Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Official Report 512KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Deep Vein Thrombosis (PE1056)

We have eight current petitions to consider. I will start with PE1056 on deep vein thrombosis. I ask members for comments and refer them to the note by the clerk on the options that are available to us. I also point out that there is an additional paper, which members should consult.

This is a long-standing and extremely important petition. I share, to some extent, the frustration that comes through in Gordon McPherson’s later note to us. Guideline 122 already has a risk assessment tool within it, but it appears that a further delay is being proposed until a meeting of medical directors is held in September to allow boards to share their work regarding all boards developing risk assessment tools. One of the petition’s aims was to get a common assessment tool across health boards, so that all sufferers of this potentially fatal condition are treated in the same way. We should do what Gordon McPherson suggests in his letter; if the meeting is not going to be held until September, we should hold the petition over until after we have heard the medical directors’ decision. It is far too important an issue for us to let go of it.

Nanette Milne is right. The issue has been raised on numerous occasions; Trish Godman had a debate in Parliament on it and there is PE1056. Although not all the issues have been addressed, there has been movement on a number of them, as can be seen from the letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy. Trish Godman proposed that leaflets be produced to make people much more aware and so on, and there is certainly movement on that. Taking on board the convener’s comments about committees just starting up, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to pass the petition to the Health and Sport Committee at an early stage, because we should not forget that we will be in recess soon, so it might be November or December before the petition gets to that committee. Work is being done on the matter, so it might also be a good idea to pass the petition to the Health and Sport Committee and ask it to get a letter itself from the medical directors committee.

I should flag up that—as members are probably aware—the legacy report from the previous Public Petitions Committee recommended that course of action.

As no other members wish to comment, I put that point to Nanette Milne.

I do not disagree with Sandra White’s suggestion. It is just a question of whether we wait until September or do it now and flag it up that a decision will be made in September. I do not mind when we do it.

We could certainly say that to the Health and Sport Committee. It will be aware that the report is coming out anyway, so we could ask it to pay special attention to it.

There is probably a strong argument for referring the petition to the Health and Sport Committee at this stage, because that would also satisfy Nanette Milne’s objective of trying to get things moving. It is important that we forward some petitions to committees now, because their work programmes have not yet been set in stone and we will probably not get that opportunity in later years.

Or in later months.

Indeed. That is a good point.

Is everyone happy to refer PE1056 to the Health and Sport Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes—we could do so with a note to look out for the decision.

Yes. The clerks will ensure that that piece of information is highlighted.

---

Scottish Prison Population (Catholics) (PE1073)

Our next petition is PE1073, on Catholics in prison. Members have a note by the clerk. As in previous discussions, I invite members first to make contributions and secondly to make recommendations for action. If there are no comments, I refer members to the options for further action.

This petition is interesting and a lot of important research has been done. It seems to me that it would be an appropriate piece of work for the Equal Opportunities Committee to take on. There is also, of course, an argument for referring the petition to the Justice Committee. However, it does seem that the Equal Opportunities Committee is the appropriate committee, particularly given what was said earlier about space in committees’ work programmes.

I agree that the Equal Opportunities Committee would be a good place to which to refer the petition. It seems at first that the petition raises a justice issue, but the cases that we are talking about have different elements, such as deprivation and so on.

Do other members have other views?

I do not disagree with the suggestion that we refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee. As Nanette Milne will testify, the previous Public Petitions Committee dealt with the petition quite extensively; the report that was produced was commissioned by the committee. A number of worrying factors were identified in the evidence that we were presented with as we considered the petition.

I make the same plea that I made in the previous committee: if we are to pass the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee, we have to widen out the scope. Although the petition refers in particular to Catholics in prison, it was identified that it is not only Catholics who are disproportionately represented in prisons; other minority groups are equally, if not more, disproportionately represented. If we are to pass the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee, we should refer to all the material that was gathered on the petition, as well as to the report. The report was interesting, but I felt that there was a slight flaw in that the research concentrated on the petition’s main focus, which was Catholics in prison, rather than looking at all minorities in prison. We should say to the Equal Opportunities Committee that in order to do the petition justice, it has to look at minorities in the criminal justice system as a whole and not just at a particular group.

That is a very good point, which we should definitely emphasise when it comes to referring the petition. Are members happy for us to take that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)

PE1280 is on requirements for fatal accident inquiries. I first invite members to make contributions on the substance of the petition, before I ask them about options for further action.

