Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petition
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
School Libraries (PE1581)
Agenda item 3 is—fittingly, on world book day—PE1581 by Duncan Wright, on behalf of save Scotland’s school libraries.
Since our last consideration of the petition, we have received submissions from COSLA and the petitioners. From those responses, it appears as though there is contrasting evidence about the accessibility and availability of e-reading materials. COSLA says that increased use of technology allows children to access a wide range of reading materials, while the petitioners claim that their evidence suggests that take-up is low, which can be due to costs, licensing restrictions and wi-fi availability in schools.
The COSLA submission broadly acknowledges the benefits of the action that is called for in the petition, but considers that those should be weighed against other factors, including the benefits from other areas of educational provision, the potential strain that would be placed on other local authority services and the “erosion of local democracy” by undermining the role of locally elected councillors in making budget decisions.
The petitioners suggest that having a national strategy will
“ensure the positive impact a professionally staffed school library can have on attainment and curriculum delivery”.
They add that there is, perhaps, a lack of knowledge about what a modern school library and librarian can offer.
Do members have views on what action to take on the petition?
I suggest a chat with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.
The cabinet secretary has already agreed to appear here to give evidence on another petition, so that would be an opportunity to ask him to give evidence on this one.
As an elected member of a council that had such a decision to make, I declare an interest. From my experience, that is an issue for all local authorities, so we need to take it to a higher level—to the cabinet secretary. It has to go to that level.
I was going to suggest writing to the cabinet secretary for his view, rather than inviting him here, but as members have pointed out that he is coming to committee anyway, maybe we can ask about this matter at the same time.
Yes—but he is not coming until later, in April, so writing may be useful.
We can write to flag up the issues to him. The petition suggests that local authorities are making decisions in the context of constraints on their budgets. Do they properly understand the importance of a professional librarian in a school when people can access information in loads of other ways? The case that is made by the petitioner is that there is added value that local authorities may not appreciate. Many years ago when I was still a schoolteacher, the school librarian was really important. I suspect that a library will not look or sound the same now as it did then; in the past we would go to the library to get information that we can now get on our phones.
Those are the questions that we might want to explore further with the cabinet secretary and by looking at advice and guidance that has been given to local authorities. The petitioner seems to suggest that, in times of constraint, the library is seen as a luxury, whereas librarians and those who understand the system suggest that we should actively encourage the library in order that we can close the attainment gap. I think that those are the questions that we want to explore.
A wider issue is closures due to not enough people are using libraries. I am not saying that they should close, but that seems to be happening outwith schools. I think that asking the cabinet secretary for his view would be the way to go, initially.
Okay. We will have a session with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills on a number of issues; his multipurpose attendance will be most useful.
It will be a lovely morning for him. [Laughter.]
Libraries are wonderful places. I think that we are agreed that we recognise that the issues are important. What is the information and advice that local authorities have on the importance of libraries? There will be an opportunity for us to explore that with the cabinet secretary.
Members indicated agreement.
Speed Awareness Courses (PE1600)
The next item is consideration of PE1600, by John Chapman, on speed awareness courses.
In December 2016, we agreed to write to the Department for Transport for an update on its timescale for publishing its report on its three-year evaluation of speed awareness courses, on the basis that we would defer consideration of the petition until the report was published. We also agreed to write to the Scottish Government.
The Department for Transport has indicated that its final report will not be presented to the project board until the middle of this year. An announcement on publication will be made after that. It is difficult to interpret precisely how long that might be, but it could be up to nine months from now before any findings are published. The petitioner feels that the Department for Transport are
“dragging their feet on this issue”.
The submission from Transport Scotland is a little more encouraging. It confirms that, in September 2016, the speed awareness course steering group advised the strategic partnership board that the introduction of speed awareness courses in Scotland would be worthy of a trial. It notes that Police Scotland was to develop a full options proposal, which will be discussed at the strategic partnership board meeting on 22 March. It was also noted that any pilot of such courses in Scotland should be supported by on-going evaluation and assessment as data becomes available.
I invite members’ views on action to take on the petition. Does anybody have any comments?
I think that we have to wait for the report later this year.
So are we waiting for the Department for Transport?
I think that we have to.
Is there something that we could do in relation to the Scottish Government in the meantime?
We could ask for an update from the strategic partnership board, to establish what action might be taken. In the absence of progress, that is probably where the petitioner is coming from—that we will maybe push the Department for Transport.
Okay. We can write to the Scottish Government to ask it for an update following the strategic partnership board meeting in March, and ask what action it is going to take to establish a trial. Perhaps we can ask the Department for Transport to keep us advised of when it will actually move on that question. I do not know what the difficulty is—from either the Department for Transport or the Scottish Government. It seems to me to be eminently sensible that, if we can do something to address the question of speed awareness, we should do so. I think that there have been advertisements on television recently, just highlighting—
It is about raising public awareness.
