am concerned about a turkeys voting for Christmas arrangement with regard to oversight of this matter. There needs to be some clear water between lawyers and those who review them, and this feels a bit close for comfort. We should check where the review is going and what it is looking at, because if it has been launched, the question is whether we need to be doing something parallel alongside it.
Both petitions are extremely timely. Bill Tait and Melanie Collins have highlighted serious issues with regard to the legal profession and the way in which the SLCC operates in respect of complaints. I agree with Melanie Collins that there is a strong argument in favour of creating a new independent regulator of legal services, and I agree with Bill Tait’s call to make the process of legal complaints more transparent and independent.
In recent years, we have seen a degree of conflict between the SLCC and the Law Society of Scotland over the operation of the complaints system. I am sure that I was not the only MSP to receive representations from the Law Society earlier this year, stating frustration and disappointment at the increase in the SLCC levy to be paid by solicitors. It also stated that the complaints system was slow, complex, cumbersome and expensive. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the right time to look at this issue.
As Michelle Ballantyne has mentioned, the Scottish Government has acknowledged that the current process for people wishing to make complaints about their solicitor is too slow and complex, so I was certainly pleased to see the Scottish Government launch its independent review of the regulation. However, I take on board Michelle Ballantyne’s point about the review not being due to report back until the end of 2018; the period seems quite lengthy, but clearly, we can contact the Government for clarification. Given the similarity of the two petitions, there is a strong argument for joining them together to help move them forward.
First of all, does the committee agree to join the petitions together? It seems to me that they deal with the same issues.
Members indicated agreement.
Am I correct in thinking that the Law Society called for a change and was rebuffed?
I am not entirely sure—it certainly was not happy.
It was about the levy. It was not happy with some of the SLCC’s operation, but, as far as I am aware, it has not formally called for a change.
I thought that it was investigating this very point and was rebuffed. I might be wrong.
It would be worth getting it clear in our own heads where all of this stands. We can obviously ask for that information.
The suggestion is that we write to the Scottish Government about the review’s timescale and remit, and I think that we should write to the relevant stakeholder bodies to ask about what issues they have. It does not feel that long since the legislation was passed, so it would be a natural time to look at and reflect on whether it has been effective and what the alternatives might be. My sense is that, when the legislation went through Parliament, we wrestled with the options—it did not go through without debate. Perhaps we should look at whether this is a bedding-in issue or an actual structural problem and whether, as the petitioner suggests, the issue needs to be revisited and a different kind of regulatory body put in place.
I think that we have agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. Citizens Advice Scotland was mentioned, as was the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. Are there any others?
Would it be worth contacting the Judicial Complaints Reviewer? Although it deals with judicial complaints, as per the title, it would be good to get its view, if it has one. Of course, it is not compelled to reply.
Do we agree to deal with both petitions in that way?
Members indicated agreement.
Driven Grouse Shooting (PE1663)
The next new petition is PE1663, by Leslie Wallace, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to sponsor a comprehensive and independent study of the full economic impacts of driven grouse shooting. Members have a copy of the petition and a SPICe briefing.
The petition background information explains that there is a need for a study of the true economic value of grouse shooting that
“takes into account the latest research regarding grouse moor management and new factors, such as the role of potential natural flood alleviation work in the uplands and fully developed eco tourism initiatives.”
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I declare that Les Wallace is a constituent of mine, and I have had brief discussions with him about the petition and the overall issue.
The petition raises valid environmental concerns. The petitioner has clearly done extensive research and rightly highlights that there is no impartial study of the true economic value of grouse shooting. However, we know that the Scottish Government has announced that it is commissioning research into the costs and benefits of large shooting estates to Scotland’s economy and biodiversity. That work may address the petitioner’s concerns but, in the meantime, we should write to the Scottish Government asking for an update on where it is with its research and then look at the response.
As part of that, we need to ask the Government for the timescale for the research. We have established that the Government is doing it, but we have not got start and finish dates.
That is right.
