Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
New Petitions
Rail Fares (Pricing) (PE1760)
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 21st meeting in 2019 of the Public Petitions Committee. Agenda item 1 is the consideration of new petitions.
The first new petition for consideration is PE1760, on clear pricing for train fares, which was lodged by George Eckton. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers, as a matter of course, be given information on the cheapest possible fare. The petitioner has found that passengers can sometimes save money by purchasing split tickets, which are multiple tickets to cover a journey, rather than a single ticket. The journey involves the same route, taken at the same time, but the cost is different.
The petitioner states that, when passengers purchase a ticket at a staffed ticket office, the knowledge of those staff helps them to buy split tickets. However, when passengers purchase tickets online, via the app or at a ticket machine, they are not given that option and, therefore, are not informed of the cheapest possible way to make their journey. Since the papers for the meeting were published, the petitioner has emailed, suggesting that the committee write to the Office of Rail and Road to seek its views on the petition.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I have a lot of sympathy with the petition. I come from an area that has a lot of railway stations that do not have ticket offices, and, therefore, a lot of people buy their tickets online. I see no reason why the process should not be the same as when we buy a ticket from an attendant. We should pursue the matter and write to the Government and ORR, as the petitioner has asked us to.
I agree—absolutely.
It is another straightforward information technology issue. The technology is available to make the process simple, but, for some reason, we are not adopting it. I am with the rest of the committee members. We need to write to the Scottish Government, asking why that is not bring done.
I wonder whether it is partly IT-related and partly down to a weird pricing policy. I remember going up to Inverness, and the guy behind the counter said, “Well, of course, if you get a ticket to Perth and then a ticket to Inverness, you’ll save a lot of money.” The staff knew that, so I went off with a fistful of tickets. That is not about IT; that is about an odd pricing system. We could flag that issue up as well.
I see from our papers that Alex Hynes, or one of the other senior directors of ScotRail, said that he had discovered that there was a variation.
Railways on the continent, on which I travel a lot, have a basic fare. People know what the cheapest fare is, wherever they are. They have that option. The fare is so reasonable that, for example, there is little difference between first class and second class. SNCF and other railways, such as those in Italy, have cracked it. We should dig into that one.
We agree to write to the Scottish Government and to the key stakeholders: the Rail Delivery Group, Transport Focus, the Advertising Standards Authority—because there is an issue about the transparency and honesty of the ticketing policy—and, as the petitioner suggests, the Office of Rail and Road.
We should also write to Abellio ScotRail.
Okay. That is straightforward. It is an interesting issue and the petitioner has provided us with a lot of useful information.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Grouse Moors (Killing of Wildlife) (PE1762)
The next new petition for consideration is PE1762, on ending the killing of wildlife on grouse moors and elsewhere in Scotland, which was lodged by Libby Anderson and Bob Elliot on behalf of OneKind. The petition calls for a full review of the animal welfare impacts of the use of traps and snares on grouse moors and elsewhere in Scotland.
Our briefing paper for this petition explains that trapping and snaring can be legally undertaken in Scotland for the control of some types of wildlife. The use of traps and snares is subject to legal restrictions, which are designed to prevent harm to non-target wildlife.
Trapping and snaring crime is not shown as part of recorded crime statistics, because offence data cannot be broken down to that level, but the “Wildlife Crime in Scotland 2017 Annual Report” sets out Police Scotland disaggregated offence data showing that 15 illegal trapping and snaring offences were recorded for 2016-17. However, it is recognised by the Scottish Government and Police Scotland that there are challenges in detecting wildlife crime and that that figure might be just the tip of the iceberg.
In 2017, the Scottish Government set up an independent group to consider the environmental impact of grouse moors. A report is expected in the coming weeks, and the Scottish Government committed, in the 2019-20 programme for government, to responding to the group’s recommendations.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
There might be some reference to the matter in the Werritty report, which the Government is now in receipt of. I have huge sympathy with the intention behind the petition. I know that the use of legal snaring has gone down since tougher regulations were introduced. I have a personal opinion on its use, but that is not appropriate for here.
The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee is doing quite a lot of work on the matter, and I wonder what other members think about passing the petition on to that committee.
