Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Armed Forces (School Visits) (PE1603)
Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first is PE1603, which is on ensuring greater scrutiny, guidance and consultation on armed forces visits to schools in Scotland. When we previously considered the petition, which is from Quakers in Scotland and ForcesWatch, we agreed to seek further information from a range of organisations, including the Scottish Government, local authorities, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the Ministry of Defence.
We have received a number of responses and have a further submission from the petitioners. The petitioners urge the committee to consider the issues that are raised from a child welfare and rights perspective, and they offer some suggestions for further action that the committee may wish to consider. I understand that ForcesWatch has compared the responses from local authorities about the armed forces visits that they receive with the FOI responses from the MOD for each local authority. It says that there are discrepancies between the two sets of information, which illustrates its concern that no one has a full picture of what is happening with armed forces visits in state schools.
We also have information from ForcesWatch about visits to state schools and independent schools, and have received a significant amount of correspondence on the petition. What are members’ views on the responses and on the suggestions for further action?
We have to be careful—especially in the light of the evidence that we heard previously. A career in the armed forces is as legitimate a career as any other. For me, the issue seems to be about targeting of a specific demographic. So far, the evidence has not been particularly clear on that.
Can I make an observation? I was in the Army for 12 years and my son is currently a serving soldier. When I was in the Army, I undertook visits to schools, none of which was intended to recruit people. The visits were to make people aware of opportunities that the Army offers. The United Kingdom Minister of State for the Armed Forces has made it clear that no specific recruiting goes on during the visits. If people want to follow up on the visit and see what the forces have to offer, that is a completely different process. The suggestion that the Army deliberately targets specific people in specific areas goes entirely against my experience of school visits when I was in the armed services.
You mentioned the opportunities that the armed services offer. Would you have talked during a visit in realistic terms about the risks of a life in the armed forces? One of the petitioners’ contentions is that that aspect is not discussed on the visits.
10:45
Everyone is aware—currently, very aware, because the armed services have been on almost continuous operations for 10 years—that there are risks involved. People are made aware of where they could be deployed.
The Army offers skills and trades that are recognised as civilian trades. At a recent visit to Fort George, I had it explained to me that those skills are taught in conjunction with the University of the Highlands and Islands, and how they are working to develop those.
People are inherently aware of the risk that if they go into the armed services, they may be called to serve in places where they will put their lives on the line. I was certainly aware of that when I joined up. My son was aware of that and when he subsequently went to Afghanistan it was proved that there are risks. It is pretty disingenuous to suggest that the risks are hidden or that visits are deliberately targeted in order to recruit people.
Are there other views?
I disagree with both my committee colleagues. We should look at the response from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland because we are talking about people under the age of 18. To say that the armed forces is just a career like any other is disingenuous because it has inherent risks that other careers do not have. The Scottish Youth Parliament’s submission states that some schools and children found armed forces visits to be an unpleasant experience in which the so-called career was glorified by the playing of “Top Gun” music and comments such as, “We’ll make you a man”. There is just no place for that in our schools: I do not think that there is a place for the military going into schools any time.
The Scottish Youth Parliament’s submission suggests that, of 49 people who were consulted, 27 had experienced a visit. Of those, 17 found it to be positive, eight found it not to be positive and two were unsure. I understand where you are coming from, but we have to be really careful. It would be abhorrent to me if the armed forces were targeting specific demographics.
That is another huge—
That is a concern—
One at a time, please.
I am sorry. I beg your pardon.
That would be a concern and I would like to know whether that is the case. We must accept that joining the armed forces is a legitimate career for people to pursue and that the armed forces have as much right as anybody else to describe in schools the careers that they offer. From what I gather from the evidence, parents are forewarned and can take their children out of that particular career opportunity.
As has been said, we have received many submissions, including a large number from local authorities, and from the Scottish Government and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. There are some salient points from Tam Baillie, the commissioner. The second last paragraph in his submission states:
“My final point relates to the petitioners’ suggestion that ‘Parents/guardians are consulted as to whether they are happy for their child to take part in armed forces at school’. I would suggest that children in secondary schools would generally be assumed capable of providing informed consent to activities in their own right, as long as they were provided with balanced information before doing so.”
