I would also like to place on record my horror at what you have told us today and my support. You have said that you would not go to a review, but would you go to a public inquiry?
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John McAllion Lab 86
- Christine Grahame SNP 57
- Sandra White SNP 30
- John Scott Con 27
- Ms Macdonald 19
- Judy Wilkinson Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society 17
- Mrs Brydie 15
- Geraldine MacDonald Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs 15
- Helen Eadie Lab 14
- Ray Nixon Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society 10
- Linda Fabiani SNP 10
- Mr McKinnon 4
- Robin Harper Green 2
- Ms Anne Macdonald Kirkcaldy Area Abuse Survivors Project 1
- Steve Farrell Clerk 1
- Mrs Isobel Brydie 1
- Mr Jim McKinnon Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs 1
The record
310 contributions · showing 201–310
Geraldine MacDonald
Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs
link
Of course.
Do you think that that would be the view of the other parents who are refusing to go to a review?
Geraldine MacDonald
Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs
link
The parents in our group who want a public inquiry would go to it.
On the point that Helen Eadie made, I feel that it may be more important to get the right answer than an expeditious answer.
Geraldine MacDonald
Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs
link
That is what we are trying to explain—
If Helen Eadie's proposal was taken up, you might have to go through the process twice. It might be better to have a public inquiry in the first place.
Mr McKinnon
link
It is my understanding that the main aim of the independent review will be to uphold the name of the NHS and to get the pathologists back on track. I do not think that the main aim of the review will be to satisfy the parents concerned in the scandal. We need a judge to sit in a full, independent public inquiry so that not just the parents involved in our group but all of Scotland will see that the Scottish Parliament will not tolerate a cover-up.
Sheila McLean is the only name you mentioned in connection with the independent review. You said that you thought she might not be independent as she may have taught the doctors concerned. Have you raised that with her? It is only fair to Professor McLean that that issue is raised with the Executive so that she can address it.
Mr McKinnon
link
The group is writing to her.
I raise the issue because people are entitled to respond to something that has been said about them in public. You should address either the professor directly or the Executive to give her the opportunity to reply. That would also apply to other members of the review body, if it goes ahead.
Geraldine MacDonald
Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs
link
When Sheila McLean's involvement was announced, I faxed her, giving the group's reasons why we did not want to be involved with the review group, including the fact that we did not think that she would be independent.
You raised the specific point that she may have taught people—
Geraldine MacDonald
Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs
link
Yes. I have that fax.
You say that, because she had taught doctors, she was aware that the practice was occurring. She may not have been—I do not know. It is important that the issue is put properly, for her sake.
I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy made by all members of the committee for the plight and predicament in which you find yourselves. We will now consider how best to progress the petition. You are welcome to stay to listen to the discussion. Thank you for attending.It was hoped that information requested from the Executive would be available at this meeting to assist the committee in reaching a view on the action to be taken on the petition. The clerk wrote to the Executive asking officials to provide the committee with the background to the Minister for Health and Community Care's decision to establish an independent review group on past practice and on the legislative position in relation to the matter referred to in the petition. He requested specific information as to why that approach was favoured over a public inquiry. Unfortunately, the Executive has not yet provided that information. However, we understand that the information will be available for the committee's next meeting, so I suggest that we wait until then before considering how to progress the petition.
When did we write to the Executive?
Four weeks ago.
I am not happy about the fact that we wrote a month ago and have not yet had a reply.
To be fair, that is because the Executive is trying to agree on a reply. It is not because the Executive is not concerned—it is. Discussions are going on within the Executive, which wants to get its reply right before coming back to the committee. It appreciates the seriousness of the issue.
The Executive obviously has to get its reply right, as the reply that it gives to us is the reply that it will give to the various groups concerned. However, given that we are four weeks down the line, the length of time that it will take the Executive to set up the review does not bear thinking about.
We are told that we will have the reply in time for the next committee meeting.
It might be appropriate for us to ask about the matter raised by the petitioners on the potential conflict of interest with the chair of the review group.