I think that the Government is already considering some legislation and reporting on the matter. It is already quite far down the line with that. It would be interesting to get the ECCLR Committee’s view on the petition before we pass it on. I think that it will end up with the ECCLR Committee ultimately, but we could probably seek its views in the first instance.
There is clearly an issue here. It looks as though the Scottish Government is doing a lot of work on the matter and is going to report. If we got an update from the Government, we might find that the work is being done. We would have an option to pass the petition on, or we could simply recognise that the work is being done and close the petition. We could take the opportunity to see what is happening first.
Is there not also a petition about raptors? There is a correlation here.
There are several of them.
Over the years, there have been a number of petitions on animal welfare and safety, and there is a long-term debate about hunting and shooting and about whether the practices are acceptable or justified. That is where the political argument lies.
Absolutely.
We could write to the Government, asking it what it is doing over and above the recommendations in the Werritty review. That review concerns only grouse moors, but snaring and trapping are used by farmers, land managers and other people, including gamekeepers, outwith grouse moors.
We may wish to speak to Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association.
We will first write to the Scottish Government. It may be that a discussion is going on, which we would not need to replicate through further correspondence. We can then reflect on what the Scottish Government says. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Freedom of Information Legislation (Scottish Police Federation) (PE1763)
The next new petition is PE1763, headed “Make the Scottish Police Federation comply with FOI legislation” and lodged by Robert Brown. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the Scottish Police Federation comply with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
Our briefing explains that freedom of information requirements apply broadly to public authorities such as Governments, councils and health boards. Police Scotland is subject to the requirements of the 2002 act, but the Scottish Police Federation is not. As police officers are prohibited from joining trade unions, the Scottish Police Federation was created as a staff association with responsibility for the welfare and efficiency of police officers. Trade unions are not covered by freedom of information legislation.
It could be argued that the Scottish Police Federation is akin to a trade union and, therefore, should not be covered by freedom of information requirements. However, the Scottish Police Federation was established by legislation; therefore, it could be argued that it has some similarities with public bodies. The Police Federation of England and Wales is required to comply with freedom of information legislation as a result of changes to the law that were made in 2017. The Scottish Government stated in July 2019 that it had no plans to make the Scottish Police Federation subject to freedom of information legislation.
Elaine Smith, who has noted her support for the petition, says:
“I have realised that the Scottish Police Federation appear to be totally self-governing and do not conform to the standards set for England and Wales Federations”.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
09:30
The petition has real merit, especially given that England and Wales have already gone down the same route. However, the Scottish Government has indicated that it has no intention of changing its position. Frustrating as it may be to both the petitioner and the committee with regard to investigating the issue, I do not know that there is anything in particular that we can do to push the matter forward, given that we know where the Scottish Government stands.
I do not think that trade unions should fall within the remit of, or be caught by, freedom of information legislation. The police are not allowed to have a trade union, and the only way that they can have a staff association is through legislation. Would it be fair if what is, in effect, a trade union for the police fell under different legislation from that which applies to other trade unions?
The SPF is a unique organisation. However, given that I perceive the organisation as a trade union, I do not see why—unless I am arguing that all trade unions should be in the same position—it should be singled out. The police do not have any choice—they are not allowed, under different legislation, to set up a trade union.
The whole matter is really interesting following incidents down south, such as the plebgate scenario, that have brought the police there under the auspices of FOI legislation. Again, I go back to the fact that the Scottish Government has been quite firm in saying that it has no intention of moving down that route. I am, therefore, not quite sure what we can do with the petition.
It is a difficult one. The release of any information under FOI is entirely in the jurisdiction of the body that is being requested to release it, and there may be valid reasons why it cannot be released. There is some sort of parity. Perhaps we should go back and question the Scottish Government, just to double-check that it is still of the same view.
The matter was not in the programme for government. The Government said what it said in July 2019, so we know what the answer is going to be. We would only be deferring our decision on whether we want to explore the matter further. My feeling is that the case has not been made for why the SPF, as a quasi-trade union, should fall within the remit of FOI legislation, unless we are arguing that all trade unions should be subject to FOI—I would argue that they should not be. Why would we be inconsistent? There are particular circumstances that have led to the current position in England and Wales, but my sense is that there is not an issue in Scotland.
