Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Agenda item 2 is consideration of 11 petitions that have been carried forward from session 4. For each petition, we have received a briefing note and copies of submissions that have been received since our predecessors considered the petitions. I intend to go through each petition in turn and invite comments from members on the action that we may wish to take. We are aware that the petitioners have strong views on all the petitions and have maintained communication with the committee on them.
Youth Football (PE1319)
The first continued petition is PE1319, from Willie Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football in Scotland. Before we discuss the petition, I should let members know that I have been aware of the petition since my time as the member for Glasgow Pollok and I have known Willie Smith for many years, not just through the petition but through his work in youth football in that community.
The petition is one of the oldest that we have before us, and it is evident that a lot of useful work has been done on it. That said, I am keen for us to make progress on the issues that remain outstanding and to be proactive in seeking views and information from relevant stakeholders. The Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League have outlined the actions that they intend to take, and we also have a response from the Scottish Government—a letter from the minister Aileen Campbell. The suggestion from the Government, the SFA and the SPFL is that time should be allowed to see how the measures work before external regulation is considered. It would be useful to ask the Government, the SFA and the SPFL for information about the timetable for introducing the measures and assessing whether they are working.
It is fair to say that other stakeholders have a different view on whether the measures that have been suggested adequately address the concerns that the petition raises. It would therefore be useful to get views from the Professional Footballers Association Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, as well as youth and school football organisations. We know from correspondence that the petitioners and others do not feel that the views of the Scottish Government, the SFA and the SPFL reflect what is actually happening. I would welcome comments or suggestions from members.
There is an issue in football with the turnover of children under the age of 16 through clubs and the way in which that is sometimes handled—that has always been a bit of a concern. Clubs identify kids as young as nine, 10 or 11 and cull them annually. I am concerned about the impact that that has on the kids and their ability not just to participate in football but to move on to other sports. I make the general comment that the way in which many football clubs deal with youth is not particularly helpful.
Do you think that the petition will help to deal with that? Is that what it is trying to do?
The petition highlights the issue, but it only scratches the surface. It pertains particularly to football, but there is an impact across all activity. The rejection of kids that happens in football clubs has been shown anecdotally to have a negative impact on youth across the board.
A number of issues have been raised through the petition, but the live issue is the ability of clubs to take young people on one-year contracts that end up being three-year contracts, under which they are not paid and are not allowed to play for their local teams. One thing that exercises the petitioners is the idea that the clubs will retain that right, even under the proposals that have been made by the SFA, the SPFL and the Scottish Government. Under those proposals, although players could play for their local teams, there would be a welfare clause. If we give the football clubs a welfare clause, they will exercise that if they want to protect their investment.
I think that Brian Whittle is referring to the issue of clubs bringing in a number of children in order to get one that they think might be a star. The clubs then reject the rest, which puts those children off sport and does not allow them to be involved in sport locally.
I note that quite a lot of kids are allowed to play only for their club but do not get a chance to play for that club. What kids at that age want to do is kick a ball, but they are not getting the opportunity to do that in a competitive environment. How do we deal with that? If someone aged 13, 14 or 15 is not getting a game and all that they are doing is sitting on the bench, that has to be a welfare issue. When do they get the opportunity to play football?
10:30
It is a question of managing the tension between local football teams nurturing young people and big clubs coming in and taking them. Competition is an issue. There are a lot of complicated issues, but my sense is that the petitioners do not feel that the responses that they have received on what is to happen next genuinely reflect where the organisations are. Do committee members have specific proposals for action?
I agree with your suggestion, convener, that the relevant people should be brought in and listened to. We could invite PFA Scotland, the Scottish Schools Football Association, the Scottish Youth Football Association and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland to give their views.
Do we agree that it would be worth while to have an oral evidence session on the issue?
I think so. The issue is huge.
Members indicated agreement.
It might be an idea to give the clubs an opportunity to put their case across. I am not suggesting that we invite all the SPFL clubs, but we could invite one or two in order to understand what they are trying to do.
Others will know more about this than I do, but I sense that the SFA and the SPFL are at the mercy of what the clubs want. They may have a policy, but it will be for the clubs collectively to agree to it, and that might be slightly more challenging.