The submission from the Scottish Government highlights that
“Local authorities and schools are responsible for considering the arrangements under which any potential employer offers professional advice on career opportunities to pupils. This should be appropriate to their age and maturity and be done in a way which does not seek to exert undue or inappropriate influence”
but there is clearly a suggestion that
“undue or inappropriate influence”
may be being exerted, although that has been denied in some quarters.
I know that we have had extensive information in the submissions that we have received, but maybe there is merit in the petitioners’ urging us to seek further information from the organisations that they have suggested. That would prolong consideration of the petition, but there is, given the seriousness of the issue, merit in doing that.
There is a range of views in the committee; perhaps Solomon’s wisdom will appear soon to help us to deal with them. They are probably broadly representative of the views in our communities. It is a legitimate profession, but are particular groups of young people being targeted? It would be best to get evidence to establish what the process is.
I am a little disappointed. I understand the pressures on local authorities, but I think that they batted the petition back without really engaging with the question of whether people are confident that there is not inappropriate access to young people in particular communities.
Angus MacDonald’s suggestion that we look for more information is worth our while. The question of whether the armed forces should be in schools at all is separate, but if they are in schools, are they being transparent and is there confidence that they are not disproportionately targeting particular groups? We need to get evidence on that.
I do not know whether any member of the committee has been on a school visit when the armed forces are there. As well as collecting evidence, I suggest that it might be worth our while to see at first hand what the armed forces do when they go to a school and what their presentations are like, so that we know what is going on. I find, with the best will in the world, that what I have read in the petition papers does not reflect my understanding of what goes on during a visit.
The committee may wish to explore that. What Brian Whittle said is true: the Scottish Youth Parliament’s submission highlights that the majority of young people who were consulted did not have an issue with the visits.
Nevertheless, there is the question of confidence that particular groups are not being targeted and that the way in which the armed forces are represented identifies the risks involved. Committee members might want to take up the offer to go on a school visit.
I suggest that we also seek responses from parents, teachers, schools, children’s rights organisations and young people’s organisations. Members of veterans organisations may have particular views on how they were recruited and they may be aware of the questions. We could also ask careers bodies such as Skills Development Scotland—which brings employers into schools—what guidance they apply. When companies offer low-skilled work, low wages and poor conditions, do we make sure that they are not targeting vulnerable communities, where there is higher unemployment? That might take us way beyond the remit of the petition.
It is clear that there are a number of issues. We want people to be confident in the process and in the way in which young people come into contact with the armed forces in school visits.
Are those actions agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Whistleblowing in the NHS (PE1605)
We move on to petition PE1605, on whistleblowing in the national health service—a safer way to report mismanagement and bullying. This petition is one of three on our agenda by Peter Gregson on behalf of Kids not Suits.
The petition calls for a whistleblowing hotline to be established to replace the existing helpline service. At our previous consideration of the petition, following evidence from the petitioner, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, NHS boards, the City of Edinburgh Council, unions, the Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, which operates a hotline facility, and Public Concern at Work, the provider of the current national confidential alert line.
We have received a number of responses, including from 10 health boards, the Scottish Government and Public Concern at Work. We also have a submission from the City of Edinburgh Council, which provides an explanation of how its hotline facility operates. The petitioner has provided a response to those submissions in which he suggests that there is an element of confusion in distinguishing between a helpline and a hotline.
There has been quite extensive coverage of the issue since we first considered the petition, including an article by the chief executive of NHS Scotland, which subsequently was covered in topical questions at the end of September.
Do members have any views on actions to be taken on the petition?
Since the petition was first discussed by the committee, I have become more aware of issues in my health board area. I am intrigued by the comments of the chief executive of NHS Forth Valley. In the final paragraph of her submission, she says:
“To change the existing whistleblowing arrangements and external arrangements are not a solution.”