I agree. The Government has made it quite clear what its policy is, and that is not going to change. I agree with Brian Whittle—as a committee, we cannot really take the petition forward.
I have not said that I disagree with that; I just wanted to play the devil’s advocate, because the petition raises an issue that needs to be given serious thought. I understand the reasons why the SPF was set up.
The petition highlights the difference between the circumstances in England and Wales and those in Scotland, and it gives us an opportunity to reflect on the situation. However, my sense is that there is no pressure for such a change in Scotland. It would require broader discussion about how a staff association inside the police should operate if it is not to operate like a trade union, and I do not think the case has been made for such a change.
My sense is that the committee agrees that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has confirmed very recently that it has no plans to make the Scottish Police Federation subject to freedom of information legislation. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Primary School Curriculum (Evolutionary Studies) (PE1764)
The next petition was lodged by James Robertson, on behalf of Families in Support of Evolutionary Studies, and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to add evolutionary studies to the primary school curriculum. As our briefing for the petition explains, very little of the school curriculum is statutory in Scotland. The non-statutory curriculum for excellence is intended to be an outcomes-based approach whereby education authorities and schools have a great deal of autonomy on what is taught and how.
Religious instruction and observance have a statutory position within Scottish education under sections 8 and 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Section 8 provides that, where it has been the custom for schools to have religious instruction and observance, an education authority may not discontinue that without such a proposal having been confirmed by a local referendum. Section 9 is titled “Conscience clause” and provides that
“any pupil may be withdrawn by his parents from any instruction in religious subjects and from any religious observance in any”
public or grant aided
“school.”
In curriculum for excellence, one of the headings under which experiences and outcomes in sciences are organised is “biological systems”, which has a sub-heading of “inheritance”. The following benchmarks are relevant to these experiences and outcomes:
“Knows that genetic information determines characteristics such as colour of eyes and shape of petals.”
“Knows that genetics is the study of inherited characteristics and that inherited characteristics are carried on genes and can sometime skip a generation.”
In response to a written question in 2013, Alasdair Allan MSP, then Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, advised:
“Evolution is specifically covered in the experiences and outcomes for the sciences that form a core element of the Curriculum for Excellence”.—[Written Answers, 29 October 2013; S4W-17514.]
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
For me, the question is whether we are crossing a boundary and dictating to headteachers what they have to include in their day-to-day curriculum. As you said in your summary, there is a great deal of autonomy for schools, so I am struggling with the idea of a diktat that says, “You must teach evolution.”
The opposite view is that we already mandate things for teachers. We have our one-plus-two approach to languages; we have our STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—emphasis; we have religious and moral education; and we have two hours of PE a week. We already lay down a lot of things that offer a basic curriculum, and then things are added on top. It is perfectly reasonable for us to write to the Scottish Government and get an overview of what is already being taught in schools and how that fits in with what the petitioner is calling for.
I agree. From my experience of my own children in local schools, the religious studies teachers have been very broad-minded and have included this issue. I know from discussions with my kids that the subject is not just about faith but is about non-faith aspects and about living a good life. We should see what the Scottish Government will say about adding something to the prescription about what a teacher teaches. We should not try to dictate because, after all, these are professional people. One tends to find that religious studies and philosophy are linked and this may be something that can be added in. It is about tweaking, if anything.
It seems to me that the argument is between those who say that the theory of evolution is scientifically based and therefore should be taught as what happened, and those who want to teach creationism. That is where the conflict is. I am assuming that the campaign for this kind of education is saying that evolution is not just another form of belief but is evidence based. The petitioners’ argument is that it should be at the core of the curriculum. That is something that people are going to argue about, particularly folk of particular faiths who have different beliefs about how the world was created. The argument here is, in the meantime, whether the theory of evolution should be taught as part of science.
However, there are atheists who send their children to school and absolutely do not believe in creationism, but there are still schools that teach it as historical fact, which is not right. That is the opposite end of the scale for both options.
I think that the campaign is about trying to bring the issue into the public domain and have that discussion—to say that, although people may have come to believe certain things, there is a scientific view of what is the case. I assume that the campaign wants that scientific view to be located in the curriculum as of right.