Outcome-wise, the welfare of the children is paramount.
Does the players union play a part in that?
Not at the age that we are discussing.
The players union is quoted in Aileen Campbell’s letter as having been actively engaged, but it would be worth checking with it what its level of engagement is.
Given the responses that we have had from the SFA, the SPFL and the minister, it would be worth while for us to ask the other organisations that have been named for their responses and to take further evidence. As members have said, we could ask for more information from the petitioners, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the PFA Scotland, the SFA and the Scottish Youth Football Association with a view to having an evidence session later.
I totally agree with the consensus. Can the clerk confirm that the letter dated 27 June from RealGrassroots has been made public?
It will be.
William Smith and Scott Robertson dispute a number of the minister’s comments—particularly the claim that
“PFA Scotland were included in ‘extensive discussions’”
with Scottish Government officials. The letter goes on to raise other concerns about statements in the minister’s letter. I am keen to have the minister’s response on those disputed comments to help to move the situation forward.
That is another excellent suggestion. We are clear that we want to continue to look at the issue and to explore further the gap between what the minister believes to be the case and what the petitioners and others believe to be the case. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Pernicious Anaemia and Vitamin B12 Deficiency (Understanding and Treatment) (PE1408)
The second continued petition is PE1408, from Andrea MacArthur, on updating the understanding and treatment of pernicious anaemia and vitamin B12 deficiency. This is another quite old petition that has resulted in some positive action being taken by the Scottish Government. The petitioner has continued to correspond on what she feels are outstanding issues, and those are outlined in the briefing paper. I would be interested in members’ views on what action the committee should take.
Am I right in saying that the traditional way of identifying the condition is through a straightforward blood test and red blood cell count?
Convener, can I comment on that, as I happen to know a bit about it?
Yes. I welcome Elaine Smith to the committee.
A blood test does not necessarily pick up the condition in people who are very ill with it. It is related to other issues, such as thyroid problems and problems with the endocrinological system. There are similar issues with diagnosis and treatment and the condition not being picked up.
Can I clarify that? Are you saying that, in really bad cases, when people are extremely ill, the condition is not picked up?
It depends what you mean by “really bad cases”. For a lot of people, a blood test does not pick up the condition, with the result that they get more and more ill. Many people go for private testing for the condition to make sure that things are thoroughly explored. If someone is on multivitamins, that can lead to a wrong reading in a blood test.
I am not a huge expert—I am not a doctor—but that is my understanding from having looking into the condition.
With anaemia, a red blood cell count is done.
But we are talking about pernicious anaemia, which runs in families—it can be a genetic thing. My grandfather had it and my aunt has it.
The main symptom of vitamin B12 deficiency can come across as tiredness. Am I right? I am sorry—I am asking you questions of a medical nature.
I am not a doctor, but I read the briefing out of interest, and the petitioner has outlined some of the symptoms, which include tiredness such that someone would not be able to work. In that respect, the condition is similar to undiagnosed underactive thyroid.
It is the second-stage testing that there is a question about. My understanding is that, subsequently to our predecessor committee’s consideration of the petition, the Scottish Haematology Society was involved in trying to draw up guidelines, but it clearly cannot do such a substantial piece of work, and nor would we expect it to do so. We are grateful for its involvement so far.
We need to ask the Scottish Government whether the summary document that was drafted by the Scottish Haematology Society has been finalised and provided to GPs. The document summarises for GPs what they should do once a diagnosis has been obtained. We should find out whether that will be published and made available to the public. It would also be worth raising with the Government the specific concerns that the petitioner has raised about the frequency of maintenance injections and the advice that is provided to GPs in Scotland on patients who consider that they are receiving an inadequate level of injections. Does the committee agree that we should ask the Government to look further at that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Elaine Smith for her advice.
Thyroid and Adrenal Testing and Treatment (PE1463)
The next continued petition, which is PE1463, by Lorraine Cleaver, is on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment. This is another petition that has been under consideration for several years. The Scottish Government has done some work on the issue, but there are still areas that we could explore, which are outlined in the briefing paper.
I invite members’ views on how the petition should be progressed. Elaine Smith might want to say something first, as someone who has been involved with the petition in the past. That might help our deliberations.
Certainly. Thank you for inviting me to speak.