I am most interested in the situation relating to military personnel who are killed overseas and how hearings are held in the coroner’s court south of the border. This comes from personal experience; I know families who have lost folks in Afghanistan. It can be extremely traumatic, particularly if the coroner’s case goes on for some time. If it is at all possible to change legislation to allow fatal accident inquiries to happen here, that would be beneficial for everyone and could prevent a lot of trauma. This needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. We should refer the petition to the Justice Committee.

11:30

I agree with the thrust of Kevin Stewart’s comments. The clerk has advised me that military personnel who die abroad are covered by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009—paragraph 4 of the clerk’s note refers to that. It seems appropriate that the Justice Committee consider the petition.

I agree entirely. There is an anomaly in that Scottish courts cannot carry out a fatal accident inquiry in cases of Scottish persons dying overseas, but the situation is different south of the border. We need to get that sorted out. I agree with Kevin Stewart and the convener that the petition should go to the Justice Committee.

Are members happy to follow the suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning Circular 3/2009 (PE1320)

PE1320 is on amending planning circular 3/2009. The clerk has prepared a paper on the petition, which members have before them.

As someone who tried unsuccessfully to introduce a third-party right of appeal into the planning system, I have always thought it strange that people who would be affected by huge planning applications for opencast mines and so on do not have the same rights as others to be notified and to become involved with the Scottish Government.

The petition has merit, and I would refer it to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which deals with such issues.

I concur with Sandra White’s recommendation, although she is just passing it to my other committee.

You should declare an interest in that.

Do we agree to refer the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, under rule 15.6.2?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Institutional Child Abuse (Victims’ Forum and Compensation) (PE1351)

PE1351 is on a time for all to be heard forum. The clerk has prepared a paper on the petition, which members have before them.

As one of the committee members who was on the previous committee, I recall that we took evidence on this petition from Tom Shaw and other commissioners from the time to be heard forum in March, just before dissolution. At that time, the Scottish Government ministers would not have had time to consider the commissioners’ report, “Time To Be Heard: A Pilot Forum”, and we wanted to give them an opportunity fully to consider the report and its recommendations before coming back to the committee at a later stage to give us an indication of what they had taken from the report and what recommendations they wanted to take forward. The report made many useful recommendations with regard to the treatment of people who were in care and I urge any member who has not seen the report to have a look at it. The committee should write to the Scottish Government ministers to ask for their views on the report and how they are going to take forward the report.

As someone who was on the Public Petitions Committee back in 2002 when one of the petitioners lodged another petition, I do not think that anyone can fail to be moved by the experiences of the people and how brave they were to bring their cause to the committee. We served them well then and we should serve them well now. These people have not had an end to their suffering. I agree with John Wilson that we should write to the Government.

This is an extremely important petition and I appreciate the comments from members who were on this committee in previous years.

I feel that this is a good example of a cross-cutting piece of work that we need to do a lot of detailed work on. I do not think that we should refer the petition; we should keep it here and come back to it once we have got a detailed response from the Scottish Government, and the clerks and I have done a bit more work on it. We could flag it up as a petition on which we might want to do a lot more detailed work in the future. That is very much the role of the Public Petitions Committee, and I think that this is an ideal subject for us to have an inquiry on in the future. Are members happy for us to keep the petition open and to undertake more detailed work on it?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)

PE1370 is on justice for Megrahi. I refer members to the clerks’ paper and invite comments from the committee.

I find this to be a difficult petition to deal with. There is an option to get an update from the Scottish Government on its plans for legislation regarding the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Beyond that, however, I think that the committee has gone as far as it can with the petition. I know that I have been a bit reluctant to refer petitions to subject committees, but this is clearly one to refer to the Justice Committee.

It is an extremely important petition on a subject that people have various views on. It could be controversial, but I think that it is an honest petition that is seeking the truth. I was not a member of the previous session’s committee, which deliberated on the petition. Would it be sufficient for the Public Petitions Committee to ask the Scottish Government to open an inquiry, or would it be better to send the petition to the Justice Committee with the recommendation that the Government pursue an inquiry? My problem is that I do not want it to get hidden in the Justice Committee stuff and not come back out again.

