Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, May 25, 2017

Official Report 586KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Drinking Water Supplies (PE1646)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. We have two new petitions to consider, the first of which is PE1646, by Caroline Hayes, on drinking water supplies in Scotland. We will hear evidence from the petitioner, who is accompanied by Lesley Dudgeon, the secretary of Kincraig and vicinity community council. I welcome them to the meeting, and I welcome Kate Forbes MSP, who will also speak to the petition.

The petitioner can make a brief opening statement of up to five minutes, after which we will move to questions from the committee.

Thanks very much for seeing us. Water is our most precious and important natural resource. It is vital to life, and Scotland has it in abundance. It is important for health, tourism, wildlife and a sustainable economy, and the Scottish Government has a responsibility to maintain and improve the quality of all fresh water in Scotland. The drinking water quality regulator for Scotland exists to ensure that the water is safe and pleasant to drink and that it has the trust of customers. It also ensures that issues that may affect drinking water quality in Scotland are adequately understood and that any knowledge gaps are filled through research.

In Badenoch and Strathspey, since the change in 2012 from Loch Einich to the aquifers in Kinakyle, there has been a problem with the water supply that the DWQR has still not acknowledged. This could be the tip of the iceberg for the whole of Scotland. The DWQR has been aware of the issues with taste, odour and skin irritation since 2012 but no monitoring of Scottish Water was done until the full audit in 2016, which concluded that everything was normal. We were told that there would be on-going discussions with the national health service, the DWQR and Scottish Water, but none took place.

When the problem was classified as a major event, the DWQR resolved to closely monitor water quality during chloramination, but that has produced no results. Given the dissatisfaction of locals, Drew Hendry MP and Scottish Water commissioned an independent survey that produced appalling results for Scottish Water, resulting in its having to admit that the taste and odour were substandard. The health issues that were identified in the survey have been admitted and, after an open meeting with local people, they have had to be addressed—but it has taken five years.

After that meeting with Dr Ken Oates, Moira Watson and the DWQR, Peter Farrer’s reassurances are hollow. It has been reiterated that

“the water is of a high quality and over the past five years has consistently met the strict standards”.

However, we know that that is not the case, because Peter Farrer told us in January:

“We would like to apologise that the taste of the water does not come up to the standard expected and also that it has taken us longer to make improvements than it should have”.

The same Peter Farrer says that Scottish Water’s mantra is to

“put our customers at the heart of our business.”

The standards are not picking up the problems. Local doctors made their concerns known to the health board in 2012 and again in 2015. Why is the DWQR not investigating or enforcing the standards? Where are the long-term studies of the effects of chloramination? There are none.

Scottish Water sent us a postcard—I have it here. It has apologised for the taste and odour issues and, in order to resolve them, it is adding ammonia to the chlorine. Chloramine is a water disinfectant that is 200 times less effective than chlorine at killing E coli, rotavirus and so on, and it is far more difficult to remove, but it is cheap. What detriment to human health is caused by the disinfection by-products? Scottish Water may simply be trading regulated DBPs for unregulated ones such as—I have written them down, but they are difficult to pronounce—N-nitrosodimethylamine, iodinated DBPs and hydrazine. There are no risk assessments for the unregulated ones.

There is also evidence of disinfection by-product exposure via inhalation during showering, but there have been no follow-up studies to confirm the risks. A Cranfield University study concludes that, in the UK, only one group of DBPs is regulated—the trihalomethanes, which have a permitted level of 100µg at the taps. Further investigations are needed, as there is limited sampling, and we need more information on the occurrence of NDMA where there are health concerns. For a number of chemicals, the toxicity database is grossly inadequate or absent.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is concerned over the lack of data on iodinated DBPs, which makes sound assessments of the risks that they pose in drinking water impossible. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency does not hold enough information on chloramines and their effects on weakened immune systems in infants, the elderly, those undergoing chemotherapy and those with HIV, nor does it hold information on their incompatibility for dialysis patients.

Risk assessments that are based on incomplete data are not sound. Despite the interaction of all the chemicals that are used in the industry, there are no cumulative risk assessments. Therefore, the system is not robust enough.

