Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Thyroid and Adrenal Testing and Treatment (PE1463)
Item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. PE1463, by Sandra Whyte, Marian Dyer and Lorraine Cleaver, is on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment. The committee last considered the petition in March and subsequently published its report, which focused on four main areas: guidance framework; diagnosis and testing; treatment; and research. The committee also agreed that it should seek time in the debating chamber for consideration of the issues that are raised in the petition. The committee has received a response to the report from the Scottish Government, and the response is included in the briefing paper.
Elaine Smith MSP has provided some information that the committee might wish to note. We will ensure that the information is circulated to committee members. Elaine has given her apologies because she is unwell and unable to be here. There will be an opportunity in the debate to raise many of the issues that she has highlighted.
Elaine Smith asks a number of specific questions, one of which emphasises the importance of taking a consistent approach in primary care, not just in secondary care. She wants to know whether the Scottish Government will now issue a written edict to health boards before any more patients are removed from their life-saving medication. My experience is that the approach is inconsistent at GP level. She flags up the question of whether the Scottish Government will undertake another properly conducted listening exercise, having admitted that the previous one did not meet its objectives. She also highlighted the feedback from the recent Scottish Women’s Convention health conference, and those comments can be included in our consideration.
We have asked for time to be set out in the business programme for the chamber for a debate, and we anticipate that it will be scheduled for later this year.
Do members want to comment on the response or on any other aspect of the petition?
How likely is it that we will be given time in the chamber to debate the issues that have been raised?
It is highly likely. We have raised the matter with the conveners group and it has agreed that the debate can take place in a committee slot. The group recognises that there is interest in the issue, and there was certainly interest when Elaine Smith held a members’ business debate on the matter. As a consequence, we can be confident that we will get a good slot in the chamber, and the Scottish Government will be obliged to open and respond to the debate. The debate will provide the opportunity to explore the issues that we identified in our report and those that other members have concerns about.
Securing a debate in the chamber is the obvious next step. There is not much else that we can do other than wait for our time slot.
We note the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report. We also note that a debate in the chamber, secured in the parliamentary business programme, will offer an opportunity for the issues to be explored further.
Should there be any other action at this stage? Perhaps we can come back to the petition after the debate in the chamber because it might flag up some issues that it will be useful to consider. Do we agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Speed Awareness Courses (PE1600)
PE1600, by John Chapman, is on speed awareness courses. We last considered the petition in September 2017. At that meeting, we noted the Scottish Government’s position that speed awareness courses are a matter for the Lord Advocate. We also considered previous submissions from the Lord Advocate in which he noted the three-year evaluation that is being undertaken by the Department for Transport. He confirmed that he had given authorisation for Police Scotland to undertake more detailed scoping work on the viability of speed awareness courses.
In their most recent submissions, Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate note that the Department for Transport published the findings of its three-year evaluation in May. Police Scotland adds that scoping work is continuing and that no proposal has yet been submitted to the Lord Advocate.
The clerk’s note identifies findings from the Department for Transport evaluation, including that speed awareness courses appear to have a greater effect than fixed-penalty notices, and that those effects appear to persist over time.
The petitioner sets out his concern that Police Scotland is delaying submitting a proposal to the Lord Advocate due to the financial implications of delivering speed awareness courses.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I share the petitioner’s frustration that something that feels and looks sensible and straightforward is not being progressed. We need to think about how we break the log jam, because the Lord Advocate is saying that Police Scotland is doing a scoping exercise and the Scottish Government is saying that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate. I wonder whether it is a matter of policy for the Scottish Government to say that it wants something to be developed through Police Scotland. We changed the law on drink driving; we did not just leave it to Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate to decide when it would happen.
I might be missing something, but the proposal feels eminently sensible and it works elsewhere, so I want to ask the Scottish Government whether it agrees that there is evidence that it works. If so, I want to know what it can do so that the scoping plan stops scoping and starts working.
I agree.
I agree that it is quite frustrating that it is taking so long to complete the scoping work. I am afraid that I cannot blame the petitioner for coming to the view that the delay in delivering the action that is called for in the petition is because of the financial implications of doing so. I am keen for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to get its view. We are always wary of being accused of interfering in Police Scotland’s operational issues but, given that it has taken so long to get the scoping work done, it is legitimate to try to find out why there has been so much of a delay.
Would it be worth asking Police Scotland to come before the committee?
Yes.
If it is a policy issue, we could get the minister along and ask Police Scotland to come, too. In the parallel that I drew to changing the drink driving rules, that was a policy change that was enacted by the police.