We could report to the Executive on the issue after our discussion today, saying that we would be grateful if it could comment.
That would be fair.
From my recollection of the minister's response to the matter when it was raised in the Parliament, the reason for not having a public inquiry was that many parents did not want to take part, which could make the inquiry invalid. The point that Ms MacDonald made was that, if people still did not want to take part, there would be no obligation on them to do so. The fact that so many of them appear unwilling to take part in a review and would prefer to take part in an inquiry makes the case for an inquiry strong.
When we write to the Executive, explaining the comments about Professor Sheila McLean, we could mention the fact that the petitioners have responded to the original reasons that were given for the decision. That is why we are asking not just for the official response, but for the background that led the Executive to make its decision. Is that suggestion agreed to?Members indicated agreement.
Petition PE284 is from Mr Fraser MacKenzie. The petition has been brought forward to this point in the meeting because Linda Fabiani has been waiting patiently to discuss it. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the proposed sale of land in the area of East Mains, East Kilbride, by South Lanarkshire Council. Photographs relating to the petition were submitted today and have now been circulated. Members will remember that we had a similar petition about Overtoun Park, which also lies within South Lanarkshire's boundaries. On that occasion, we obtained the council's comments and subsequently passed the petition to it in order for it to be taken into account as part of the council's consultation exercise on that land. Before we consider petition PE284, we should let Linda Fabiani speak to it.
Fraser MacKenzie is present and it is unfortunate that he has not been allowed to speak today. I understand that that is because of the committee's new procedures—you felt that you had enough information. I am particularly interested in the fact that the committee has dealt with a similar matter regarding Overtoun Park in Rutherglen. It is very relevant that that is also in South Lanarkshire. I see that the committee chose to pass the petition to the council, asking it to consider it as part of the consultation exercise. The main problem is that South Lanarkshire Council does not carry out consultation exercises. If the committee decides to pass on the petition, the council is very likely to ignore it, just as it has ignored all along the views of the 1,040 residents who have signed the petition, as well as those of various other residents of East Kilbride who have complained about other land sales in the area. I ask the committee to consider doing more than merely passing the matter back to the council. I reiterate that South Lanarkshire Council does not consult; it treats local residents with contempt and it treats elected representatives of this Parliament with contempt. Let me illustrate the level of consultation that the council takes. It pays for and takes out two-page adverts in the local press implicitly and explicitly to insult and discredit members of the electorate within its area and the elected members of this Parliament. I will be going to the Auditor General for Scotland on that, as I believe that placing such adverts is a misuse of public funds. I ask everyone to consider the petition carefully in light of the lack of consultation and the fact that the area is the last amenity that the people of East Mains have. I ask members to consider the various committees to which the petition could be passed. There is a case for it to be considered by the Transport and the Environment Committee. The stated Agenda 21 aims of the council suggest that there are environmental considerations. The petition could be passed to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, as the park is a meeting place and an amenity for all citizens—of all ages—of the area. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee, given its sport remit, could also consider it, as there is a defined football pitch, which is used by children and adults.I ask the committee to pass the petition on to other committees, rather than back to the council, which would completely ignore it. I have already asked for guidance from the Local Government Committee and from the Presiding Officer on how to deal with a council that treats elected members with contempt. I state for the record that I did not ask for that guidance in relation to South Lanarkshire Council. Unfortunately, the answer that I got was that absolutely nothing could be done. I suggest that the Public Petitions Committee, in its role of taking petitions from the public, should be seen to be able to deal with them, even when another elected body might seem, on the surface, to be the one to deal with a matter. This Parliament, through its committees, should be seen to have a say in how Scotland should be run—whether that be by monopolist councils in the central belt of Scotland or otherwise.
Those were clearly very serious allegations against South Lanarkshire Council. I am conscious that councils have been attacked before at meetings of this committee. Those councils were not given forewarning of those attacks and were not here to represent their points of view. I suggest that we send a minute of this meeting and the petition to the council, asking for a response, before we consider the matter further.
