Traffic Calming (PE840)
Good morning. I welcome everyone to this morning's meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from Campbell Martin.
Although the aim behind installing road humps, cushions, H-humps, zebra crossings and pads is laudable, they present unforeseen consequences for people who have medical conditions, elderly people and disabled people. Enforced jolting independent of speed not only causes pain, discomfort and potential deterioration of condition, but has wider repercussions for the general public's health and for those who are involved with emergency services.
Rather than ask a question, I will make a comment in support of Judith McCrorie. I have been working with her to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. I have been struck above all by the fact that the Department for Transport has not conducted any research into the effect of speed humps; that is a major concern.
The issue is important. I am struck by the additional information that members have had placed on our desks this morning from the London Ambulance Service. London is not typical of England as a whole and it is certainly not typical of Scotland, but there are a couple of revealing statistics. The document states that, despite the fact that traffic calming measures were introduced from 1995,
I was not aware of that. However, I have spoken to Mr Daren Mochrie, who is head of the Scottish Ambulance Service's accident and emergency services in Edinburgh. He stated that traffic calming measures delay ambulances, which has a knock-on effect on care and treatment for patients and on life saving. For someone who has a heart condition, an extra minute of delay can result in their being brain damaged. A similar point applies to people who suffer spinal injuries.
That must be the case. It would be interesting to find out from the Scottish Ambulance Service the extent to which it objects to such measures and the extent to which its objections are acted on.
Fife Council's transportation department is divided into different districts; I have been given slightly different information from the different units but, for my own area, the answer must be that the council has not been sympathetic. During a consultation, I asked what allowances the council made for disabled people in deciding on traffic calming measures; I was told that it makes no allowances. I have requested that the humps on our road be reduced and that some other form of gateway be allowed on our road, given that where the existing gateway has been placed, there are disabled parking spaces and, usually, parked cars, so people cannot speed at that point anyway. However, the request for different measures was rejected by Fife Council's transportation department.
I find it surprising that Fife Council can take no account of people who have disabilities, because the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 would surely cover that issue. I am sure that the committee will want to follow that up.
Like other members, I think that the petition is good and timeous. Mike Watson asked about ambulance response times, but do you have any figures on fire brigade response times? As you mentioned in your opening remarks, time is also critical in fire brigade call-outs.
I am afraid that I do not; I have just hearsay. People have told me that ambulances take longer to arrive. In Glenrothes, for example, I believe that each hump adds at least 10 seconds to journey times. One road has so many humps that ambulances and fire services tend to avoid it if they can.
Do you have any evaluation of speed humps? Are they common elsewhere in the world or have they been tried and rejected abroad?
Unfortunately, I have no internet connection at home, so I cannot research matters as thoroughly as someone else might be able to. I know that people are appealing against road humps in many countries; a person in America who is campaigning against road humps has contacted me and, I believe, road humps are being removed from some areas of America for the benefit of people with disabilities. People all over Europe are also campaigning against road humps because they feel that disabled people, people with poor health and elderly people have been ignored in respect of installation of humps.
That is a good point. The petition is certainly thought provoking.
I support very much what the petition brings to Parliament. It raises many issues and several points have been teased out. In my area—Govanhill—road humps were installed a couple of years ago.
I think so. People's mindset must be changed. Our whole village has become a 20mph zone, but that is not affecting people's speed hugely—they speed up after travelling over humps or cushions. Even a general practitioner has told me that his car can travel over some humps without slowing—the ability to do that depends on the form of transport—and that he avoids areas where humps cause him discomfort. If you stand beside a hump or platform to record the number of people who slow down, you will see that the number is low. A change in drivers' mindset and, perhaps, more police to reinforce speed levels are needed.
You talk about a change of mindset for drivers; I agree that that is necessary. In the areas where a twenty's plenty scheme has been advisory rather than mandatory, green signs have been put up—you may have seen them. When drivers found out that the 20mph limit was not mandatory, they began speeding up again; drivers also speed up between humps. I wonder whether any other members of the committee support my suggestion, which is that traffic be slowed down to 20mph in areas where that is required. Although traffic in general would be slowed down, ambulances and fire engines would not be deterred, which would mean that people who had disabilities or other difficulties would not be dragged over bumps. Do you see what I mean?