Have we established that the Government is doing the research? According to the briefing, it was called for, but there is no evidence that it is being done.
It says that Roseanna Cunningham has
“announced extra measures to protect Scotland’s birds of prey. These measure[s] include that the Scottish Government will—
‘Commission research into the costs and benefits of large shooting estates to Scotland’s economy and biodiversity.’”
Yes, it says “Commission research”, but it then says:
“No further details are available about the research at the time of writing.”
We do not know whether the research has been commissioned, so that is the first thing to check.
So we want to establish whether the Government has acted on its commitment to commission research and what the timescale for that will be.
There seem to be a few petitions colliding on the management of grouse shooting estates. We have had one on mountain hares and one on raptors. There are quite a few flying through, and they all seem to be around the idea that the process is self-managed at the moment.
They are also on the tension between large estates and concerns about the environment and the protection of wildlife. It was interesting to hear last week that the mountain hare is thriving because of grouse.
Also, having subsequently had a wee look at it, I have found that other environmental issues are driving down the mountain hare population. The planting of spruce and conifers is driving the ferret, weasel and fox populations, which is decimating the hares. There is quite a tension.
It might be useful to bring together all the petitions and have a look at them. There is something about the unintended consequences and the impact of each issue on the other, which is what I think Brian Whittle is referring to. It would be useful to look at them together rather than at each one in isolation.
I suggest that we deal with this petition now and establish whether the research has been commissioned.
Yes.
We will also write to Scottish Natural Heritage to ask for its view. The raptors petition has gone to what I call the rural affairs committee, although it is called something much grander these days. It might be interesting to ask the clerks to pull together the petitions that have tried to address the tension between the management of the land and the protection of the environment.
Do we want to do anything else on the petition in the meantime?
Perhaps we should ask SNH for its views.
Okay.
Blasphemy and Heresy (PE1665)
The next new petition is PE1665, by Mark McCabe, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to abolish the common law crimes of blasphemy, heresy and profanity to the extent that they remain law. Members have a copy of the petition and a SPICe briefing. The committee has received one written submission in relation to the petition, from the Humanist Society Scotland.
The petition background information explains that blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England and Wales by section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and raises concerns that a similar change has not been made in Scotland.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I would be happy to repeal the law. It is outdated and does not sit well with our modern laws. That is my position.
I agree. The law seems to serve no purpose at all. The only concern is that there is so much legislation and so much happening that the issue may not be urgent, but I definitely think that there is merit in abolishing it.
There is silence.
I am looking for a profane or blasphemous response.
Brian Whittle and I are blasphemers, obviously, so we are not commenting.
Rona Mackay and I do not blaspheme, so we do not have a problem.
I take silence as assent. The Government might consider doing what the petition asks for, but it will not make that a priority. It is worth asking the Government for its views. We have the Humanist Society Scotland response, but I do not know whether we should seek information from any other people. I cannot think who that might be.
We should get the Government’s response for the moment. As I say, I cannot see the issue being made a priority, but there is no harm in asking for the Government’s views on it.
We should also ask how that fits with religious freedom and the right to express religious views and so on. Religious hatred is something that Parliament has discussed.
There are other laws on the statute books that cope with the difficulties that might arise or the objections that might come forward.
In that case, we are agreed that we will write to the Scottish Government and ask for its views not just on the law but on whether, if it were to do something about the issue, it had any timescale in mind.
Scottish Parliament Electoral Cycle (PE1666)
The next new petition is PE1666, by Ian Davidson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prepare legislation revoking the terms of the Scottish Elections (Dates) Act 2016. Members have a copy of the petition and a SPICe briefing.
The petition background information explains that four-yearly electoral cycles should be reinstated for the Scottish parliamentary elections and Scottish local government elections; in other words, for the next Scottish parliamentary elections to take place in 2020 and the next Scottish local government elections to take place in 2021. The background information explains that the original purpose of the legislation, which sought to avoid clashing with the Westminster general election’s five-year cycle, is no longer valid.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
It seems to me that the issue will be picked up anyway in the discussions at the end of this year, and I am not entirely clear about the benefit of making such a change at this stage.