The previous Public Petitions Committee did a huge amount of work on the petition and seemed to understand the issues very well. I offer apologies for the fact that Lorraine Cleaver cannot be here this morning; I think that she has come to Parliament on most occasions on which the petition has been considered.
I do not want to go over all the issues again. It is a big women’s issue, in that it predominantly affects women. It is also cross-cutting, in that it is not just a health issue. The fact that someone with the condition might not be able to work means that it gives rise to economic and care issues. It is hugely significant that it affects mainly women.
There is a problem with diagnosis and treatment. Sometimes patients are just parked on T4, which is synthetic thyroxine. Although many members of the medical profession will say that people do well on that, many people who are on it—as I was for many years—do not know that they are not doing well, because they are managing to function. They do not realise that things that they have such as fibromyalgia, difficulty getting up in the morning, thinning hair and dry skin are an indication that they are not doing that well on their T4. For a lot of patients on T3, like me, it makes a huge difference, because they might not convert T4 so well.
Another issue is whether desiccated thyroid hormone should be available. It is available in other countries, and a lot of patients in this country use the internet to get it, but they sometimes have problems with the cloning of cards and suchlike. Buying it from abroad is tempting, but personally I would not want to do that. GPs could prescribe it here, but they are concerned that there might be backlash repercussions. The availability of desiccated thyroid hormone is an important issue.
To cut to the chase, I refer to the choice of actions that the committee has in its paper on the petition. Given that the Public Petitions Committee has done a lot work on the petition—I think that you have about 100 stories, which we got together really quickly, that tell the tale—it would be a shame if the committee closed the petition or even referred it to the Health and Sport Committee. I am not saying that that is not an option, but I think that the petition is a bit more cross-cutting, particularly given the equality issues for women that are involved.
With regard to the possible actions in the committee’s paper, the Scottish Government could try to extrapolate Scottish figures from the survey, although I do not think that the experience here will be particularly different from that in the rest of the UK. I know that the petitioner would like the committee to take evidence, if possible, from Dr John Midgley, who has a lot of good knowledge and experience to share and is willing to speak to the committee. The previous committee was thinking about that, and it is something that I would recommend.
For me, it would be ideal if the committee did its own inquiry or mini inquiry into the issue, although I do not know what the committee’s workload or timescales are. However, the committee has taken a huge interest in the petition for such a long time and I think that the petitioner would think that an inquiry is worth doing. The thyroid issue also takes in other issues, such as fibromyalgia and myalgic encephalopathy. For example, figures show that quite a high proportion of people with ME have an underactive thyroid. So, the thyroid condition could be having an undiagnosed impact on other conditions.
I make a plea to the committee to build on the work that has been done over the past five years and see whether it can come to any conclusions or produce any outcomes.
Clearly, the Public Petitions Committee has been looking at the petition for some time. I have said on the record in previous evidence sessions that I am unable to comprehend why desiccated thyroid hormone is not more freely available. It is beyond me why that is not the case, particularly when we hear of patients having to buy desiccated thyroid hormone from abroad on the internet—that is beyond belief. This is such an important issue and I would definitely be loth to close the petition. There is merit in Elaine Smith’s suggestion of a mini inquiry. Perhaps we can keep the petition open until we have a look at our work programme and then bring it back to the committee at the first available opportunity afterwards.
That seems sensible. In the meantime, it would probably be worth flagging up to the Scottish Government that we are interested in what it proposes to do around the petition and particularly whether it can take the Scottish figures out of Thyroid UK’s survey. However, we can certainly look at the feasibility of having an evidence-taking session on the petition or something more substantial than that.
It would be useful to have Dr Midgley here for an evidence session to give us some medical guidance.
Okay. Is It worth contacting him to ask whether he has written evidence that he could share with the committee?
Convener, the committee already has a lot of written evidence. The round table way back at the beginning was a bit establishment focused, whereas part of the issue is about not doing things in the way that they have always been done—it is about looking at things a bit differently and looking at other evidence that is out there. The medical establishment—big pharma—has the only products that can be used, such as T4. It is also worrying that there is only one manufacturer of T3 in the whole UK. I make a plea for us to get different evidence.