I think that there is a public awareness campaign just now, although I am not sure by whom. That is encouraging, but it just does not feel to me as though it would involve anything horribly complicated to say that we should do something. We could maybe say to the Scottish Government that we think that the matter is important and we would like to have some sense of direction on it, if not some urgency. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We can agree to write to the Scottish Government and perhaps to ask the Department for Transport to keep us informed, but we agree with the petitioner that the matter could be moving with a bit more pace.
Armed Forces (School Visits) (PE1603)
PE1603, by Mairi Campbell-Jack and Douglas Beattie on behalf of Quakers in Scotland and Forces Watch, calls for greater scrutiny, guidance and consultation on armed forces visits to schools in Scotland.
We have received a number of submissions since we last considered the petition, most of which express support for the action that is called for in the petition. The submissions have come from a range of organisations representing, for example, children’s rights, faith communities in Scotland, the scientific community and parents of school-aged children. We have also received a response from the Ministry of Defence, which provides some information about activities in schools and makes the offer of a briefing for the committee. Skills Development Scotland has also provided a submission outlining how it works with the armed forces.
What are members’ views on what action we might wish to take on the petition?
10:45
I am on record as supporting the petition. I would be interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, or a minister, and from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because the petition relates to schools and local authority control over schools. A large number of the submissions that have been received, including from the Educational Institute of Scotland, the National Union of Students Scotland and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, agree with the petitioner. We should definitely keep the petition open while we get more information from decision makers. It is a big issue, and it must be looked into thoroughly.
I suggest that we accept the offer of a briefing from the Ministry of Defence. We can perhaps ask for senior officers from each of the services to come forward if we feel that the briefing is not detailed enough or that it does not come up to the standard that we want. We could have that as a fall-back.
Okay. We want to hear from the cabinet secretary and COSLA, and we want to accept the offer of a briefing from the Ministry of Defence. At this initial stage, we recognise the very strong views that have been expressed by people who have responded to the petition. Although some folk wonder whether it is appropriate for the armed forces to go into schools at all, the petitioner is simply saying that there should be transparent guidance; that is the matter that we want to explore. We also thank all those who have responded to the petition and given us further information. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Deaths by Suicide (Inquests) (PE1604)
PE1604, by Catherine Matheson, is on inquests for all deaths by suicide in Scotland. We have received three submissions and a response from the petitioner.
The Minister for Mental Health supports the petitioner’s call to extend the scope of the review under section 37 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2015 to include patients who are released from hospital or who are receiving care in the community under compulsory treatment orders. The minister has explained the process that has been followed to introduce the duty of candour procedure in health and social care settings under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016. There appears to be a lack of support among stakeholders for expanding the section 37 review to include an inquest-type system. Those who have expressed views consider that that might be duplicative and would not add value. The petitioner considers it necessary, however, because the existing systems are too slow and inadequately address the complexities of suicide.
There is support among some stakeholders for the petitioner’s suggestions on how to improve the suicide review process, including the guidance on who should participate in a suicide review. The existing guidance says that the chair
“should be sufficiently removed from the event”.
In the petitioner’s view, the guidance should explicitly require that the person be independent—for example, from another health board.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?
We should write to Healthcare Improvement Scotland for information on how many health authorities are meeting the targets to commence suicide reviews within two weeks and to complete them within three months. We could also seek information on how bereaved families or carers can raise their concerns with HIS when they consider that the authorities are not learning from suicide reviews—particularly authorities that have been highlighted in findings by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
We found the petition compelling when it first came before us, so I hope that the petitioner feels that at least some progress is being made and acknowledges that the Government is extending the review to include people who commit suicide in the community while under compulsory treatment orders. That is progress, and I hope that the petitioner is encouraged by that.
We will write to Healthcare Improvement Scotland, asking about the meeting of targets and about how bereaved families or carers can raise concerns. Is there anything else that members think we should do?
I think that that will be sufficient.
We could ask the Scottish Government for the timescale of the section 37 review.
We can also ask the Government for an update on the review. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Diabetes (Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors) (PE1619)
PE1619, by Stuart Knox, is on access to continuous glucose monitoring sensors. We have received responses on the petition from the Scottish Government and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. As members know, we have also previously agreed to undertake fact-finding engagement activities on the petition; arrangements are being made by the clerks.
Do members wish to seek further information in relation to the petition at this point? I think that we will get details of the engagement event soon, but seeking information would give us an opportunity to get a proper sense of the issues around care for people with diabetes that are driving the petition more generally.
I sit on the cross-party group on diabetes. There is not an awful lot of information coming out of it on access to glucose monitoring sensors. It is the old postcode lottery cliché—access depends on where you live, so access is definitely something that we need to explore further.
According to our notes, the Scottish Government has provided additional funding. The question is where that funding is going to go. Will it be split between provision of insulin pumps and CGM technology? The evidence that we are receiving makes a quite compelling argument that the technology is very effective. Should we ask the Scottish Government for details about that? Extra funding is clearly welcome, but how is it going to be distributed?