Before I heard Linda Fabiani, I wrote down that our recommendation that no further action should be taken should be changed and that, instead, we should ask South Lanarkshire Council to give its reasons for taking the action, contrary to its own local structure plans.
This is now out in the open. I think that the council should be given the chance to respond before we consider the matter further.
I take it, convener, that you meant the record of the meeting, not the minute.
Yes: the record—the minute—no, the record. Members: "The Official Report." The Official Report, sorry.
I know that it was a hard Monday for you, convener.
We obviously have to be seen to be fair. Everyone has to have their say. You have mentioned that you intend to send the record of this meeting to South Lanarkshire Council, to which we hope that it will reply. I take it that this petition will be held over and that no decision will be taken on it.
Yes—that is what I am saying. We are not taking a decision on this until we hear from the council.
I am quite happy with that. If you give South Lanarkshire Council the opportunity to read the record, will the petitioners also receive a copy?
Yes. Are you referring to Mr Fraser MacKenzie?
Yes. He will receive a copy too.
The account of what happened in today's meeting will be in the Official Report.
I cannot ask Mr MacKenzie, as he is not here, but—
Yes he is.
Is he? Is he allowed to—
That is part of our agreed procedures. We have allowed four sets of petitioners to—
Perhaps I can ask Linda Fabiani, then. John Scott mentioned the council's local plan. If the proposals are against the local plan, there are surely other courses of action that the petitioners could take. Have they tried complaining to the local government ombudsman?
That is also on the cards. Residents, not just of the East Mains area, but of other parts of South Lanarkshire, may be expected to submit petitions fairly soon on similar subjects. The residents are organising themselves and are considering all options.
If there is enough opposition from residents and if the petitions are big enough—there are 1,040 signatures to this one—the residents could in any case attempt to instigate a public inquiry, with a reporter. Is that also happening?
I would have to go back to the residents association to answer that point. I am not quite sure.
It has just been pointed out to me that the local government ombudsman exists to deal with situations where councils are not meeting their legal responsibility to consult local residents.
I want to ask about the time scale. At what stage is the proposed sale of land? Is it on offer?
That is the worry. The closing date for the receipt of tenders from developers is 17 November. I hope that the committee will write to the council and request a very quick response. Although 17 November is only the date for tender return and it would normally take some time for tenders to be considered, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the land could be sold by the end of November.
You said that it is on the cards that the residents will approach the ombudsman. Does that mean that letters have been written to the ombudsman?
The people who are addressing the issue in East Kilbride—through community councils and residents associations—are perfectly able to deal with matters such as writing to the ombudsman themselves. I have taken a back seat on the issue, although I have clear opinions, because I do not want to be accused of party-politicking—it has not mattered that I have not done it; I have still been accused of it. I am here today to speak to the Public Petitions Committee on behalf of the residents.When the committee writes back to the petitioners, members might want to ask about further details.
Did you, as an elected member, write to the ombudsman on the residents' behalf?
No. I have written to the council on behalf of the residents.
Have you asked for a meeting with the council?
No. It took a long time for me to get a reply from the council. There have been refusals to meet residents and local councillors representing different political parties on this issue.
Has the council refused to meet you to discuss this issue?
No. I have not requested a meeting. As I said, the petitioners are very capable of acting for themselves. I am providing back-up where required. They also have councillors who are acting on their behalf.
Did you suggest to the petitioners that the first line of action might be a direct meeting with the council and that if they were refused a meeting, it might be appropriate to send a petition—
Can I say, again, that the petitioners do not need advice at that level from me. They attend community council meetings and have dealt with their local councillors. They have done all those things already.
The petition cannot be progressed until we hear from South Lanarkshire Council. We take the point about 17 November being the date on which tenders must be returned. We will include that in our letter to the council and ask for a speedy response so that we can consider the petition again.We next meet on 7 November. I hope that we will receive a response before then. I am sure that we will when the council reads the Official Report of this meeting.