It is interesting that, when the Parliament was established, it had a four-year cycle. We have had one five-year session of Parliament, and we are having another one. Would the Scottish Parliament vote against that? There is almost a self-interest, from the Scottish Parliament's point of view, in just leaving it the way it is. The purpose of extending the period to five years was to avoid a clash, but that does not apply any longer. The underlying argument is quite strong, but I am not sure whether the Government or the Parliament, having made that decision, would revoke it.
It is pointed out that the Government can use secondary legislation to make the change but has no plans to do so. We could write to the Government to get further clarification, but I think that it has made its position clear. If we want to continue the petition, we could ask the Government to clarify its position again.
The petition exposes an interesting anomaly, in that we were established with fixed-term Parliaments, which we have happily changed. That was for good reason, but—
There is no consistency.
Yes.
That is part of the problem with trying to decide in advance what to do in a political environment that does not necessarily conform to expectations.
If we were to decide to extend the period to six years or whatever, people would clearly say that that was not acceptable.
We might get a backlash.
I can see the rationale for a five-year session, but it is worth while to at least ask the Scottish Government to reflect on the petitioner’s views.
I think so.
I was thinking we might get time off for good behaviour.
We live in hope.
We need to establish where all this good behaviour is coming from. [Laughter.]
We are agreeing to write to the Scottish Government to seek its view on the petition and further information on when it intends to launch its consultation on electoral law and whether it will include consideration of the date of the next Scottish Parliament election as part of that consultation. If that is agreed, we can move on.
Members indicated agreement.
Mental Health and Incapacity Legislation (PE1667)
Our penultimate new petition is by W Hunter Watson. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a wide review of mental health and incapacity legislation and, in doing so, to take account of recent developments in international human rights law. Mr Watson is particularly concerned about the administration of medication and other treatments, in a covert fashion or otherwise, without consent.
With reference to changes in human rights law, Mr Watson considers that
“If legislation were enacted which took full account of recent relevant developments in the field of human rights then it is likely it would follow that: doctors could no longer prescribe that unwanted drugs be concealed in the food or drink of care home residents; care home residents could no longer be given potentially harmful drugs as chemical restraint; mental health patients could no longer be held down and injected with psychiatric drugs against their will; nor could they continue to be given ECT even though they resist or object to that treatment; and non-consensual treatment would be kept to an absolute minimum.”
Members should also note the submission from Mr Barry Gale, which is additional to the submissions in the clerk’s report and has been circulated this morning. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action that we may wish to take?
I have concerns about the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and its implementation. I would very much welcome a review of it. The Millan principles, which underpin it, have not always been adhered to. There are guidelines on how the legislation should be enacted. We have seen a rise in the use of care and treatment orders. The legislation needs reviewing urgently, so I very much support the petition, which needs to go forward.
This is a huge and complex issue that affects many people. I agree with Michelle Ballantyne, but we must always remember that the clinicians, medical staff and carers do a very difficult job. The last thing that we want to do is make their job more difficult. It is definitely worth exploring the issue and getting the views of all the people involved. This is a huge petition.
The petition throws up issues that have been underlying for a while around the mental health legislation. I agree that the petition is well worth pursuing, as it would give us a chance to investigate the situation.
09:45
There is no doubt that the petitioner presents a well-argued case in the papers. It has certainly convinced me that we need to take this further.
The petitioner and the submissions, including the one from Mr Gale, highlight the concerns and the anxiety that, when the care sector is under phenomenal pressure and is managing difficult circumstances without the resources, this is where it ends up. People are well intentioned, but they are dealing with difficult circumstances. Outlining the principles that should be involved is really useful.
We agree that the petition is serious and important. Do we agree to write to the Scottish Government and the Mental Welfare Commission?
And the Scottish Human Rights Commission.
In the light of Rona Mackay’s comments about the pressure on carers and staff, would it be worth speaking to them?
We need to have a view from them.