There is certainly compelling evidence from diabetes sufferers who have been on continuous glucose monitoring about the significant impact that it has had on their lives. However, with technology moving forward so quickly, the worry is that by the time someone reaches a conclusion, they have to learn something else.
Do we agree that we will write to the Scottish Government in those terms and get details about the engagement event in due course?
Members indicated agreement.
Recycling (PE1622)
PE1622, by Stephen Duff, is on making failure to recycle a criminal offence. Following initial consideration of the petition, we have received submissions from the Scottish Government, COSLA and the petitioner. The Scottish Government is not considering making failure to recycle a criminal offence, and COSLA does not support the action that is called for in the petition.
The Scottish Government and COSLA highlight work that is currently progressing through the Scottish household recycling charter, which is a joint initiative that is designed to introduce a consistent approach to recycling across the country. Financial support for the charter is being provided by Zero Waste Scotland, and the most recent information says that 23 local authorities have already signed up to the charter. Progress on it is being monitored by a steering group that is made up of relevant agencies, including industry representatives. The charter’s effectiveness will be assessed by local government once it is more fully embedded.
The petitioner appears to welcome the move to standardised recycling methods, saying that it is “long overdue”, but makes the point that the proposed penalties are
“urgently needed to change attitudes”
and that they will reinforce the central message about proper recycling.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We all understand Stephen Duff’s sentiments, as contained in the petition. I am sure that we would all like to see 100 per cent recycling rates sooner rather than later. However, the Scottish Government, COSLA and the individual local authorities—not to mention 5 million Scots—have to be given the chance to come on board with the Scottish household recycling charter before we go down the route of criminalising failure to recycle.
Zero Waste Scotland has indicated that support is available to local authorities, as the convener has mentioned, for educating the public. We should close the petition and allow the Scottish household recycling charter to bed in. Nine local authorities have still to sign up to the charter; we should encourage them to do so, but it would premature to go down the route that the petitioner suggests. People should be allowed to come on board over the next few months and years.
I agree with my colleague. This is a work in progress, so it would be premature and impractical to go down the suggested route. I agree that we should close the petition.
On practicality, I do not see how what is suggested could possibly work, so I agree with my colleagues.
We acknowledge the issue that the petitioner is wrestling with, which is the importance of recycling and the consequences for all of us if we do not recycle, but we also acknowledge that the Scottish household recycling charter—the commitment of the Scottish Government and COSLA to concentrate people’s minds—is probably the right route, at this stage.
The deposit return system has been highlighted recently and there are other things, going forward. There are enough issues to bring the balance back, so I favour closing the petition because I think that such things can be achieved another way.
Do members agree to close the petition, while acknowledging the issues and noting that it is a matter for the Scottish Government and COSLA, and that we would expect them to monitor closely the effectiveness of their charter and, perhaps, to revisit it?
Members indicated agreement.
Adultery (Definition) (PE1624)
Our final petition today is PE1624, by Akri Jones, on the definition of adultery. Members will see that we have received a submission from the Scottish Government and a response from the petitioner.
Members will recall that the petition is calling for the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 to be amended so that adultery is defined such that it can be committed between people of the same sex as well as people of different sexes. The Scottish Government’s submission does not support what is being called for. The Government does not intend to consult or legislate on the issue during the current session of Parliament and believes that the issue was sufficiently explored during the passage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. The petitioner considers that the act is not human rights compliant and she considers that the issue should be explored by the Scottish Law Commission.
The clerk’s note explains that the Scottish Law Commission will be consulting on its 10th programme of law reform, in the year ahead.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I do not think that adultery comes up in divorce cases any more.
Does it come under unreasonable behaviour?
Yes—it comes under unreasonable behaviour and does not stand alone any more.
The suggestion in the petition is that it must come up and that the definition of adultery is that it is something that happens between people of opposite sexes. That is, I presume, at the heart of the matter.
Another option that is open to the petitioner is to test in the courts whether the act is human rights complaint. That is not really a matter for the committee. Are there other means by which a marriage can be dissolved? The contention is that there are other ways in which unreasonable behaviour can be established so it would not be discrimination. That is a matter for the courts. The Government makes the point that the issue was discussed as recently as 2014; the Government decided not to take the matter forward.
The Scottish Government is saying that it will not consult or act on the issue, that it has been debated recently and that there are other options open to people in civil partnerships or same-sex marriages who want to get divorced.
We cannot go much further on the issue—we cannot do anything other than close the petition.
One could talk to the Scottish Law Commission in its consultation, as an individual.
That would be a matter for the petitioner.
Yes—that is right. We should close the case. It is clear from the Scottish Government’s submission that there will be no movement. It had obviously done the research in 2014.
Do members agree to close the petition under standing orders rule 15.7, on the bases that the issue that is raised by the petition was considered recently during the passage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, and that the Scottish Government has no intention to consult or legislate on the issue in the current session of the Scottish Parliament? We can let the petitioner know that she can respond to the Scottish Law Commission’s forthcoming consultation.
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 10:59.Previous
New Petitions