Can I just clarify what we are asking it to comment on? Is it the Official Report of the meeting and the breach of the district plan?
Yes, and the petition.Is it agreed that we write to the council and discuss the petition at our next meeting?Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE274 from Mrs Patricia Drysdale on the supervision of inmates at Jessiefield prison. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that there is an inquiry into the safety and welfare practices in operation at Jessiefield prison in Dumfries.The petition sets out the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs Drysdale's son, Graham, while he was in custody in Jessiefield prison. Interruption.I apologise to Mrs Drysdale, but we are unable to hear any more oral evidence today.Mr Drysdale was found dead in his cell and it has been alleged that the cause of his death was a drug overdose. Mrs Drysdale questions whether the practices to combat drug use in the prison are effective. She also considers that inconsistencies between the timings in the autopsy report of her son's death and in the standard sequence of checks on inmates in their cells points to a problem with such procedures.The petition raises some very serious issues, but we are not able to progress the matter until we receive a response from the Scottish Prison Service. It is suggested that we copy the petition to the Prison Service and ask it to comment on the circumstances described there. We would then consider it further at a later meeting.
I suggest that a copy be sent to the Minister for Justice or the Deputy Minister for Justice, simply for noting. They are engaged in reviewing how drugs are dealt with in prisons and this petition should be brought to their attention.
We will send the petition to the Deputy Minister for Justice for information. We will tell him that we will keep him informed of the committee's subsequent consideration of the petition.
This is a very serious issue. I am sorry that we cannot ask Mrs Drysdale any questions and I apologise to her for that.
Mrs Drysdale can apply to speak at a later meeting of the committee.
I want to clarify to Mrs Drysdale that we will return to the petition once we have obtained the necessary information from the Prison Service. She would then be more than welcome to speak.
The petition will return to the committee, but we need the information from the Prison Service. We will notify the petitioner of what is happening, so that she knows when the committee will next consider the petition. Is that okay?Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE275 from Mr Brent Hodgson, on false reports held by the rural affairs department. Mr Hodgson is calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the rural affairs department of the Scottish Executive to abide by the rules of natural justice and the European convention on human rights in relation to public access to records held. The petitioner is concerned that he is unable to gain access to files in the rural affairs department that he claims contain false reports and information about him. It would appear from the papers that have been provided that that material concerns allegations of unprofessional conduct by Scottish agricultural colleges in relation to a vocational course on which the petitioner was enrolled.It is suggested that it is not for the Parliament to become involved in individual complaints of the sort that is made in this petition and that we recommend to the petitioner that he raise this matter with the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration, who has responsibility for investigating complaints about the Scottish Executive and a range of other bodies. At this stage, this is a matter for the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration, rather than for this committee. Until the petitioner has exhausted that option, I do not think that we should consider his petition.
That is what he should do in the first instance.
Yes. Individual complaints should be directed to the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration before they come to the Parliament. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
We will inform the petitioner of that outcome.The next petition is PE276, which is from Ms Elizabeth Girling on behalf of Lothian Allergy Support Group and calls on the Parliament to establish specialist clinics for the diagnosis and treatment of allergies in NHS hospitals in Scotland. The petitioner is concerned that specialist allergy clinics are almost unknown in Scotland, with the exception of clinics for young children. She claims that this contrasts with the position in England and Wales, where there are more than 50 clinics in NHS hospitals. She also calls for the provision of more grants for research into the causes of mental and physical allergic illnesses.I think we need information about this issue. We could send it straight to the Health and Community Care Committee, but committees do not welcome petitions. This is a very good petition but, given its work load, the Health and Community Care Committee would not welcome the petition at this stage. We can do some of the ground work first by obtaining information from the Scottish Executive about its current policy on allergy diagnosis and treatment and by asking it whether it proposes to establish clinics of the type suggested by the petitioners.