I do. I have discovered that a new form of hump has been trialled successfully in London; I will leave information on it with the committee. If a car or an ambulance goes over the hump at 20mph or less, it apparently has no effect, so the driver can maintain their slow speed. However, if someone is going at more than 20mph, the hump inflates itself and gives the vehicle a bump. As well as having been trialled successfully in London, the hump has been used in other parts of England. Provided that its use is tested for disabled people, it might offer the way forward. It is claimed that the system pays for itself within six months.
That, too, would be a good idea, but I imagine that the cheapest, smartest and easiest measure might be to slow down traffic completely. Thank you very much; I support your petition.
I have had experience of the twenty's plenty scheme. North Lanarkshire was one of the first councils to pilot it and I was able to help the council to verify that it was entitled to bring in mandatory 20mph zones. As far as I am aware, North Lanarkshire was the first local authority to have such zones, although other councils might have followed its lead. The introduction of the scheme has resulted in a reduction in accidents. That shows what can be done; the issue is not reserved.
Good morning. The petition that you have submitted has two sides to it. As well as addressing the problem of speed restriction ramps, it examines the installation of street furniture and that furniture's proximity to the kerb. The petition has two thrusts.
Yes. I included both elements because the more people I talked to, the more it became obvious that in some areas a hump and a speed cushion are not just a hump and a speed cushion. In some places, they are combined with zebra crossings. In some places, when a hump is created, the road level is raised, which means that wheelchair users can cross from one side of the road to the other without going on to the road. However, I have been informed by some wheelchair users that such humps cause problems, not only when they drive over them, but when they use them to cross the road. That is because lips are formed on the edge of the pavement when such installations are created.
I quite accept that, but the main thrust of your petition is to address the problem of speed-restriction ramps.
That is right.
You have made a good case. It is not the first time that we have heard about the difficulties that speed ramps create. As motorists, we sometimes complain about them because of the problems that they cause. However, what is the alternative?
Someone from the Disability Rights Commission told me that, in England, boxes with flashing lights that warn people to slow down have been found to be highly effective. Someone else told me that, on the continent, there is a system whereby if someone is caught exceeding the speed limit where there is a camera, they are brought to a halt at a set of traffic lights slightly further on. However, the Department for Transport and the DRC have told me that that other measures, such as rumble strips and notices of intended prosecution—NIPs—are often as effective.
I have seen an alternative to the speed ramp in some areas: a chicane is constructed in the road to slow down the traffic, which would eliminate the sort of problems that we are discussing.
It would indeed, but Fife Council has said that speeding youths will just zig-zag through them anyway. If speeding youths are going to fly round or over something, they will do it in any case, as I have witnessed.
Is your main priority the traffic calming measures or do you want your petition to be associated just as strongly with street furniture and pavement space?
Our main priority is the discomfort and pain that is caused to people who go over humps. However, when I talked to many of those who signed the petition and to others, they illuminated for me the problems that relate to the design of the humps and the pavements beside them, which is why I included those other issues. They are important for wheelchair users or people who have to use electric scooters. Even if a chicane is created, we still need dropped kerbs and they still need to be at the right gradient for wheelchairs to get up them. As I say, the tactile slabs that are used for blind people cause wheelchairs to slip, but they are being placed across entire crossings. I know that that is a difficult issue, but those matters all need to be taken into account as well.
For the avoidance of doubt, I place on record my strong support for Fife Council's endeavours to slow down traffic throughout Fife. It has tried every variety of traffic calming measure.
In our letters to the Disability Rights Commission and to the Executive I would like to ask about the DRC's consultation paper, some points from which are detailed here, and to ask what the Executive is doing in response to that. I mentioned earlier that a letter should also be sent to the Scottish Ambulance Service, specifically to ask how many objections they make to any proposed introductions of traffic calming measures and how successful they are either in having those proposals withdrawn or in having them mitigated in some way.
If we are to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service, we should also write to the Scottish fire brigades.
I do not know whether Helen Eadie mentioned the Scottish Road Safety Campaign, but we should seek some advice on its experiences. Would anything be gained from asking traffic police for their experience? I am sure that they have a lot of knowledge.