I agree that the petition should go to the Justice Committee. As a new member of Parliament, I should probably declare an interest in that I may have signed the petition—I am not quite sure. If I did not, I probably did not see it, otherwise I would have signed it. It is a matter for the Justice Committee and we should allow that committee to have a clear look at it.

I should have mentioned that Jim Swire and Robert Forrester are present. I thank them for the comprehensive work that they have done on the petition and for referring us to the interview with Gareth Peirce, “The Quiet Storm”, which made fascinating reading.

I am desperate for the truth of the matter to come out. It is fundamental that the truth come out, and we should do everything that we can to help it to come out. I agree with Kevin Stewart that the petition should go to the Justice Committee, although I was a bit concerned when Sandra White said that it might get buried in that committee’s paperwork. The terrible events happened a long time ago so we must get to the truth sooner rather than later. Let us not let the Justice Committee bury it.

I cannot make any predictions about other committees, but given Christine Grahame’s interest in the matter, I would be extremely surprised if the petition did not have a high profile in the Justice Committee.

You said it, convener. The interest of the new convener of the Justice Committee in the matter will do the petition justice and ensure that the issues that have been raised are examined. The previous Public Petitions Committee tried to deal with the petition although it came to the committee late in the previous session. However, the responses that we have received and the further evidence that has been submitted by the petitioners indicate that the matter is for the Justice Committee to consider. The petition raises a number of concerns about who takes responsibility for what decisions in relation to the process of appeals within the Scottish criminal justice system, so I would be happy to see it passed on to the Justice Committee.

If no member wishes to make any further comment, we will move on. Is it agreed that we will refer the petition to the Justice Committee under rule 15.6.2?

Members indicated agreement.

I will postpone part of the agenda because I think that Rhoda Grant wishes to speak to PE1378.

---

Incineration (Green Alternatives) (PE1379)

PE1379, on green alternatives to incineration, is covered in paper 13. Do members wish to make any comments on the substance of the petition before we talk about the options that are open to us?

Members: No.

Okay. Do members have any views on the three options, which are to continue the petition, to refer it to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, or to close the petition on the basis that the action has already been carried out? We have to give an explanation if we close a petition.

If the action has already been carried out, the petition has done its job, so I recommend that we close it—unless anyone has any other view.

I agree with Sandra White. I do not know what guidance is given to petitioners, but some things in a petition can be nigh on impossible to achieve. If the petition is not correct or cannot be acted on, I cannot see the point of going forward with it. We are told in the papers that it would be impossible, even if we so wished, to close all existing plants within five years, so the petition is null and void, in that regard. I would close the petition. The petitioner might want to resubmit a petition, using other wording; I do not think that we can move forward with the petition, because of its wording.

I suggest that the committee refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. The petitioner has raised a number of issues in relation to the incineration programme in Scotland and the innovative ways in which some developers work—they are coming out with phrases that do not mention the word “incinerator” to describe something that does the same thing.

There is a much wider issue for communities throughout Scotland because we will see growth in the number of pyrolysis plants or incinerators—whatever we want to call them—due to the desire of the Government and the European Union both to reduce the amount of waste that is going to landfill and to find alternatives. If we refer the petition to the relevant subject committee, it will be able to conduct a greater examination and to pull together some of the other factors that might be involved.

Although Kevin Stewart is right that we may not be able to shut down all plants in five years, I hope that the committee could examine what methods or actions have been taken by plant operators to reduce emissions from incinerators.

I do not disagree that the issue probably needs to be looked at by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, and I will not enter into a debate about energy from waste, whether that is conventional incineration, pyrolysis or whatever. That is a debate for elsewhere.

The point for me is that the petition is very specific. It is clearly impossible to shut all existing plants within five years. Having listened to colleagues and hearing that today we have perhaps referred more petitions to committees than has been done for a long time, I do not think that we can agree to refer a petition when we know that what it wants cannot be enacted.

11:45

If the petitioner wanted to submit a modified petition, I am sure that the committee would look at it, but we all know that it will be absolutely impossible to shut all existing waste incineration plants within five years. If that were done, we would have to find many more landfill sites, which I am sure none of us wants. Because we know that what the petitioner wants is impossible, the right thing to do is to close the petition. I do not know whether we are allowed to suggest that the petitioner submit a modified petition.

I agree with much of what Kevin Stewart has just said. The petition calls for the Government to

“immediately ban the construction of new waste incinerators”.