It opens up a conversation about the secular aspect of our education system and how we go forward as we become a more secular society. There is a place for religion and for evolutionary studies and it is about how we get the right balance. We should write to the Government in the first instance.
Do we agree to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on how it would be managed if the Government acted in the terms asked for in the petition? That would at least give us an understanding of where the Government was coming from. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Public Office (Accountability) (PE1765)
PE1765, which has been lodged by Fiona McBride, is on making those in Scottish public office accountable. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to ensure that effective measures are introduced to secure the accountability of all MSPs and Scottish Government agencies for misuse and abuse of both parliamentary privilege and conferred authority assigned to individuals in positions of trust.
Our briefing for the petition states that politicians and public servants are subject to the law and that MSPs and those in public life are bound by specific codes of conduct as outlined in the paper. It also explains that parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for MSPs. In the Scottish Parliament, any privilege is conferred by or under the Scotland Act 1998. Section 41 provides that, for the purposes of the law of defamation, any statement made in “proceedings of the Parliament” and the publication under the authority of the Parliament of any statement is absolutely privileged. That means that such statements cannot form the basis of a defamation action. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
All those codes of conduct are in place and I do not think that we can improve on that. They are there, we are answerable, we have signed the documents and so on and the situation is perfectly clear. I propose that we should close the petition.
I am interested in the fact that I have parliamentary privilege. I did not know that, so there you go.
We can exempt you.
I do not feel privileged at all. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government and the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life in Scotland and take a view on the matter. I understand where Maurice Corry is coming from—I cannot see there being much change—but we should at least take a view.
I am not sure what the petitioners want. Is it that people are doing bad things and there is not enough protection in the system against that? Clearly, there are breaches of the codes, but the codes exist and the issue is what happens as a consequence.
I understood the petition to be looking for some sort of recompense for people who have been affected by bad legislation and decision making, as well. There is a bit about that at the end of the petition. Something like that goes way beyond our personal code of conduct.
You are talking about a compensation scheme in which individual decision makers such as MSPs or others would be fined if, as a consequence of their decisions, legislation had an impact on people. However, there would surely have to be a link with the purpose. Someone might support a decision based on advice that it was the right thing to do and they might have tested the argument, but unforeseen consequences might then transpire. The idea seems very unwieldy. There are all sorts of things that can be done but, ultimately, when Governments get things wrong, the electorate can have their say. That is the ultimate punishment.
09:45
There are checks and balances.
The process would need to relate to legislation, but proving Government wrongdoing would probably be quite a subjective matter in a lot of areas.
Yes, although I would not test that argument in here. [Laughter.]
What Gail Ross says is true in just about every area.
The issue is who would make those decisions.
The question for us is whether we want to explore with the Scottish Government and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland whether the proposal is even feasible. We are not making light of the issues. We recognise that there are issues about probity, the thoughtfulness with which decision makers make decisions and the responsibility that is on them when the consequences are borne by other people. The issue is whether we think that there needs to be a change and, if so, whether we know what that change would look like. The question is whether we can usefully do something on the issue.
To follow on from my earlier point, if we are writing to the Scottish Government, perhaps we should check out the robustness of the current regulations and the operation of the codes.
One person might think that a piece of legislation is fabulous because it has helped them, but somebody else might think that it is terrible because it has had consequences for them. The decision makers might realise that their decision will have consequences for certain people, but they might still think that it is the right thing to do. Examples of that include decisions that have been made in the past on health. Decisions on public policies might have an impact on whether a particular industry can continue. It is complex.
We would be opening cans of worms all over the place.
Given all the stages that a bill goes through, including taking evidence in committee, the amendments that are made at stages 2 and 3 and then the debate in the chamber, as well as post-legislative scrutiny, the current system is pretty robust.
The petition is not just about legislation; it is about what members can say in Parliament. We are not very clear about that issue.
We should ask the Scottish Government and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life for their views on whether we can take the matter any further. We can decide what to do when the responses come back.
Fair enough. Do members agree to write to the Scottish Government and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life, asking for their views on the action that is called for in the petition, including on the practicalities of fines and so on?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
AttendanceNext
Continued Petitions