Judith McCrorie has brought before us a wide-ranging issue. You have received a lot of support from the committee, and we will seek out as much information as we can on the way forward. Once we get responses back from all the suggested organisations, we will keep you updated and we will continue to discuss the issue until we can conclude—I hope successfully—on your behalf. Thank you for bringing your petition to us this morning.
Thank you.
I welcome to the public gallery a delegation from Blyth Valley Borough Council, which is interested in the work of our committee. I hope that the delegation will be able to take away some useful information.
Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE841)
Petition PE841, from the Curran family, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to amend the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to make provision for a mandatory inquiry in the case of a road death caused by careless driving. Pat and Sandra Curran are here to make a brief statement to the committee in support of the petition, accompanied by Margaret Dekker from Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers. I welcome you all to the committee. You have a few minutes to make some introductory comments, after which we will discuss the issue that you have brought before us.
Many of you here will have said goodbye to your loved ones this morning without a thought. You expect to see them tonight when you return home, just as we did on 15 December 2003. Sadly for us, however, a so-called careless driver had other ideas and our beautiful, much-loved daughter and sister never made it home.
Thank you, Mr Curran. Do members have comments or questions for the petitioners?
I welcome the petitioners to the committee. I am sure that other members of the committee will, like me, want to express their regret for the loss of your daughter Gillian in such tragic circumstances. I acknowledge how difficult it must be for you to be here today.
That was the first contact that we had. It had been arranged that Pat would phone on the last Friday of every month to find out what was happening. Every month he phoned and was told that nothing was happening. After five and a half months, at 12.30 on the Friday afternoon before the case went to court—it went to court on the Wednesday—we received a letter telling us that the person who killed Gillian would be charged with careless driving and the fact that Gillian had been killed as a result of that careless driving would not be considered in the charge. We had been told at the beginning that we would be kept in contact with the fiscal's office at all times. That never happened. As I said, every time Pat phoned, we were told that there was nothing to report.
As I understand it, the Lord Advocate has the power to instruct that there be a fatal accident inquiry if he so wishes. You want to make a fatal accident inquiry mandatory in all cases. Can you understand that some people might not want an inquiry in certain circumstances?
Yes. However, when people die in jail or while doing their job, there are mandatory fatal accident inquiries. What difference is there between those situations and our situation? We expect the same treatment. Perhaps people who do not want one would not have to go along to the hearings. However, there should be inquiries into fatal accidents.
The accident that Mr and Mrs Curran have referred to took place in my constituency. I do not know whether I have to declare an interest, but I have a lot of knowledge of the case.
Yes.
If I may, I will come in, convener. What you said about precaution is reasonable, but even if a sheriff makes that sort of recommendation, the authorities have no power to put the recommendations into force. As Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers knows all too well, the Curran family and all the families like them seek recognition of the victim at a fatal accident inquiry. Although the fact that an innocent victim can be ignored in a charge is a reserved matter, the opportunity is open to us in Scotland to correct the situation through amending the law on fatal accident inquiries.
I, too, express my condolences on the loss of a daughter and sister. I am concerned that the fiscal's office did not make more effort to keep the family informed about the progress of the case. If the fiscal's office had done so, I suspect that our petitioners may not have been at committee today.
I would still have been here. My daughter's death would still not have been recognised and the whole purpose of our being at the committee today is to get that recognition. The fact that the people in the fiscal's office did not do their job does not change the outcome.
In the inquiries that you made in bringing the petition to the Parliament, did you come across other people who had also not been kept informed by a fiscal's office?
We have made contact only with one other family. They told us that their fiscal was great, but that was a situation in which the family knew the fiscal. They felt that everything had been done properly: they were shown round the court and they knew beforehand about everything that was going to happen. Until we got the letter on the Friday and Pat phoned the fiscal's office that afternoon to make an appointment, no one had been in touch. They did not even offer us an appointment in the letter that they sent to us; Pat had to ask for one.
In our case, one of the fiscals took ill and was off for two months. We think that our daughter's case was not looked at during that time.
In reflecting on what you are telling us, I wonder whether guidelines are set down for fiscals on how they should keep in touch with people in advance of a fatal accident inquiry.