We could contact the professional organisations, and maybe the unions, that are most directly affected. It might be worth while to ask the clerk to look at what the relevant organisations are, which we can agree later.
The general principle is that we want to get a sense of the extent of the problem. The patient’s rights are of paramount interest, but we need to know the circumstances in which such challenges arise.
Do we agree that we recognise the petition’s importance and that we will contact the bodies that have been identified?
Members indicated agreement.
Independent Vaccine Safety Commission (PE1669)
The final new petition is PE1669, by Bill Welsh, which is on a proposal for an independent vaccine safety commission. Members have a copy of the petition and the SPICe briefing.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish an independent vaccine safety commission. The background information explains the petitioner’s view that there is evidence that the presence of solid contaminants in human vaccines has been linked to autoimmune disease and leukaemia. The petitioner has provided supplementary information, which is available on the petition web page, including the routine immunisation schedule that is published by Public Health England and Scottish schools’ annual pupil census information, which is published by the Scottish Government.
The petitioner provided feedback on the accompanying SPICe briefing that called for the responsibility for vaccine safety to be clarified. Members may wish to be aware that the briefing has been updated since our papers were circulated to clarify that no single body is responsible for the safety of vaccines. In addition to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which the briefing originally referenced, details of the role of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the European Medicines Agency have been added.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The petition is relevant for me because a constituent of mine came in this week to explain that her opinion is that two of her three sons have developed neural issues around the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. I have written to the Government to ask whether any research has been done on the link between the MMR vaccine and neural conditions. The petition is quite timely, and we should definitely write to the Government to at least have its view on the petition.
I was struck by the fact that the JCVI, which was created as a committee, does not have any real statutory footing. There is a question mark about where advice is coming from, whether bodies such as the JCVI should get recognition and whether they have been assessed as suitable to be recognised.
Vaccinations are an awfully complicated subject, because they are not tested in the same ways as drugs are before approval. There is a lot of conversation across the board about the safety of vaccinations and the processes by which they are tested and come on to the market.
The petition sits within a big subject that is already being raised. We should definitely not ignore it—it definitely needs to be taken forward—but I wonder how we sit it in the bigger conversation.
Confidence in the immunisation programme is an issue; by definition, there has to be confidence in it. We have seen the MMR issues, which were very alive in the Parliament’s early days. One might argue that there have been consequences when people have stepped out of the immunisation programme.
I do not know whether Angus MacDonald was on the committee in session 4 when the subject was discussed. The committee sought views from the various organisations and closed the petition at that time. The petitioner is entitled to bring such a petition back but, if we just go through the same process, I wonder how valid that will be, in that we would be asking organisations simply to reiterate what they have said. Do you have a view on that?
That was two years ago, so views might have changed—who knows? We would have to contact organisations to find out. The previous petition was closed on the basis that there was no support for what the petitioner sought.
At that time, did the petition seek exactly what the current petition seeks—a new statutory body?
I do not have the exact wording of the previous petition in front of me, but it was along the same lines.
Parliament has dealt with the issue before, but we are looking for an update, so we will write to the Scottish Government to seek its view on the petition and, again, to relevant stakeholders.
To clarify, the previous petition was PE1584, which called on the Scottish Parliament
“to urge the Scottish Government to set up an advisory committee within NHS Scotland to provide advice on immunisation and vaccination policy.”
That is a slightly different approach to what would be done.
There is a body that is recognised in the rest of the UK, and I suppose that the question is why there is resistance to recognising it here. I can see why the Scottish Government might not want to have to go through the whole motion of setting up a body, so I would ask what the objection is to having the JCVI as a recognised statutory body.
It is worth asking for an update on the Government’s stance, as the issue has come back. We should find out what its thinking is.
The petitioner, Bill Welsh, seems to be asking for more than the previous petition did, as the current petition refers to setting up an independent vaccine safety commission.
Do we agree that it is worth asking for views on that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
09:53 Meeting suspended.09:58 On resuming—
Next
Continued Petitions