That seems to be straightforward enough, but what concerns me is that it also calls for a ban on the construction of “large biomass burners”. To me, those are not the same thing. Biomass is a different kettle of fish—that is a terrible metaphor—so, in my view, the petition is not consistent. It would be impossible for the Government to close down such plants within five years, which is what the petition asks for. I just do not think that that is right, especially in the case of biomass.

Just for the record, I point out that I was summarising some of the points in the petition, but the petition goes into a lot more detail.

I agree with Kevin Stewart. People submit petitions to us, which we act on by taking evidence and so on. If one of the issues that the petition deals with were included in a different petition, we could probably act further on it, but there is no way we could call on the Government to shut all existing waste incineration and biomass burning plants. We should not become a sifting committee for other committees. If we were to pass the petition on to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I think that it would say exactly what we have said—that what the petitioner is asking for just could not be done.

There is a division of opinion on whether to refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee or close it. I invite members who have not commented to make clear their views.

I appreciate John Wilson’s argument, but it is clear that the petition raises issues that cannot be acted on—although I do not know that I would say that it is not competent. I would like it to be made plain to the petitioner that it is an interesting petition, which could, with rewording, be resubmitted.

Would that satisfy Kevin Stewart?

Absolutely. I think that I made that suggestion. We cannot deal with a request that we know that we could not action. I think that the petitioner should resubmit a modified petition. I do not know whether the clerks are allowed to do this, but perhaps the petitioner could be given some guidance.

The suggestion is that we close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis of incompetence, and that the clerks have a discussion about reframing the petition, which we might then see in a modified form in the future—although that would obviously be up to the petitioner. Are members happy for us to go down that route?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Silicone Breast Implants (PE1378)

PE1378 is on silicone breast implants. It is good timing, as we now have Rhoda Grant with us. We were running a bit early.

Before I ask for comments from members, I invite Rhoda Grant, who has a track record of work in this area, to make a few comments, as that will help the committee to make judgments on the next steps for dealing with the petition.

I am extremely grateful to the committee for waiting for me. I have just come off a train, so I am sweating a bit, but I am here and I am pleased that I have been allowed to speak.

I appreciate that the committee has done a lot of work on the petition, but it seems to me that the more it digs, the more questions remain to be answered. On one hand, we have big business, which makes a lot of money from implants, and on the other hand we have the national health service, which not only uses implants, but picks up the pieces when they go wrong. In addition, there is the impact on people who have side effects that are not recognised, and who might not be getting the treatment that they need because of the lack of work in that area.

I suggest that the committee refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, especially because it might have some time on its hands at the beginning of the session, before proposed legislation starts to come through. It is about getting the timing right. The Health and Sport Committee might be able to conduct a short inquiry into the matter and consider the implications for the NHS and for patients who have not had proper diagnoses and who face serious health issues. I hope that the committee will consider referring the petition.

Thank you. Do members have questions for Rhoda Grant?

When I read the petition I wondered what it was doing in this committee—I am inexperienced on this committee, of course—when it seems to raise a serious health issue. I agree with Rhoda Grant that it should be referred to the Health and Sport Committee.

The petitioner made a number of points, including a point about the failure in the system for recording incidences of rupture. It is suggested that ruptures are not currently identifiable through NHS blood tests and that many doctors do not know what to look for. If that is the case, a number of cases are potentially going unreported—and of course the public will be unaware of the issue, too. If we refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee we should flag up the petitioner’s concerns.

I might be a little ignorant on the matter; perhaps Rhoda Grant can help. Are cosmetic surgeons still using silicone implants, or is there a move to using saline implants? If silicone is still being used, that is a can of worms that the Health and Sport Committee should probably have a thorough look at.

I understand that silicone is still being used. The trouble is that the health impacts of silicone have not really been explored. The petitioner raised that issue as well as the issue to do with the checks that should be in place. Until we can prove that silicone is dangerous, it will continue to be used for cosmetic and medical reasons. Given that complications and ruptures occur and that individuals can be poisoned, there is a huge health issue, which we might be putting off for another day when we should be exploring the matter.

If that is the case, the petition should go to the Health and Sport Committee sooner rather than later.

Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

We will refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee for further consideration, under rule 15.6.2. I thank Rhoda Grant for helping us with our consideration of the petition.