Guidelines are in place. The Crown Office publication "Criminal Proceedings and Fatal Accident Inquiries" gives details of the way in which families should be kept informed. Although some families have been kept very well informed, you are right to suggest that there is a problem in the imparting of information. Even at the conclusion of a case, families do not always have their questions answered. That is because answering those questions may involve witness statements and all the rest of it.
I understand.
We called for a meeting after the case was over. Two fiscals in Hamilton, two senior traffic investigators and a reporting officer were at the meeting. Pat, Margaret Dekker, Nicola and I went along to the meeting. At the meeting, the police told us that they had recommended a dangerous driving charge but that that had been reduced to a careless driving charge because they did not have enough evidence. I do not know how they did not have enough evidence. When Gillian's records were sent to our lawyer, he advised us not to look at them because her car looked as if it had been through a crusher. The police could not establish a speed. I do not know how there was not enough evidence. They had a body and someone had been killed. I am not saying that it would have made us happy if the girl who killed Gillian had been given 10 years or even a month in jail—it would not. The fact is that Gillian should be recognised. That is what we are calling for. We are not out for vengeance; we want recognition. The very least that Gillian deserves is recognition.
I will return briefly to the point about the guidelines. In your view, Mrs Dekker, were the guidelines not followed as they should have been in this case? Does that happen in other cases?
In some cases, the guidelines have been followed, but in the majority of cases that we have dealt with—perhaps it is why families come to us—they have not been. We know that fiscals are overworked. SCID would like specialist fiscals to deal with road deaths. However, leaving that aside, I think that the fact that fiscals are overworked should not be the problem of families. The families have put their faith in the justice system, but they come out with an aggravated grief.
I, too, pass on my condolences and pay tribute to the strength and dignity that you are showing today. It must be very difficult.
We got notice on the last Friday of the month. Pat had just come in from work and he was going to phone the fiscal's office when the postman came.
So the notice came on the last Friday of the month.
Yes. The letter came that afternoon.
I find it surprising that the fiscal's office would not have had more notice than that. Given that you were phoning on a monthly basis, you ought to have been informed in advance of your monthly call. It is difficult for us to get into the details of the case. What has been detailed this morning is that the approach by procurators fiscal is patchy. They should follow basic guidelines. I take Mrs Dekker's point that staff shortages, staff illnesses or staff holidays should not be an issue. Mrs Dekker also said that there were 85 FAIs in Scotland in 2004.
In 2002—the last available figures are for 2002.
Do you know how many of those related to traffic accident deaths?
No. There is no information on that, although it would be useful to know the figure.
Is even the cause of death not listed publicly?
We do not know how many FAIs were mandatory, how many were discretionary and how many were related to road deaths.
I understand that you would not know whether the inquiries were mandatory or discretionary, but I would have thought that the cause of death would be made public.
I got the figures from "Civil Judicial Statistics Scotland 2002". There is no further information or breakdown of the figures in that publication.
Your submission suggests that there should be a mandatory FAI in cases of careless driving. You believe that that would bring compliance with the European convention on human rights. Can you explain what part of the convention that would involve?
For a start, it would involve the right to respect for family life. We believe that the fact that a family member has been killed and there has been no recognition of that is a violation of that right. The introduction to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's "Road Death Investigation Manual" includes the following mission statement:
I certainly think that effective access to information is an issue that the committee could follow up.
Like everyone else on the committee, I offer you condolences and support. You talked about being totally ignored and the fact that that aggravated your grief. The lack of communication concerns all of us—we hear about such problems quite often, unfortunately. I agree that the procurator fiscal's office is overworked and understaffed, but the family should not have to take the burden of that problem. We all agree with your aim of looking for recognition and dignity for Gillian.
I feel that at least Gillian would have had some recognition and we would perhaps be able to continue grieving for her. It has been so horrendous losing her and there is no recognition. I understand what you say about the roads, but the roads are not our priority. Our daughter is our priority, just as your families are your priority. The roads must be looked at, but the recognition of innocent victims must be looked at, too. Roads can be fixed, but what happened to us cannot be fixed. People should never be treated in the way that Gillian has been treated. We will never get recognition for Gillian—it will never happen for her. However, if the next time such a thing happens to somebody the family is recognised in the charge, we will at least be able to say to Gillian, "Good night, hen. God bless. We couldn't do it for you, but no other family out there will suffer in the way we've had to suffer through the lack of respect for you."