We will look at the issue when we consider our work programme, but we will certainly write to the Scottish Government in the meantime.
Gender-neutral Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (PE1477)
PE1477 calls for the extension of the human papillomavirus vaccination programme to boys. The session 4 committee’s legacy paper invited us to consider the petition in the light of an update from the Scottish Government on its position on implementing a gender-neutral HPV vaccination programme prior to any Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommendation. The Scottish Government response has been received, as has a submission from the petitioner. I am interested in members’ views on the next steps.
I note the submission from the petitioner, Jamie Rae, on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation. He has asked us to write to the Secretary of State for Health in England to highlight
“concern about the narrowness of the JCVI’s approach”
and he asks for the secretary of state to explore
“ways to broaden”
the JCVI’s
“assessment of the evidence to take account of all ... issues”
that are pertinent to HPV vaccination policy. I do not think that it is within the committee’s remit to write to secretaries of state in England. The committee has exhausted all avenues on the issue, so perhaps the petition should be referred to the Health and Sport Committee.
I support referral of the petition to the Health and Sport Committee. I am not sure what other route we can go down. I take Angus MacDonald’s point about the committee’s involvement in public health in England.
We recognise the concerns that the petition raises and our view is that it would be most usefully directed to the Health and Sport Committee. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Alzheimer’s and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
Social Care (Charges) (PE1533)
The next petitions are PE1480, on Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness, and PE1533, on abolishing non-residential social care charges for older people and disabled people. The session 4 committee agreed to consider the petitions together, as they both concern fairness in social care charging. The first petition is by Amanda Kopel, on behalf of the Frank Kopel Alzheimer’s awareness campaign, and the second is by Jeff Adamson, on behalf of Scotland against the care tax.
The Government has been undertaking a review of fairness in social care charging and one option is to seek an update on any action that is being taken in relation to the petitions. I invite members’ views on how we take the petitions forward.
For what it is worth, I think that the petitions raise huge issues. During the election campaign, at least four of the five parties that are represented in the Parliament made general commitments on charging, without being specific. In the previous parliamentary session, my colleague Siobhan McMahon pursued a member’s bill to abolish non-residential social care charges. We can see from our papers that a wide range of organisations are concerned about the reality of people’s care support. Another question is whether human rights are involved, because some decisions are determined by age. Do members have views on what we might want to do?
I agree that it is a huge issue and I can only think that it has to be referred to the Scottish Government to get its input. I cannot see a clear route for us to go down at the moment.
I am glad that you said that before I did—from wading through the papers, I can see that it is a huge issue.
I think that the Frank Kopel awareness campaign flagged up just what it can mean for people if they get the condition when they are younger. Also, there is the whole question of care charging and the difference in the levels of charging in different parts of our communities. It may be too much at this stage for the Public Petitions Committee to take on. In order to reflect the seriousness of the issues that have been flagged up to us, it may be worth while, at least as a first step, to ask the Scottish Government for an update on its review of fairness in social care charging and whether it is minded to take the action called for in both petitions, given that it has some manifesto commitments in the area. It would be interesting to know how the Government plans to take things forward, at least. Would that be appropriate?
I think that that is the right route to go down initially.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
A83 (Rest and Be Thankful) (PE1540)
We move on to PE1540, which is calling for a permanent solution to the issues with landslides on the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful. The briefing summarises where developments on this issue have got to so far, but it is clear that there are outstanding concerns about the measures that are being taken.
I should indicate that the local constituency MSP, Mike Russell, has flagged up his support for the petition.
I think that it would be worth while getting an update on planned improvement works from the Government. Do members have a view on that or any other suggestions? There is no doubt that it has a massive impact at a local level on tourism, the local community and the local economy. Clearly, quite a significant amount of work has already been done. I would welcome any comments.
It has been past practice on this committee that, if a local member asks for a particular petition to be kept open and gives a good reason for it, the request is usually accepted. There are a lot of outstanding issues with regard to the A83 and that particular section of it, so it would be good to get a further response from the Scottish Government.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I think that keeping the petition open is a recognition of just how significant the matter is to the local economy and, as with other issues that have been flagged up, we want to signal that we regard it as important and we would welcome a response from the Scottish Government.