The DWQR’s job is to monitor the risks. There are efficient and sustainable alternative options for water treatment that are based on ion exchange, ultra-violet light, ceramic membranes and advanced oxidation, which offer lower lifecycle costs, greater efficiency and much lower environmental impacts. Publicly owned companies have a responsibility to use those. Although evidence about whether many chemicals pose any significant threat to public health may be lacking, removing them as an additional benefit of treatment for other purposes is advantageous.

09:45  

Thank you. The first part of your petition calls for the role of the DWQR to be reviewed, and the briefing that has been prepared for us sets out in detail the DWQR’s role as described on its website. Do you have any comments on the description of its role measured against your experience? Is there a gap between what it reports itself to be responsible for and your experience of what it has done in your case?

Yes. It is not monitoring, sampling and assessing the information or following up on it. Its job is to look at what happens in Scottish Water and monitor it, and it is not doing that.

Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. You perhaps covered this in your opening remarks and your answer to the convener’s question. The DWQR’s description of its role is that it exists to ensure three things: that drinking water is safe, that it is pleasant to drink and that it has the trust of consumers.

It is not doing any of those things.

That is what I was going to ask you.

What is it there for? It is like a chocolate fireguard. I am sorry—I maybe should not have said that.

That is very succinct. You mentioned in your opening remarks that there has been no cumulative risk assessment.

No. The water industry puts lots of different chemicals in the water. It uses phosphates to line the lead pipes, and there are lots of places that I know around Aviemore that have lead pipes. The plumbers say that, when they cut into them, they see the stuff lining the pipes. Scottish Water adds phosphate to line the pipes, it adds ammonia, it adds chlorine—all of those chemicals come together in our water, but Scottish Water is not carrying out cumulative risk assessments.

Good morning. I have a supplementary question on the implementation of any recommendation. Who has that responsibility?

For implementation?

Yes. If there are recommendations, once the testing has been done, because of issues with the water, who is responsible for implementing those recommendations? Do you know who has the responsibility for ensuring that any recommendations are enforced?

It is the DWQR, which is overseen by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government is at the top, with Scottish Water, the DWQR and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency under it. Those agencies should all work together, but they do not seem to be working together.

Sorry—perhaps I am not answering your questions.

I am not asking particularly good questions.

My understanding is that SEPA does not have responsibility for private water and only has responsibility for public water.

I am trying to understand, if there is an issue with the water, the DWQR does the monitoring—

It is supposed to regulate the whole industry.

Is the DWQR supposed to have the power to ensure that recommendations are implemented? Is that where responsibility sits?

I think that it regulates itself.

Yes. No one regulates the DWQR. The Scottish Government should be regulating the body. That is what we are asking you guys to look at.

That was a convoluted way to get to the answer that I was looking for.

Sorry, but I was not really sure what you were asking.

Thank you.

Somebody has to take responsibility. For five years, we have tried to resolve the situation. We have had meetings, but Scottish Water does not listen.

It sends out standard replies.

It sends them to doctors.

The replies say that everything is fine and that the water quality falls within the regulations.

They say that everything is within the normal parameters.

They say that everything is being run just lovely. That is all that Scottish Water says.

But the problem keeps on coming back. In 2012, when the water was changed over, the doctor in Aviemore went to the public health authorities. They got in touch with Scottish Water, which sent back a stock reply. In 2015, the same thing happened again. Scottish Water keeps on telling us that there are no problems with the water.

In the background to your petition you say that, despite carrying out a full audit, the DWQR found no issues with the treatment works in your area.

Exactly.

Will you explain how the full audit came about? Was that a regular audit as part of its Scotland-wide audit programme, or was it initiated at your request?

No, the audit happened because there had been complaints. There was a major—

The DWQR has said that it has done a full audit and that it found no issues. However, as I have mentioned, Scottish Water was sending out postcards to everyone saying that, if people were unhappy with their water—because there is obviously a problem here—the good news was that the water was changing. There are two agencies that are not working together.

The DWQR’s audit says:

“Between March and June of 2016, 36 complaints were received by Scottish Water regarding water quality”.

The summary of those complaints included unpleasant taste and skin irritation. However, the DWQR is not monitoring the situation. It has not done any monitoring, even though that is its job.

