Current Petitions

The last current petition is from Alexander Mitchell, on the handling of complaints regarding mental welfare, especially those concerning the Mental Welfare Commission. Again, we cannot become involved in the individual case to which the petitioner refers. The new Scottish public services ombudsman, Alice Brown, has just taken up her post. The committee could agree to write to her requesting an indication of whether she intends to review the complaints-handling procedures that she has inherited from the health ombudsman and the Mental Welfare Commission. Before we do that, it is suggested that we agree to seek the views of voluntary bodies that may be able to advise the committee whether there are wider concerns about the way complaints relating to mental health care are handled. It is suggested that the committee consults the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Association of Health Councils, the Advocacy Alliance and the Advocacy Safeguards Alliance about any approach that we decide to make to the new ombudsman. Is that agreed?

This petition is one for Dorothy-Grace Elder. It is from the Blairingone and Saline Action Group on the current practice of spreading sewage, sludge and other non-agriculturally derived waste on land in Scotland. The petition was discussed briefly at the last committee meeting. George Reid has now suggested that Dorothy-Grace Elder should conduct an inquiry into the health aspects of the case, as the Health and Community Care Committee is unable to do so. I understand that Dorothy-Grace Elder is prepared, in principle, to do that. The clerk has established that there is no opposition from either the Health and Community Care Committee or the Transport and the Environment Committee to that proposal. However, before we decide whether we should proceed as suggested by George Reid, there are several points to consider. First, the Scottish Executive has acknowledged that the practice of spreading sludge should be better regulated and has proposed that strict biological standards should be introduced. The Executive has just issued a consultation paper on that. Secondly, it is hoped that the type of operation that prompted the petition will be a thing of the past. Therefore, the principal objective of the petition appears to be fully met. Thirdly, we need to consider whether conducting an inquiry into the specific health issues related to the petition will provide any added value. It appears that, regardless of whether the specific activities that prompted the petition affected the health of local people, any potential health risk will, in the future, be reduced by the new standards. Those points were for debate and discussion; they are not suggestions for action. Do members think that it is worth while to appoint Dorothy to undertake the inquiry suggested by George Reid, or will no value be added from it?

George Reid is pressing for a Health and Community Care Committee inquiry.

George Reid obviously wants an inquiry. We do not know whether the petitioners want an inquiry, but I assume that they do. We could write to the petitioners to confirm that.

If Dorothy-Grace Elder is willing to go ahead with an inquiry on behalf of the committee, we would be quite happy for her to do that.

Are members happy with that?

Dorothy-Grace Elder said she had three constituencies. I thought she had eight, but there we go. Realistically, will she be able to achieve something at the end of the inquiry? It would be a mistake to raise people's expectations.

The question is one of balance. The proposed standards may help to improve the situation, and everybody's time is tight between now and May. The matter is entirely up to Dorothy-Grace Elder and I would not oppose her going ahead, but she has eight constituencies to represent.

Would it be helpful if we wrote to the Executive to ask whether it would be prepared to conduct a study into the health implications as part of its consultation study? If it is not prepared to do that, Dorothy-Grace Elder could do so in any case.

The consultation paper has been issued. The matter is out for consultation.

If we followed the convener's suggestion, that would give Dorothy-Grace Elder time to check out what George Reid and other colleagues feel might be gained by pressing on with the study. None of us wants to stand in the way or block any action. We want to be helpful, but the question is what effect an inquiry would have.

Will you contact the petitioners?

George Reid is also one of the main petitioners. Will you report back to the committee on their views?

It is suggested that you could contact the petitioners to ask whether they would prefer that you were appointed as a reporter to carry out an inquiry on the committee's behalf, or whether they would rather submit the health evidence to the Scottish Executive so that the evidence could be included in the Executive's consultation. You could then report back on the petitioners' views at the committee's next meeting.

You could liaise with the petitioners. There are all kinds of possibilities, but we do not know the petitioners' views. Will you discuss the matter with George Reid and the other petitioners, keep the clerks informed and report back to us at our next meeting?