Residential Care (Severely Learning-disabled People) (PE1545)
PE1545, on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled, is by Ann Maxwell, on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust.
The Scottish Government has been working with the petitioner to identify measures that could be taken to address the issues raised in the petition, and the most appropriate course of action at this stage may be to seek an update on the progress that has been made. Again, I would be interested in hearing members’ views.
I agree that we need to seek an update on progress.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I agree that it is a really important issue, and our first port of call is to find out what stage we are at with it.
Yes. There is an issue about the extent to which there is an assessment of the level of need, and there is also an issue about the effective assessment of the condition.
Sewage Sludge (PE1563)
PE1563 calls for a ban on the spreading of sewage sludge. The background to the issue and the work that has taken place on reviewing the use of sludge is summarised in the briefing.
A number of commitments have been made on actions to take forward improvements in relation to the use of sludge, but it is clear that the Scottish Government does not support a ban. I am aware that Angus MacDonald has an interest in the matter, so, before I ask for general views, it would be useful for him to comment on the issues that have been raised.
Clearly, I have a local interest, but the issue has been affecting other parts of the country, such as the central belt and down Ayrshire way, too. I would be keen to keep the petition open until we have had sight of the responses to the consultations and an indication of what legislative changes would be required or will be introduced.
Since submitting the petition, the petitioners have engaged with the Scottish Government, especially the environmental quality division, and that engagement has been welcomed by everyone. However, I would ask that the committee keep a watching brief on progress as the issue is far from resolved. In short, I do not want to let the Government off the hook on this one. I should say that I do not want to let the Government off the hook on anything, but I am particularly keen to make sure that we keep a watching brief here.
I agree.
We would want to keep the petition open, even though we recognise that the Government does not support what the petition is calling for. The Scottish Government says that it plans to strengthen the regulatory framework in the area. What is your view on that?
Clearly, that is welcome. The point is how much the Government will strengthen the framework. It may be that we could ask the petitioners to comment further on any progress that is made to strengthen the legislation. If the petition were to be closed today—although I would rather that were not the case—another option would be for the petitioners to come back with another petition in the future on that issue.
Given that we have a new Scottish Government and, perhaps, there are new conditions, I suggest that we write to it to ask whether its view is the same and what it will do to strengthen the regulatory framework. We could then take a decision at that point. Would that be fair?
That would be fair enough.
Members indicated agreement.
NHS Centre for Integrative Care (PE1568)
The penultimate petition on our agenda today, PE1568, is on the funding, access and promotion of the NHS centre for integrative care, which is located at Gartnavel in Glasgow.
On the basis of the information that we have been provided with, it would be helpful to seek a bit of clarity from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde about the outcome of the service reviews that have been undertaken in relation to the CIC. It might also be helpful to ask the Government to confirm whether any changes to the provision of services would change its view on providing national funding for the CIC, and for an update on the national service for chronic pain.
Do members have any comments? We have significant correspondence on the petition. Elaine, do you want to comment?
I would not want to jump in in front of committee members, so you may wish to take them first.
It would inform our thinking if we first hear what you have to say.
Okay—thank you.
Again, this petition has been going on for some time, and the Public Petitions Committee in the previous session did quite a bit of work on it. At times, I came along to its meetings. I had constituency interests, because the Coatbridge CIC was being shut and other constituents had an interest in the Glasgow situation. I still take an interest in the petition for the wider Central Scotland region.
The information—for example, the evidence from the health board—does not quite match up to the evidence the previous committee heard. It would be tragic for the many people who depend on the clinic if it were to be lost as a national centre. It is a shame about the outreach clinics, too, because people’s conditions can be improved with such assistance. The issue is not all about homoeopathic treatment, which is the danger that people can fall into when thinking about the centre for integrative care. It is about far more than that; pain management is important, too.
I was interested in reading the submission from our colleague, Alex Neil, who, of course, was previously a health minister. His submission on the issue is powerful. I know that the committee has a recommendation to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, and maybe that is something that you would wish to consider. However, the previous committee did an awful lot of work on the topic and perhaps it would be a good idea to get further information for this committee.
Are there any other views?