With regard to the boreholes, Scottish Water says that it has a state-of-the-art treatment plant. It keeps fobbing us off and telling us that it all works, but it does not. Scottish Water had to clean out the distribution pipes. It did that at night, but I happened to see the guy when he came to do that. There was this black stuff that came out of the pipes. Where is that coming from? There is a picture of that. We have loads of pictures.

Any information that you have brought along will be circulated to the committee afterwards.

Good morning. Our briefing pack tells us that chloramination, which is what Scottish Water is doing to the water in your area, is widely used throughout the United Kingdom and that it plans to expand its use throughout Scotland. Are you aware of any other problems or experiences similar to yours in the UK?

We know that there have been problems in Fort William, and Scottish Water uses chloramination there.

I am trying to ascertain whether there are issues beyond Scottish Water because, obviously, if those are happening throughout the UK, it will not be a Scottish Water issue because it does not operate south of the border.

Wales does not have these problems because chloramines are not put in the water there.

I am trying to find out whether the issue is particularly localised.

No. Chloramines are put in the water in other places, too.

I think that chloramination is done in 14 places in the UK. A lot of those places do not know that that process is used.

Has chloramination improved your water?

No.

It tastes metallic.

We would have brought some today and you could all have had a taste, but we were not allowed to bring liquids into the Parliament building.

Scottish Water says that chloramines do not have a “significant taste or odour”, unlike chlorine, which can have a stronger effect. That is not your experience.

That is not the case.

No, it is not. Our water tastes metallic now. We are not sure, but it could be the water source that is the issue.

I have sensitive information. The press has been hounding us. I do not want the press to get hold of this, but I would really like you guys to see it, because it is incredibly important.

As I have said, we will make sure that the committee has sight of all the materials that you provide to us.

Good morning, ladies. Our briefing refers to the DWQR’s 2015 annual report. The report provides statistics on compliance and what it refers to as

“contacts … from consumers who are dissatisfied with the quality of their supply”.

It says that there was 99.92 per cent compliance with the standards that are set out in legislation and the European Union drinking water directive and that only 0.2 per cent of consumers reported

“concerns with the quality of their supply”.

What are your thoughts on those figures?

Scottish Water has published its results from 2012 to 2015. There are a whole load of measurements. If you look through the results, from top to bottom, they do not change. That does not happen when you monitor something. There were a lot of gaps and only twice in the whole of that time was the smell of chlorine noticed. If Scottish Water does not put in its notes that there is a smell of chlorine, of course it will fulfil the parameters. It is not putting down information to be assessed.

What was the first part of your question? You mentioned something else.

I asked for your thoughts on the figures and the low percentage of consumers who had reported concerns—the official figure in the DWQR’s report was 0.2 per cent. Have you challenged it on that?

No, I have not challenged the DWQR. However, we know from our experience that people do not complain, because they are not listened to. They are fed up with not being listened to.

Scottish Water has had numerous and regular meetings throughout the strath and all the different villages. It has attended the Association of Scottish Community Councils and met community councils in the national park. If there were no complaints, why would Scottish Water be running all those meetings? It is running all the meetings to try to alleviate the problems that we are having in our communities.

When Lesley went to one meeting, she was arguing with her husband as they were coming up the stairs, because they thought that they were going to be late. The room was full of people, but someone said to her, “It’s okay, you are the first people here.”

We were looking in the window and I could see loads of people in the room. I wondered how we could be the first people here, given that I could see people in front of me. It turned out afterwards that they were all Scottish Water employees.

They had been bused in.

Like me, people were arriving thinking that the community had turned up to the meeting but, when we got to the room, we were thinking, “Wait a minute,” because there were people there who were not from our community.

When Scottish Water held the meeting, it separated everybody. It asked everyone to write down their questions.

People were not allowed to ask a question.

We were not allowed to sit in a room and listen to everyone else’s opinion. Scottish Water got people to write on a piece of paper what their concerns were. It then answered those points individually.

10:00  

We said that we did not know what people from other villages were asking and what other concerns people had, and we were told that the Scottish Water people would sum it all up for us at the end. That is not a public meeting. A public meeting is when the public can go and speak out, speak to other people and find out about things. That is why the water action group was set up in Badenoch and Strathspey in 2016. We wanted to bring together all the information from the villages across the strath and start monitoring and writing down all the health complaints. We go to the doctors and pharmacists. We have now managed to pull all that information together, which means that Scottish Water cannot turn round and say that it has no complaints and does not know about the issues, because we know that it does know about them. However, after five years, it does not want to address those issues.