That was the case for seatbelts, too.
Convener, are you saying that it is a chicken-and-egg situation?
I want them to just tell us if they think it is a bad idea. If they think it is a good idea, why is not being progressed? If it is a good idea that is not being progressed, what is stopping it? I hear what the petitioner says about the problem being finance but, if it is more effective, it presumably would save lives and perhaps stop people reoffending in the longer term. As we talked about earlier, it is about spending to save.
Is the perception that the financial implication is about the scoping work or about bringing the idea into existence? As the convener said, what is holding them back? Perhaps we should write to the minister for his views on why it is taking so long, or to simply say yes or no to it.
I suppose that it is a symptom of being old, but I was quite surprised to learn that we last discussed this petition in September 2017. Perhaps we should just cut to the chase and the clerks can get Government officials and the police—or whoever would be appropriate—to come to the committee and explain. Is it because the scoping exercise is expensive, is what is coming out of the scoping exercise a concern or is it not a priority simply because they have a million other things to do? It would be worth hearing from them.
It is fairly obvious that there is a financial implication, but that should not be the driving force. If we did not have fixed penalties any more, there would also be a financial implication to that.
My sense is that we could still have both. Drivers could not keep going to speed awareness courses; there would come a point at which their speeding would trigger fixed penalty notices and the loss of their licence.
Are we agreed that we want to respond to the petitioner’s frustration and get the appropriate people before the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Energy Drinks (PE1642)
The next petition for consideration is PE1642, by Norma Austin Hart, on the sale and marketing of energy drinks to under-16s. The committee last considered the petition in March and agreed to defer further consideration until the publication of the Scottish Government’s new diet and obesity strategy. The strategy has now been published and includes a commitment to consult on restricting the sale of energy drinks to young people under the age of 16.
Members might be aware that the UK Government has recently launched a consultation seeking views on the banning of energy drinks to children. The petitioner welcomes the action that has been taken by the UK Government and questions whether the Scottish Government will take similar action.
Do members have comments or suggestions for action?
I have experience of this issue. A headteacher told me that class work is being disrupted because of pupils’ consumption of energy drinks. Subsequently, I wrote to the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson, who said that the Scottish Government will wait for the UK Government to take a position on the matter. I am unclear how the UK Government’s decision would impact on the Scottish Government’s decision, but that is what we must wait for.
Responsibility for this policy area is devolved. I am not saying that we should do this, but we could take a different path, if we so desired.
I assume that the UK Government is consulting in England and not Wales. Perhaps we could establish that.
The petitioner welcomes the fact that the UK Government is looking at putting in place a ban. I suppose we should ask the Scottish Government whether it is also looking at a ban.
Everybody is on the same page in agreeing that there is a problem. The issue is whether sales should be restricted in public buildings or buildings over which the Government has control, or whether there should be an all-out ban, which seems to be the option that is being consulted on at the UK level.
Would it be sensible simply to ask the Scottish Government for an update and whether it has any plans to consult on the same terms on which the UK Government is consulting? We would keep the petition open until we get that response. Do members agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Blasphemy and Heresy (PE1665)
We move on to the next petition, which is PE1665, by Mark McCabe, on the common law of blasphemy. We last considered the petition in March, when we reviewed the Scottish Government’s response to it, which stated that there are no plans to formally abolish the common law crime of blasphemy. The committee agreed to defer consideration of the petition until the independent review of hate crime legislation in Scotland had been published, as crimes motivated by religious hatred would be covered in the review.
The review’s recommendations were published in May. The review concluded that it was not necessary to extend religious aggravation to capture religious or other beliefs, and that the courts can use common law powers to impose higher sentences if necessary.
Since our papers were circulated, an additional written submission has been received from the Humanist Society Scotland. Members have been provided with a copy of the submission for today’s meeting. It states that the Scottish Government intends to launch a formal consultation in response to the review recommendations, which will be informed by “a period of engagement”, which will include consideration of whether the common law offence of blasphemy should feature in the consultation. However, the society raises concerns that, when it attended the Scottish Government's first hate crime stakeholders group in August, blasphemy was not part of any of the Government’s written plans at the meeting. The society’s view is that the Government has no plans to take any action on blasphemy in the formal consultation.
The Scottish Government has contacted the clerks to explain that the Humanist Society Scotland met officials in June to discuss, among other issues, the society’s campaign on blasphemy law, and that it was represented at the August stakeholder engagement meeting at which blasphemy law was considered.