I add that the road that the convener talked about is well signposted "Queueing likely".
The person who killed Gillian had a 400m clear view of the traffic ahead. Gillian complained about the road every night. She travelled on it every night and she would sit in the queue of traffic because, as the convener said, it is a bottleneck at the top, with two lanes going into one. She would always talk about the idiots coming up the inside and trying to squeeze in at the top. She said that every night. It is just unfortunate that she had to lose her life. The doctor who was first on the scene said that the only thing that the person who killed Gillian was interested in was cancelling her meeting, because she would not be able to get to it. That could have been due to how she was feeling, but she took Gillian's life and she has never said sorry. Nobody has ever said sorry for the fact that Gillian lost her life.
Do members have any recommendations?
Mr and Mrs Curran make a persuasive case for the committee to consider. Committee members may remember that Enable—or somebody with Enable's support—brought a petition to us on the robustness of the process and the implementation of recommendations around a fatal accident inquiry. Although this petition raises a different matter, it strikes me that there is perhaps a wider issue of the need to review what fatal accident inquiries are all about, the circumstances in which fatal accident inquiries are held and the recognition that families and victims get. Given that interest in fatal accident inquiries, I wonder whether we should not write to the Scottish Law Commission, to find out whether it is conducting any programmes of work to review them; to the Lord Advocate, who has overall responsibility; and to the Minister for Justice, as the matter fits into the wider issue of access to justice for victims and their families.
Given that there has been an apparent breakdown of communication in the procurator fiscal's office—I say "apparent breakdown", as I am not sure what the guidelines are—the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should be contacted to find out whether it has any plans to change the procedures or to reassure people that the guidelines are being adequately implemented.
I must say that I have a concern about that aspect of the matter. I hope that I am not digressing. I am dealing with another case concerning an incident that was perpetrated by a minor, who went through the children's hearings system rather than the criminal courts. That means that, in law, there is no victim, so the newly established victim information and advice unit in the procurator fiscal's office cannot deal with the family in the way that it should.
I agree. That is a good point. There are clearly many victims. Perhaps we could approach the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, to see what its take on the issue is.
Okay. That is a good point.
When we write to the Executive, we should ask it to comment on the European convention on human rights aspect that Mrs Dekker highlighted.
Okay. We will write to all those organisations and we will keep the petitioners updated on the responses that we receive. We will progress the petition and keep you informed—I hope that we will not let you down in that respect. Thank you for talking about your petition this morning. I reiterate the committee's condolences and thank you for the dignity with which you have given evidence.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for listening to us.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (PE836)
Petition PE836, from Ronald E Conway on behalf of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review, as a matter of urgency, the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973—in particular, sections 17 and 19A, which relate to compensation for injured people. Ronald Conway is here to make a brief statement in support of the petition and is accompanied by Pat Clark. I welcome you both to the committee. You have a few minutes in which to make some additional comments, after which we will discuss the matter that you have brought to us.
Thank you for the invitation to be here. Having heard the previous petition, I am acutely aware of a sense of proportion about this matter. However, it is my strong view that the law in Scotland has taken a wrong turn, and that it is speeding down that wrong turn as fast as it can go. I have with me as a witness Mr Pat Clark, who is a welfare rights officer with Inverclyde Council. He is a former shipyard worker who suffers from vibration white finger. He is also suffering from the Scottish legal system.
I thank both of you for coming here to raise this important issue. I have had some experience of an organisation called Clydeside Action on Asbestos, with which you might well be familiar. That organisation has had difficulty with cases, but publicity has helped people to raise them earlier.
You are right. Purely inadvertently, you proposed a test with which I would be content when you said that a person could reasonably have known that he had the condition. In fact, the legislation asks whether it was "reasonably practicable" for the person to know.
I am sure that it is naive to ask whether one could argue that what Mr Cowan did or did not do would not have mattered, because the damage had been done by the time that he raised his case. Even if he had taken action earlier, it is not as if he would then have been told, "Well, you've got asbestosis, you've identified it, but if you take this treatment, it will stop." That cannot happen because the disease is incurable.