We did a survey to find out whether we should come to the committee, and we can give you all of that information.

That would be helpful.

I want to follow up on the meetings that were held. According to our briefing, Scottish Water’s web page says that five information events were held in May and June 2016, with a follow-up information event and public meeting in March 2017. From your comments, it is fair to say that you were less than impressed with that.

Scottish Water got a very difficult time in 2016, because our residents have had enough. We are buying bottled water and having to get springs reopened. We are paying for a product that none of us can use. After five years, people are at the end of their tether. Drinking water is the most vital of basics and, if we cannot get it, we have to look at alternatives for getting it.

Did you both attend all those meetings?

I did not attend all of them.

I attended most of them.

I note that Scottish Water plans to hold a further event for residents in Badenoch and Strathspey in November. Do you intend to go along to that?

Yes.

Yes.

Your petition calls for independent research into the safe chloramination of drinking water. Our briefing identifies a variety of sources of evidence regarding the health effects of chloramine in drinking water. What is your response to the fact that those sources—the World Health Organization, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the International Agency for Research on Cancer—have referred to “limited evidence”, a “lack of published evidence” and “inadequate evidence”?

You have just said it—there is a lack of evidence. According to a European Union directive, nothing that is potentially damaging to health can be put in the water. We have photographs and we have heard about skin complaints. We have loads of information that water is affecting people’s health.

As everybody knows from listening to the news, the NHS is fairly stressed. If this is another tip of the iceberg, and all these people are attending hospitals and so on, surely the issue should be taken into account.

You talked about information. The Cranfield University study that I spoke about, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government, said that there is not enough information.

I thank the witnesses for that information. Obviously, over the past few months, I have been made aware of people’s concerns to do with taste and odour and skin issues. Will you sketch out for the committee the impact on people that you are aware of? For example, you mentioned buying bottled water.

The use of bottled water has increased in our area because people cannot drink the tap water. In Aviemore, we have a large tourism industry and a lot of people come for holidays. In restaurants and hotels, when people ask for tap water, staff have to say, “Well, we can give you it, but you can’t really drink it.” That is having an effect on our tourism industry. Even though it is a lovely area, a lot of people who work in the industry in Aviemore are not on high wages. For families who are on lower incomes, a lot of their wages are now going on buying bottled water.

It is difficult, because we had—I would say—the best water supply when it came from the top of the mountain, but now we have the worst. There was a taste test on “The One Show”. The programme took samples of our water and Manchester’s water—I think that it took them to Perth, although I am not sure about that—and got people to taste them. Of course, the people were all saying, “This is the Highland water and this is the water from Manchester,” but they were physically spitting it out when they tasted the Highland water. They could not believe what they were drinking.

I spoke to Dr Jachacy, who has just retired from the Aviemore surgery, and he said that, statistically, the kids are getting badly affected. Aviemore has a very transient young population, with lots of people coming in and going out. If a child has eczema and their hands are all bandaged up and bleeding, the whole family are affected, because they cannot sleep.

Since the change to the water supply in 2012, there have been additional changes such as the flushing out and, in April this year, the chloramination. What differences have you noted in people’s concerns over that time?

The Strathspey and Badenoch water action group monitors the whole of the valley, and reading its Facebook page has been a good way of keeping tabs on what is going on. There does not seem to have been any change. On Tuesday, people in Kingussie were saying that even boiling the water does not help, because it does not get rid of the chloramination.

Lots of people in the strath have things to filter the water, but chloramination is very stable. That is why they use it. It stays in the pipes for much longer and it is very difficult to remove. It cannot be removed with a table-top filter. You have to get specialist equipment. Scottish Water did not tell us that when it was introduced.

Rona, do you have a question?

My question has been answered.

As there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your evidence today.

I think that there are a lot of issues that the committee will want to pursue. Do members have views on what we should do with the petition?

There are several fundamental questions. Who is testing the water? What are the test protocols? Who is analysing the results and making recommendations? Who has the power to enforce the recommendations? Is there any conflict of interest there? With those questions in mind, I think that we should ask the DWQR, Scottish Water and SEPA to give evidence, because this is a recurring issue.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is important to give Scottish Water an opportunity to respond. We can consider whether that should be in an evidence-taking session. I think that we should also write to the Scottish Government so that we can understand its role. We know that the Parliament has a role in scrutinising Scottish Water’s work and its reports.