The second paragraph of the members' briefing states:"The petitioners are concerned that no specialist allergy clinics are almost unknown in Scotland".That "no" should be excised.
Yes. That is a typing error—it led me up the garden path as well.
The briefing also states that the petitioners"claim that this contrasts with the position in England and Wales".We have evidence that there are clinics in England and Wales.
We must wait until we hear the Scottish Executive's position. We do not know what the situation is.
Can we get evidence on that?
The purpose of writing to the Executive is to find out what provision is.
For the record, I would like to say that I find this a really interesting petition. I have been interested in this subject for a long time.
The petition is very well researched. After we have received a reply from the Executive we will consider it further.The next petitioner is Mr David Emslie. His petition—PE277—calls on the Scottish Parliament to initiate a public inquiry into the administration of Grampian Housing Association Ltd, with a view to introducing legislation to allow the monitoring and audit of housing associations in Scotland. There are several papers that detail the steps Mr Emslie has taken in this matter. At one stage he was taken to court by the housing association and the court found in his favour. In fact, the rent charged was reduced for him, but not for the other tenants. The problem is that it is not appropriate for the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the activities of Grampian Housing Association, as is requested by the petitioner. However, the issues raised by the petitioner may be considered as part of the Executive's consultation on the financial monitoring role of the proposed new executive housing agency—that will be in the forthcoming housing bill. It is suggested that the clerk could write to the Scottish Executive, asking for further information on the issues to be included in the consultation and whether the type of issue raised in the petition will be included in the consideration. Because the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, of which I am a member, will deal with the housing bill, this is a matter that will go before that committee. The monitoring of housing associations and how it is to be effectively implemented, particularly in the post stock transfer era, is certainly included in the housing bill. It is important that issues of this kind are brought to the attention not only of the Executive but of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
The petitioner contends that the reduction was not passed on to other tenants. What other recourse does the petitioner have? He has been to court and a judgment has been passed in his favour, yet he has been unable to get that benefit for other people in the housing association.
The other recourse would be to go to the housing association ombudsman.
Has he done that?
The ombudsman says that the complaint is outwith his remit. This is one of the problems—the housing association movement that has grown up over the past 25 years has had piecemeal growth in Scotland. The legislative framework does not necessarily deal with all the different issues that have arisen over the years. There are gaps in provision, but that is what the housing bill is meant to address. It is meant to consider the new legislative framework in which housing associations will be monitored and, especially when Scottish Homes becomes an executive agency, who is responsible for monitoring. Those will be live issues in the housing bill.
I had no idea that there was a housing association ombudsman for Scotland until I read the paper from the Scottish Parliament information centre. I wonder how many other people know that there is such a commodity out there. The SPICe paper mentions the limits of his powers—there are some complaints on which you cannot go to him. I am glad that the paper was passed to me and to hear of his existence. I suspect that many other people are not aware that he exists. I see that we will have somebody with wider powers—I might take an interest in the housing bill now.
I too will be taking a detailed interest in the housing bill. This is a live issue and it will be interesting to see it being pursued by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee when it considers the housing bill. The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee needs this information too so, as well as passing it to the Executive, I suggest that we pass it to members of that committee.
Yes.
It is an important issue, especially in Glasgow, with the massive housing stock transfer. People are asking what will happen. We still do not know a time scale for the winding up of Scottish Homes in its present form. Will that be included in the housing bill? Scottish Homes has a remit here, but it is in a sort of limbo land and we cannot get any answers from it.
At the moment, we are in the dark because the consultation document does not make any detailed suggestions. We are told that the draft housing bill will be published at the end of November or the beginning of December this year. It will be considered by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee in the new year.
Will we know exactly what is happening with Scottish Homes then?
The detail should be in the bill.
Money goes to Scottish Homes from the Parliament. Scottish Homes should be accountable.
Yes, it is very much a matter for the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
Definitely.