The Scottish Government confirms that it is engaging with stakeholders on the recommendations of the independent review of hate crime legislation to help to inform the key issues and concerns for inclusion in a public consultation that will be launched in autumn. That includes seeking views on the common law offence of blasphemy and whether there is justification to include relevant proposals relating to the offence in the public consultation.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Given that the Scottish Government has no plans to abolish the common law crime of blasphemy, we should consider closing the petition.
That is one option. The other option is that, given that we received a late submission, we could ask the Scottish Government to clarify its position and update us on its plans for public consultation in the autumn.
We could take the view that the petitioner has raised the issues, the Scottish Government is aware of them and is engaging with stakeholders, including the Humanist Society Scotland, and that there is no longer a role for the Public Petitions Committee.
11:00
I think that that is the case. Having read the Humanist Society Scotland’s submission, I know that it made the Scottish Government aware of its views at the meeting of the hate crime stakeholder group on 15 August. It might well be that the Government decides to include those views in any formal consultation, but I am minded to close the petition given that the Scottish Government has stated that it has no plans to abolish the common law crime of blasphemy. If we close the petition, we could still write to the Scottish Government to highlight the Humanist Society Scotland’s submission.
Is there an alternative view, or do we agree to close the petition and write to the Scottish Government to highlight the new information from the Humanist Society Scotland, as Angus MacDonald has said?
The evidence from the Humanist Society says that there is a
“lack of commitment to a formal consultation at this stage.”
Are we confident that the review will inform a period of formal consultation? Will that be sufficient?
I suggest that we write to the Government and highlight the Humanist Society’s views, and that we remind the petitioner that they can submit a petition in the future if they feel that their concerns have not been addressed.
I agree.
That would allow the matter either to be addressed or not. The Scottish Government has said that it is engaging with stakeholders in relation to the independent review of hate crime, and that that will help to inform the consultation. Do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner for highlighting the issue, and I remind him that there will be an opportunity in the future to resubmit a petition depending on how the matter has developed.
Homelessness (PE1686)
The final petition for consideration is PE1686, by Sean Clerkin, on the homelessness crisis in Scotland. We previously considered the petition in May, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and Shelter Scotland.
The briefing summarises the submissions that have been received, including that from the petitioner. Members will note that the submission from the then Minister for Local Government and Housing was, in essence, superseded by the minister’s statement to the Parliament on 27 June. In his written submission and subsequent statement to Parliament, the minister stated that the Scottish Government’s homelessness prevention and strategy group will consider all the recommendations of the homelessness and rough sleeping action group, as well as those from the Local Government and Communities Committee, and that he will report back to Parliament in due course.
In her statement on the programme for government last week, the First Minister stated:
“before the end of this year we will publish a comprehensive action plan”—[Official Report, 4 September 2018; c 22.]
That will set out how the Government expects to deliver on all the homelessness and rough sleeping action group’s recommendations.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The petition certainly has a great deal of merit and makes sense. I wonder whether another committee, such as the Local Government and Communities Committee, should take the petition forward because of the work that it is doing.
Following on from Brian Whittle’s point, I note that the petitioner has suggested that the petition should be sent to the Local Government and Communities Committee. I am happy for that to happen.
There is a general consensus that tackling homelessness and rough sleeping should be prioritised because it is an important matter. The contention is in the way in which the petitioner envisaged the money being spent. He felt that it would be front loaded and used to build houses, whereas some people in the housing sector felt that the run-in time for these things can be long, and that a lot of the support that homeless people require is not just about the tenancy but the support that we can wrap around them.
There is clearly an interesting argument to be had, and there are merits on both sides. Given the petitioner’s preference for the petition to be referred to the Local Government and Communities Committee, which has done quite a lot of work on housing, it might be useful for that committee to take on the petition.
You are right. Negotiations and discussions are taking place on how the money should be spent, but the idea of front loading has merit it and should be looked at.
If we pass the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee, there might be an opportunity for other housing federations or whoever it might be to give submissions, and for the issue to be looked at in much more detail.
There is no doubt that there is a huge amount of expertise in the sector.
There are, of course, issues with front loading. I am aware of the situation in the Western Isles in which there is a time limit for when building can proceed, and people are having difficulty finding enough land to spend the money that has already been allocated. If the process is rushed even further, that will create more difficulties. The issue needs to be looked at in more detail, and the Local Government and Communities Committee can do that.
Are we agreed to refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. He will be able to follow the considerations of the Local Government and Communities Committee in relation to the issues that he has flagged up.
Meeting closed at 11:06.Previous
New Petitions