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Water and the regulator, SEPA. Another suggestion is that we write to the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. I also wonder whether there are groups that we should ask. I am interested in the way in which Scottish Water consulted. The idea that a public meeting is held but everybody is spoken to individually is quite unique, in my experience—well, it is not quite unique; it is unique.

The people from Scottish Water said that that is the new, modern way of having a public meeting.

Perhaps it is to avoid people shouting at them—they deconstruct the meeting.

Brian Whittle mentioned some questions. Are there others that members want to flag up with the organisations?

The Strathspey and Badenoch water action group seems to devote a lot of time to the issue. Perhaps we should invite it to give evidence.

Given the concerns that have been raised about the health impacts, we could write to the health board to ask for its views; I do not know whether it would be in order for us to write to the GPs in Aviemore.

There is an NHS research paper synopsis that highlights the lack of convincing data from long-term studies into the effects on public health of chloraminated water.

It would be good if you could share that paper, or a link to it, with the clerks.

I do not have it.

Okay. We can trace it.

We should certainly write to the health board to ask for its views.

I go back to Rona Mackay’s point. You describe specific issues, but the committee might want to look more generally at the national policy implications as opposed to conducting an inquiry into the petitioner’s water supply. We want to know whether there are issues that are not being addressed. The petition focuses on the role of the regulator. We want to know what measurements are taken and how the regulator responds to consumer concerns.

It would also be interesting to explore the relevant EU directives. I find it hard to believe that a large public body would not be adhering to EU regulations. We need to tease that out. I think that the petitioner said that there are certain things that cannot be put into water under EU regulations. I am pretty sure that Scottish Water will stick to those, but we need to find that out.

Only one of the drinking water disinfectant by-products is measured in Britain—TTHM, the level of which is reduced by using chloramines. I talked about the cumulative effect; all the different levels are not added up. The EU directive says that the total must be under 100µg per litre. Because only one of the substances is regulated, all the various levels cannot be added up. Only one of them is measured.

That would all come out in evidence.

We hear what Caroline Hayes and Lesley Dudgeon have said about their concerns. We want to look at the general context to establish whether there is a structure in place to address such problems wherever they emerge.

My sense is that the committee thinks that it would be worth while obtaining more written evidence and then taking further oral evidence. We can perhaps discuss what such a session would look like once we have received initial responses from all the different groups that members have identified.

I wonder whether it would be in order to inform the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee of the petition at this early stage by passing on to it the Official Report of today’s meeting, given that it has oversight of Scottish Water, SEPA and the DWQR. We could make it aware of the situation and keep it in the loop about any further evidence that is taken.

At the Conveners Group, I made a presentation on the role of the Public Petitions Committee. One of the discussions that we had was about what is expected when we pass petitions over to other committees; we also discussed the need to ensure that there is an information exchange so that other committees know what we are considering that might be relevant to their work. We will make sure that we take up Angus MacDonald’s suggestion.

I think that it would be fair to say that we want to seek information and written responses but, following that, we expect to take further oral evidence to address the general issue of making sure that localised concerns are dealt with by having a robust regulatory framework. Many issues have been flagged up today that we are keen to address with the relevant agencies, including Scottish Water, the regulator and the Government. Is that acceptable?

Thanks very much. That is brilliant.

Thank you very much for your attendance.

10:14 Meeting suspended.  

10:18 On resuming—  

---

NHS Scotland (Protection for Employees) (PE1647)

The second new petition for consideration is PE1647, by Angus O’Henley, on protection for all employees of NHS Scotland. Mr O’Henley is unable to attend the meeting, but members have a copy of the petition and a note by the clerks.

The petition calls for the creation of a specific statutory offence covering the assault of any employee of NHS Scotland while that employee is providing any patient service. The petitioner acknowledges the protection that is provided to certain employees under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, but considers that there is a gap in the legislation that means that other employees in the national health service do not have the same protection. Mr O’Henley says that those staff are often on the front line—for example, administrative or reception staff, porters, cleaners or auxiliary and trainee nurses.