As I am on the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, I will take a close interest in the bill. We will ensure that the petitioner is kept informed on the progress of the petition in that committee, as part of its consideration of the bill.The next petition is from Mr Frank Harvey, on the feeding of cattle remains to livestock. The petition calls on the Parliament to ban the feeding of cattle blood, fat and gelatine to cows, to reduce the risk of BSE transmission. It is prompted by a newspaper report that claims that cattle are being fed cattle blood and other remains, despite the dangers of BSE infection. The report of the BSE inquiry is published this week—there is likely to be parliamentary action on all its implications. I suggest that we inform the petitioner of that and take no further action.
I wonder whether the minister commented on that on 25 September, or whether there was any rebuttal by the Executive.
I do not think that the Executive responds to every newspaper report.
It quite often does.
The next petition—PE282—is also from Mr Harvey and concerns body piercing and tattooing. It calls on the Parliament to ban both activities in Scotland, to protect young people from disfigurement or death. This topic was the subject of a members' business debate on 28 September. During that debate, the Deputy Minister for Community Care, Iain Gray, acknowledged the need to address the possible health risks of body piercing. He said that the Executive recognises the need to assess the effectiveness and adequacy of current arrangements and to consider what alternative arrangements may be necessary. He said that the Executive is committed to conducting a consultation exercise as soon as possible and that that will be set in motion before the end of this year. He undertook to provide the Parliament with a timetable for the consultation process and information on how it will be carried out.The clerk suggests that we write to the petitioner, informing him of that recent debate and enclosing an extract from the Official Report, and that we take no further action. Are we agreed?Members indicated agreement.
The final petition, PE285, comes from Mr Charles Bell Thom and concerns property titles. It calls on the Parliament, through its Justice and Home Affairs Committee, to investigate his property title to clarify what he regards as a confusion in the law.This is the second petition we have received from Mr Thom on this topic. Following the receipt of his previous petition, the committee sought the views of the Scottish Law Commission and the Minister for Justice. The responses from both expressed the view that the current law on property titles, as it relates to property boundaries, is adequate and that there is no need for an inquiry of the type that is recommended by the petitioner. We agreed that those responses were reasonable and that no further action should be taken.Mr Thom is disputing not our decision, but the information that was given to us by the Scottish Law Commission and the Minister for Justice. It is up to us to decide what to do with the detailed points that he makes. It seems that Mr Thom is determined to continue to pursue this issue, and it would not be appropriate for the committee to reopen its considerations of the issues that were raised in the earlier petition. We have made a clear decision, based on the views of the Scottish Law Commission and the minister, that no change in the law, in this area, is justified. The petitioner has submitted a further petition in an effort to persuade us to take a different view. Given that the Executive is preparing a draft bill on title conditions, it may be appropriate to forward this petition to the relevant officials, asking them to consider whether there would be merit in considering further, as part of that process, the points that Mr Thom raises. It is suggested that we respond directly to Mr Thom, saying that we will take no further action beyond referring the petition to the appropriate committee.
For the avoidance of doubt, we should add that it is not our recommendation that that committee act on the petition.
No. We will simply pass it to the committee for its consideration.
I am of the view that if Mr Thom, who is disputing the reply from the Minister for Justice, has further issues that he wants to raise, he should raise them directly with the Minister for Justice. We have dealt with his first petition and we received a response. He is now disputing that response, which was given officially. He should take the matter up directly with the minister, in correspondence. We took the view that, in some cases, it would be appropriate for petitioners to write to ministers first, before they submit a petition. This is such a case.
Mr Thom raised this matter with his local MP, but was not satisfied with the response that he received. The suggested action is that we pass the petition to the Executive officials for their consideration.
There would be no harm in that, as long as we do not say that it is our recommendation that the officials act on the petition.
I am not suggesting that we tell the officials that we support Mr Thom's position, simply that we pass the petition on to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Are we agreed?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 24 Oct 2000 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 24 October 2000 (Afternoon) Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 310
- Current Petitions Petitions · 95
- Convener's Report Procedure · 8
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.