That very good point might segue into the point about the general practitioners. There is very little that medical assistance can provide. GPs are used to fixing people, to describe it at its simplest. I suppose that a GP might consider a hearing aid for noise-induced hearing loss, but nothing can be done about vibration white finger or about asbestosis, other than giving palliative medicine.
I will ask briefly about a couple of other points. In your introductory remarks, Mr Conway, you said words to the effect that the Scottish legal system has turned down a road, down which it is now proceeding with speed. Were you referring to the 1973 act? Obviously, that act was passed quite a while ago. Have there been no developments since then?
That point is well made. Let me give my view of what has happened. I believe that the lawyers for the insurance industry have picked up on this tension between what is "reasonable" and what is "reasonably practicable". The documents accompanying our petition show that, in 1973, the Scottish Law Commission saw no such tension, as it believed that the legislation and approach in Scotland and England would be exactly the same. However, since about the time of the Cowan case, from 1996 or 1997 onwards, lawyers for the insurance industry have argued that there is a distinction between what it is reasonable to do and what it is reasonably practicable to do. The courts have accepted that argument and taken it on board. Effectively since then, we have seen decision after decision in which, from my perspective, the courts have taken a wholly unrealistic approach.
I have one final question. Your association will doubtless have a made a submission to the Scottish Law Commission's consultation. Do you have hopes that the logic of your argument will be taken on board in the commission's report?
Obviously, I hope so. I should point out that the petition was drawn up before we were aware that the Scottish Law Commission was considering the matter. The association of which I am a member has made noises about the matter for some time, so I suspect that that might be one reason why the commission has picked up the issue.
Is that because any claim dies with the claimant?
The issue is not just that claimants might die, but that we will be a further four or five years down the line. Even if different legislation is introduced, the clock will be ticking on their actual knowledge. I will try to explain. The clock ticks twice, both on their actual knowledge and on their reasonably practicable constructive knowledge. Unless something is done quickly, those persons might be denied reasonable compensation.
Good morning. I think that Mike Watson has asked most of the essential questions. Nonetheless, I am surprised at the apparent disparity between how the legislation is interpreted in Scotland and how it is interpreted in England and Wales. I am also surprised that the issue turns on the interpretation of the word "practicable". Even if both systems are right in legal terms, by definition they cannot both be just. Will you expand a little more on how the system works in England and Wales? What benefits are available to claimants south of the border that are denied to people in Scotland?
At the back of the documents accompanying the petition are example cases with a comparative résumé. I will not rehearse all the cases.
Say just a few words about them.
Sure. I suggest that the English legislation reflects the realities of life. The Milner v Hepworth Heating Limited case, which involved deafness and constructive knowledge, is referred to on page 22 of the documents accompanying the petition. The defendant suggested that the plaintiff should have put two and two together much earlier. The Court of Appeal stated:
Yes, but I return to my basic point. Even if both interpretations are correct in law, the system is unjust, as it apparently does not favour people in Scotland who are subject to the time limitation. However, thank you for making that point.
I will be brief, as Mike Watson covered all the important points. Is actual knowledge still subject to the three-year limitation?
Yes. Actual knowledge always tends to be later than constructive knowledge. The pursuer or claimant will go to court and say that a consultant diagnosed the condition on 1 April 2005, but when the case comes to a hearing, the defence will say, "You've had the condition for some time and it's permanent. You should have known about it in 1995." The pursuer or claimant must then prove that they did not know about it and could not have known about it, which is difficult.
I understand that. I am driving at timescales because the Executive asked the Scottish Law Commission in September 2004 to consider the 1973 act and I understand that it will produce a discussion paper by the end of the year. What timescale are we talking about? You implied that the Scottish Law Commission is slow to move. I wonder whether you have a more suitable timescale in mind.
Are we negotiating?
No. If there is an issue to do with three-year limitations, that was a genuine question.
I can say only that I would like matters to move forward as quickly as possible. The Scottish Law Commission's report on psychiatric injury, which has been completed for some time, does not inspire me with tremendous confidence that such a route should be taken. The Law Commission for England and Wales has already done all the work and a quick fix is outlined in the papers that are before members. I urge the committee to consider that and to say that that fix is a quick fix for industrial disease cases. The Scottish Law Commission's remit is much wider—it relates to limitation over the whole range.