The clerk’s note refers to the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which advises that any such assault can already be prosecuted under existing criminal offences, such as the common-law offence of assault. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the clerk’s note provide further context in respect of the 2005 act. It notes that the petition refers only to “assault” and does not refer to “obstruction” or “hindering”, which are also offences under the 2005 act. Section 5 of the act offers protection on hospital premises to anyone who assists doctors, nurses, midwives or ambulance staff without requiring that that be in an emergency situation.

The SPICe briefing also refers to the Protection of Workers (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by Hugh Henry in 2010. Although there was no disagreement that workers who serve the public deserve protection, there was no agreement on how best that might be achieved without duplicating existing legislation, and the bill fell at stage 1.

Paragraphs 17 to 21 of the clerk’s note cover sentencing. It is suggested that, if the issue is highlighted, sentences might become tougher if the courts take account of any aggravating factors.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on the petition?

Just to clarify, does the petitioner suggest that the offence of assault in a medical or NHS environment should carry a tougher sentence?

My understanding is that the intention is to underline the seriousness of such an assault. If my recollection is right, the context for the 2005 act was the example of firefighters being called out to emergencies and then being ambushed by young people, who threw stones at them and so on. In an emergency, staff are already at risk; the petitioner wants the courts to recognise assault in such situations as an aggravation.

The debate that emerges from that is whether it is just emergency workers who are at risk. To some extent, Hugh Henry’s bill was prompted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the recognition that people who work in retail can often be put in situations in which they are at risk.

All the legislative proposals were driven by the recognition that assaulting people when they are going about their business, doing a job on the front line and trying to provide a service is a significant issue that we would want the courts to take into account. The argument is about where the balance lies in legislating for that.

The proposal is to take an existing part of the common law and replicate it as a new offence; it would not extend any new protections, because the law to protect people is already there. As you say, however, the issue could be highlighted.

The same argument applies to stalking legislation and perhaps—I have not looked in detail at it—domestic abuse legislation: although such crimes can be pursued as a breach of the peace or an assault, they can also be placed in the context of a broader set of behaviours. Hate crime is the same—it is about trying to recognise the context and the motivation.

I sense that the committee is sympathetic to the issue that Mr O’Henley identifies in his petition. We recognise that it is not just doctors, nurses and other medical staff who are affected. Many people work in the health service and try to do their best, and for them to be assaulted in the workplace is not acceptable. The question is whether the petitioner’s proposals would solve the problem. It might be worth while testing that and asking for a response from people who might have an interest in the issue.

The petition seems to apply to NHS employees. However, as you said, convener, the proposal could be extended to assault at work, wherever that may be—it could cover bus drivers or retail workers, for example.

I do not want to put words into the petitioner’s mouth, but he seems to say that it is not just people who have a medical role in a hospital who are placed at risk. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of people who are trying to do their best becoming the focus of aggression—general practice receptionists, for example, or hospital porters. There is no distinction—we want to acknowledge that the folk who do those jobs are equally deserving of protection. The question is whether the model suggested by the petitioner would work and would have the desired effect.

There is also the ticket collector on the train. There is a law to protect people from any assault. I have seen such situations when I ran factories—people were assaulted, we got the police in and the person was charged. Why cannot we use that law?

My question relates to the assault of a fireman or ambulance paramedic attending an emergency—which you highlighted, convener, and about which we have anecdotal evidence—and whether that constitutes a higher level of offence. That is where I come at this from. I would be interested to hear from the Crown Office, for example, on the practicalities of such an approach. We all recognise that the petitioner is highlighting an issue, but the question is whether there is a practical solution.

I suggest that we try to find out some more. We are not completely ruling out the petition; we should test it against the Scottish Government’s views. Mr Whittle is right to suggest that we contact the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It would also be interesting to know whether the unions in the health service have a view. I do not know whether the Law Society of Scotland routinely comments on such questions, but it is likely to have a view on whether legislating would add protection, so it would be worth hearing from it.

That would be a good start for us.

We will contact the unions, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and NHS Scotland. Do members think that the Health and Safety Executive would have a view? Are there further suggestions of organisations from which we could seek information?

The Crown Office will definitely have a view on how the proposal could be carried out.

We recognise that the petition highlights an issue. Whether the suggested solution is the right one is a separate question, but we consider it worth examining it further. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.