Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Official Report 769KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Cot Deaths (PE2082)

That brings us to agenda item 4, which is consideration of new petitions.

As always, before we consider a new petition, I say to those who might be joining us, either here or online, to hear their petition discussed that, in advance of the first consideration, we ask the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to comment on the issues raised by the petition. We also write to the Scottish Government for an initial view. We do that because, historically, when we considered petitions without first having done those things, we would agree them as the first two things that we should do. Therefore, it makes sense to carry out that initial inquiry if we are to meaningfully advance the issues raised in a petition.

PE2082, on improving the support provided to families affected by cot death, has been lodged by Kevin McIver and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop promoting the Lullaby Trust to Scottish families for cot death support, as that charity provides support only to families who live in England and Wales, and instead to provide practical support to families by prioritising the promotion of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, which has been supporting families since 1985.

Mr McIver tells us that he lost a child to cot death, also known as sudden unexpected death in infancy, and that he has received support from the Scottish Cot Death Trust. He is concerned that the literature provided by the Scottish Government since he had another child promotes the Lullaby Trust, an England-based charity that does not support families living in Scotland.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that, although it has worked in partnership with the Lullaby Trust and other organisations to develop and deliver resources on safer sleep for babies, it does not promote the Lullaby Trust as a baby-loss support organisation. It states that the Scottish Cot Death Trust was invited to become involved in the development of those resources, but it declined.

The response then goes on to detail work to support families who have experienced pregnancy and baby loss, including through the national bereavement care pathways. It also notes that the Scottish Government has provided funding to the Scottish Cot Death Trust to deliver its sudden unexpected death in infancy simulation and awareness training.

I am minded to try to establish with the Scottish Cot Death Trust, which is funded by the Scottish Government, why it declined to participate in the drafting of the resources that the Government sought to make available. That seems to be a curious lack of engagement. I understand the Scottish Government’s principal point in relation to the petitioner’s point about promoting the Lullaby Trust, in which it says that it does not promote that organisation but promotes the Scottish Cot Death Trust. I am curious, though, as to why the trust declined to participate.

Are we content to keep the petition open so that we can inquire on that point?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Covid-19 Vaccinations (PE2086)

PE2086, which was lodged by William Queen, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge those injured by Covid-19 vaccines and to have the NHS offer them appropriate treatment.

The SPICe briefing explains that, when someone presents to a GP, their treatment is not necessarily based on or connected to the cause of the illness but based on alleviating the symptoms and, if possible, treating the underlying cause, if that can be identified. The briefing notes that injury caused by the Covid-19 vaccine is still a live area of research and that it is currently difficult to find comprehensive and reliable evidence and research that details and defines Covid-19 vaccine injury. I should also say that I do have constituents who are concerned about this issue.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition acknowledges that, on rare occasions, Covid-19 vaccines can cause injury and that it does not take concerns over the safety of vaccines lightly. The submission states that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, the first of which calls for the vaccine injured to be given time and a platform to speak about their experiences and asks for the Scottish Government to meet the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group. The second submission calls for more research into symptoms and illnesses that result from vaccination, improved diagnosis and treatment for mast cell activation syndrome, specialist clinics or multidisciplinary teams and financial support for private medical care where adequate treatment cannot be provided on the NHS.

In light of the responses that we have received, do colleagues have any clear idea about how we might proceed?

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask how it can be confident that specialist diagnostic testing and treatment, as set out by the petitioner, are available when required and, secondly, that healthcare providers are aware of the possible side effects of Covid-19 vaccines and apply that knowledge when considering treatment for symptoms that might have arisen as a result of the vaccination.

By way of comment, I add that I recently read in one of the more serious newspapers of doubts about one of the Covid vaccines being raised by a reputable organisation. I will not go into the details, because that would not be appropriate; I just wanted to mention it, as it is the subject of some current controversy. We need to drill down a little more and write to the Scottish Government to raise those concerns.

I hesitated slightly during my earlier comments, because I was struck by the fact that the Government’s submission states—I will repeat this—that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

I recall that exactly those phrases were used in relation to the use of mesh in surgical procedures. I vividly remember being told that recipients were given as much information as possible and had given informed consent, but the evidence of many of the women in that circumstance was that that was simply not the case.

I would therefore like to ask the Government how it can assert with confidence that such practice is in place—it might be that it can do so, but I would like to understand how. The committee knows of previous examples in which a similar assurance was initially made but then was not seen to be properly validated by subsequent evidence.

The petition is important, given everything that we are now looking at. Admittedly, it is with the benefit of hindsight, but these issues are on-going in some instances. We will therefore keep the petition open and proceed with inquiries based on the suggestions that members have made. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

I am not sure whether people connected with the petition are in the public gallery, but I hope that they are content with our keeping the petition open and proceeding on that basis.

---

Control of Dogs (Cemeteries) (PE2087)

PE2087 is on passing a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence—those in the public gallery will see that we move across a broad range of public interest. The petition, which has been lodged by Paul Irvine, calls on the Scottish Government to pass a law to make exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement.

Mr Irvine tells us that he lives opposite—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry, but I forgot that Clare Haughey had joined us for the previous petition. However, I think that she is content with the action that we have taken. Apologies—that just occurred to me suddenly.

I go back to Mr Irvine, who tells us that he lives opposite the cemetery where his son is buried and has been upset by the number of people who exercise their dogs in the cemetery and allow them to urinate and defecate on graves, including his son’s. Mr Irvine has raised the issue with his local authority, which has introduced a rule that dogs must be kept on leads in cemeteries but has stopped short of its pre-pandemic rule of permitting only assistance dogs in cemeteries.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it fully recognises the distress—as I am sure the committee will, too—caused by irresponsible dog owners who damage headstones and mementos left at gravesides. However, responsibility for the management, security and upkeep of local authority burial grounds lies with the local authority for the area in which the cemetery is located. Existing legislation gives local authorities the power to make, consult on, publish and display management rules that regulate the use and conduct of people while on land or premises that are owned or managed by the local authority.

Additionally, under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, which covers all public open spaces, anyone who does not immediately clean up fouling by a dog is committing an offence and could be issued with a fixed-penalty notice of £80. The SPICe briefing also highlights the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which allows the police to issue a dog control notice if a dog is not being kept under control effectively and consistently.

In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I note the tragic loss of the petitioner’s three-year-old son and that the petitioner lives opposite where his son is buried. He talks about the family witnessing up to 100 people exercising their dogs daily, with dogs being let off leads or on long leads, resulting in their urinating and defecating on graves and damaging teddies and so on that have been left in memory. I just thought that I would mention that because, plainly, the petition is somewhat unusual, but there is a human tragedy behind it.

Yes.

Therefore, one understands it.

For that reason, I have a series of suggestions. Given that the issue seems to be primarily a local government responsibility, we should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek further detail on best practice for local authorities regarding the presence and behaviour of dogs in cemeteries. We should also write to Police Scotland to request information on the breakdown of offences under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, specifically in relation to those that have taken place in cemeteries, in order to ascertain whether there is any pattern of enforcement by the police in this matter.

Furthermore, we should write to the Scottish Government, seeking an update on the implementation of the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016, and specifically on whether proposed regulations for the management of burial grounds might address the issues raised by the petition.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That was the last of our new petitions for consideration this morning. We will now move into private session to consider items 5 and 6. Our next meeting will take place on 12 June.

11:31 Meeting continued in private until 11:52.