John Scott asked my question, which has been answered, so I do not have a question to ask. Are we ready to discuss recommendations?
John Farquhar Munro may ask a question before we discuss recommendations.
From the evidence that has been presented to us, it seems to me that the current law under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 is heavily weighted against the pursuer, which should concern the committee. I would like a point to be clarified. The background note to your petition states:
Yes, he should know about the disease as it affects him. I shall ask Mr Clark to answer your question, because he has direct knowledge of what a person with vibration white finger knows.
The difficulty, not just with vibration white finger but with many occupational diseases, is that they are insidious in how they develop. Looking round the table, I see a number of members with reading glasses. I have reading glasses, which unfortunately I have left in the car, but I got them because my wife sent me for an eyesight test. I thought that my eyes were fine, but the optician reckoned that I was probably five years too late in getting those glasses. That is an example that some of you may be able to identify with. My eyesight had been deteriorating, but I was not aware of it. The same is true of many of the conditions that Mr Conway has referred to. When a problem is identified, we are then told by the employers' legal representatives or insurance company that we should have known about it. If you consider the reading glasses example that I have just given, you will appreciate the difficulty.
What industry did you work in, Mr Clark?
Shipbuilding.
I was a welder myself.
I was a plater—a welder with O-levels. [Laughter.]
The old ones are always the best.
I cannot answer that, because my tour of duty in the shipyards ended before vibration white finger became a recognised condition. It was never mentioned while I was there, but Mr Conway might be able to answer your question.
I am certainly aware that the defence is being used that there was a generalised knowledge of it among union members. Vibration white finger is not a self-explanatory term. Many of the people to whom I have spoken, who have the symptoms, did not realise that they had a condition called vibration white finger. Persons suffering from hearing loss do not accept that they are suffering from hearing loss; a third party—generally their wife who is driven to distraction by television volumes that are far too high—has to tell them that they are suffering from it. Even though there is low-level general knowledge in the air, so to speak, in my experience the persons have little knowledge that they have suffered an injury in the sense of a bodily insult; they do not make the connection.
I invite recommendations for what to do with the petition.
If somebody else has already done the work, why are we going to do it again? Should we write to the Scottish Executive, given that it asked the Scottish Law Commission to look into the matter, and to the Scottish Law Commission to ask what plans it has, what its timetable is and how quickly we will see a change in the law?
We should ask what plans, if any, it has to amend the law.
I am more than happy to pursue that and see what help we can get for platers. Having helped out platers all my days—and covered for them on a number of occasions—I am more than happy to help one out on this occasion.
Can we write to the Scottish Trades Union Congress too?
That would be useful.
It supported the petition, so I do not see it adding anything to that.
I thank the petitioners for coming to the committee. That was the last of our oral evidence this morning.
Small-scale Energy Generation Equipment (PE837)
Petition PE837, by Neil Hollow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive actively to use its influence to ensure that by 2020 all buildings in Scotland, including domestic, commercial and Government buildings, will be fitted with at least one type of small-scale energy generation equipment, that such equipment will be brought within permitted development rights and that no charges for connecting to the grid will be made. Before being lodged formally, the petition was posted on the e-petitions site, where it gathered 163 signatures. The usual e-petition briefing has been circulated for members' information. Although microgeneration and energy policy are reserved, the promotion of energy efficiency is devolved.
I have had some involvement with this, because the Enterprise and Culture Committee held an inquiry into renewable energy last year and earlier this year. The Executive could do more. I know that its community and household renewables initiative was extended at the end of last year and that £6.5 million was made available. I would like to ask the Executive what it is doing to ensure that that is taken up, because it seems a useful way of developing small-scale energy generation, which can be viable in certain circumstances. Permitted development rights can sometimes be an issue and I would like us to ask the Executive how effectively it thinks that the system is operating.
I agree with Mike Watson. The petition is good. I would have liked to ask more questions and get more information. It was interesting to read the e-petition and the exchange between Neil Hollow and others. I throw that in to draw attention to the opportunity to read the exchanges between people from outside this place. Could we also seek the views of non-governmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth?