11:00
It is important that we ask the health board for an update on exactly where we are with the matter. I agree with what Elaine Smith says. We should refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee but, before that, we should speak to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
We would be asking the health board for clarification of its position. We do not have the authority to quiz it about decisions that it makes on its budgets. However, the consequence of any decision that it makes relates to whether the Scottish Government is prepared to fund the centre. If the Government is not prepared to do that, that would be an indication of health policy.
We should contact the health board, but we should also contact the Scottish Government to ask what its position is. After that, we should refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee because the issue is about the health benefits of the kind of approach that the centre provides. That is not simply something for the Public Petitions Committee to take a view on; the Health and Sport Committee is much more where the judgment lies. Elaine Smith might be right that an argument about homoeopathy might be part of the situation, but the centre might provide more than that.
Homoeopathy is a much-debated treatment, but there is nothing wrong with
“acupuncture, counselling and dietary advice.”
It seems that people are focusing on homoeopathy as the reason to shut the centre, rather than all the other treatments that are available there.
I do not wish to suggest that it is deliberate, but it is sometimes convenient to focus on homoeopathy. The centre offers a far wider range of treatments to people. It can make people economically active who were not before. That brings us back to thyroid conditions, too. The centre can be helpful for people with conditions such as fibromyalgia that come about through issues such as thyroid conditions. Those things seem to tie in.
The centre provides a hugely valuable service. It undoubtedly saves the economy and the health service money because people are able to use the services that it provides and gain out of it. The situation is unfortunate. Personally, I think that there is a lot to be said for homoeopathy in certain circumstances. If people find it helpful—even if it is only a placebo effect—that surely must be a good thing. However, it is controversial and there is a lot of focus on that, which detracts from other aspects of the centre’s work.
The people who use the centre are deeply concerned about losing services or not having the pain clinic that is promised. If I might be bold, I suggest that the committee look back at the evidence session that the predecessor committee had to see what was said then and match it up to what seems to be being said now.
I confirm that we will write to the health board to clarify what is happening, write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will review its position on funding in light of the possible changes to the provision of services, and refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee. We should also look back at the evidence session. Perhaps we should do that as part of our away day so that we can reflect then on whether we can do anything further, given what was said in the past. That is useful.
This might be a minor detail, but I suggest that we write to the health board to ask for the update and wait for its response before we contact the Scottish Government to ask it anything. We need clarification from the board so that, when we go to the Government, we can tell it what we have just been told. If we write to both at once, we will be surmising what the board will say because we will not have had anything back from it.
I suspect that the Scottish Government will have read the same reports that we have read about what the health board plans to do and might be in conversation with it. If it is not, I presume that our letter will prompt it to ask, and it might get a speedier response than we would.
That is a point, convener.
To expedite matters, we will do both at the same time, but we recognise that one follows on the other. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Food Banks (Funding) (PE1571)
The final petition that we will consider today, PE1571, calls for direct funding of food banks. I should indicate that the petitioner is John Beattie, who is also somebody I have worked with. He is involved in community activity in Govan in Glasgow and has raised the issue of food banks with me directly as well as through the petition.
The Scottish Government does not support the call in the petition to fund food banks directly. I am interested in members’ comments on the petition. One suggestion might be to refer it to the Social Security Committee to enable food banks to be considered in the wider policy context of social security.
Food banks are clearly an informal way in which communities are protecting people but they obviously reflect need as well. Do members have a view on the petition?
The salient point in the argument is that we are trying to get to the stage at which nobody has to rely on food banks. That came out in the evidence sessions. However, I agree that we should refer the petition to the Social Security Committee.
We should do that without taking a view on whether food banks should be directly funded. However, any social security system tries to reflect where the need is, and the growth of food banks tells us something. We are not totally clear what it tells us, but it certainly tells us that there is a need that is being met by voluntary means. It might simply reflect the failures and weaknesses of the current system.
Do we agree to refer the petition to the Social Security Committee with those comments?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we have come to the conclusion of our business—timeously, I am glad to say. I put on record our thanks to the witnesses who came today, all the petitioners who provided so much food for thought, members for their contributions, and the clerks for all the work that is involved even in just bringing the agenda together. I wish everyone all the best for the recess and look forward to seeing everyone soon.
Meeting closed at 11:06.Previous
New Petitions