I, too, think that the petition is interesting. The idea is worthy of further exploration. I notice that the petition talks about connecting to the grid for free, but somebody would have to bear the cost of that. I suspect that the cost would fall on the power companies, so it is only reasonable to seek their views on the petition or at least on who should bear the connection charge.
Do you not think that we should take the companies back into public ownership?
I do not think that Rosie Kane and I will agree on that.
With reference to the options for action, I suggest that we consider writing to the Baywind Energy Co-operative, which is a United Kingdom co-operative that owns wind turbines. As a Scottish Co-operative Party-sponsored member, I should declare an interest. Baywind Energy Co-operative is a worthwhile organisation that could give us all good information.
Are members happy to write to those organisations?
Road Design Standards (PE838)
Petition PE838, which is by Sheila Carribine on behalf of Low Valleyfield community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament, in the interests of road safety, to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policy on road design standards and to encourage the publication of such standards and their proper and consistent application throughout Scotland.
As no one else has taken up the baton, I will speak. As ever, it is reasonable to seek the consistent application of guidelines. The public expect legislation to be implemented in the same way throughout Scotland, but apparently it is not—not even within a council area. We should investigate the matter further.
Fife Council has a laudable track record in everything that it has done on roads and transportation in Fife. It has led in many fields. We return to some issues. As we heard this morning and know from the petition, the public are concerned about how standards are enforced. We have all tried to work towards standards. At any level of government, standards are good for us and for delivery. They exist for a purpose. If standards are not delivered, that creates question marks.
The petition makes certain allegations against Fife Council, in terms of its not sticking to the road design standards. We should at least ask the council whether it would like to respond to those allegations.
We should give Fife Council the opportunity to comment on the petition. Are members happy that we do that?
Drinking Water (Chloramine Treatment) (PE842)
Our last new petition is PE842, from Mrs F C Bowman, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the use of chloramine disinfectant in the treatment of drinking water. Chloramination is a process that is used to disinfect drinking water after it has been treated to remove harmful bacteria while it travels from the treatment plant to premises. Although the petition is concerned with the general issue of the chloramination of drinking water, it is based on the petitioner's experiences in Skerray, where residents are concerned that chloraminated drinking water that is supplied from Loch Calder in Caithness has a horrible smell and tastes equally bad.
The petitioner lives in a neighbouring constituency that is represented by Jamie Stone. Jamie Stone would have been here to speak to the petition this morning, but he sends his apologies because he is attending the Justice 1 Committee.
I was not aware of this process, but John Farquhar Munro was obviously aware of it, given that people in the Highlands get a smell of chlorine in the water. I am not aware of a similar problem in Ayrshire or in Edinburgh. That suggests that there is a fault somewhere in the process, in which case Scottish Water should definitely be asked for an explanation. We should ask whether the process is necessary and, if it is necessary, what Scottish Water intends to do to reduce the problem. Most people in Scotland would not even be aware that the water is chloraminated—if that is how it is pronounced. We should, in the first instance, ask Scottish Water why the problem exists and why the process is needed to deal with it. Is water universally chloraminated throughout Scotland, or is it chloraminated only in the Highlands?
I do not think that the process is universal. I would like to know more about the cumulative effect and whether the bad smell and the bad taste are connected to a pollutant or an excess of chemicals in the water at any given point. I wonder whether Dr Richard Dixon is still at Friends of the Earth Scotland. He would be very good on this issue. If he is no longer there, Friends of the Earth will have someone else from whom it would be equally good to ask for a bigger overview of what is going on. We should ask whether the process is necessary, in the first place, and whether there is a cumulative effect at any point, either in the individual or in the supply. We could also seek the views of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Yes. Why not?
What came home to me when I read the papers was the fact that the World Health Organisation sets out a maximum acceptable concentration for chloramines in drinking water of 3mg per litre. It would be helpful if we knew the minimum acceptable level—perhaps the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health could tell us.
Do members agree that the committee will write to Scottish Water, SEPA and Friends of the Earth? Should we contact other organisations? Perhaps we should seek the Scottish Executive's view on the matter.
I presume that Scottish Water's response—
We will get a response from Scottish Water, but the Executive might have an overview on the matter, depending on the environmental issues. We could check out the Executive's perspective.
Did you mention the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland?
Do you want to include the regulator?
Yes.
Okay.
Next
Current Petitions