I found the response of the petitioner, and indeed the submission from Rab Wilson, very helpful. They both reiterate that current measures are inadequate. What I have seen locally suggests that that is the case. I would be keen to explore further the establishment of an independent national officer for whistleblowing across health and social care, located in the office of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The suggestion has been made by Unison and others and gives us a basis for inviting the chief executive of NHS Scotland and other relevant stakeholders to come in and give evidence.
I agree with that. I am also interested in the views of potential whistleblowers—the ones at the coalface. How would we engage with them? Obviously, we cannot bring lots of them in, but is there a particular organisation that we could speak to, which would represent them and speak to the matter with some degree of authority? In the end, it is those at the coalface who would be whistleblowing. To get the chief executive in might not give us the most balanced view.
The unions are often a safe place for people to go to make complaints, as they will not wish to make them public themselves. Perhaps they will have views on it. By definition, a whistleblower is perhaps not the person who wants to come before a committee, although some people have waived their anonymity to talk about the problems that they have had in the past.
We are also wrestling with the question of helplines and hotlines. There is quite a lot on that. It looks as if the advice that people are getting is to go back to where they have already been, without really getting the matter resolved.
Taking on board Angus MacDonald’s suggestion, I think it would be useful to invite the chief executive of NHS Scotland and other relevant stakeholders. I also note Brian Whittle’s point about people at the coalface. A number of organisations, including Public Concern at Work and the City of Edinburgh Council, were identified in the petition.
We do not particularly want a re-run of past difficulties with whistleblowing that the petitioner himself highlighted—that would not be the purpose. The purpose would be to establish processes and systems that do what they are intended to do, as opposed to a process that people do not find particularly useful or helpful.
Are there any other suggestions?
Angus MacDonald has summed it up for me. I agree entirely with what he said. The unions should be consulted, too.
Is that agreed?
Unison Scotland should definitely be invited, particularly given the significant and worrying drop in calls to the helpline, which I read about in the submissions. There are clearly still issues here, and it would be good to get to the bottom of why there has been such a drop.
I note from the City of Edinburgh Council’s submission that it has implemented a hotline, which seems to be working pretty well. It would be good to get some evidence from the council on how exactly it did that and made the hotline a success.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Schools and Roads (Regional Collaboration by Councils) (PE1606)
Petition PE1606 is on forcing Scottish councils to collaborate regionally on schools and roads. This is the second of Mr Gregson’s petitions. It calls for local authority budgets to be set to encourage councils to work collaboratively on the provision of education and transport.
At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA and the Local Government and Communities Committee.
The Scottish Government notes that negotiations on the local government finance settlement are under way and that
“Reform opportunities such as those raised by the petitioner”
will be discussed in that context. The Local Government and Communities Committee referred to the minister’s confirmation that the Scottish Government is planning to consult on a bill that would
“decentralise local authority functions, budget and democratic oversight to local communities.”
Do members have any views on suggested actions on the petition?
11:00
I suggest that we close the petition, convener, on the basis of what you said about the Scottish Government’s on-going review and the petition’s proposals perhaps forming part of it. I do not see any merit in continuing the petition.
Should we close it before the review results are out?
My position is that there is the settlement and the issue of how people are going to work together under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. There is also a big issue around school governance and taking schools out of local authority control. Those issues will be tested significantly by the Parliament over the next period. I just wonder whether this petition, which basically says that local authorities should work together, is simply recognising something that is already happening and is therefore not challenging the current view. Can I have other members’ views on whether we should close the petition? Brian Whittle is a maybe.
I do not think that the petition will push matters in a different direction from where they are going.
I agree. We should close the petition, because I do not see any merit in taking it forward.
We are highlighting the fact that the issues in the petition have been flagged up to the Scottish Government, and the Local Government and Communities Committee is also aware of the situation. We know that there will be a debate around the issue, particularly on school governance. Does the committee agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that there are current and forthcoming consultation opportunities that will allow the issues raised by the petitioner to be taken forward?
Members indicated agreement.
Congestion Charging (Scottish Cities) (PE1607)
The next petition is PE1607, on congestion charging in major Scottish cities. This is the third of Mr Gregson’s petitions. At our last consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, the Scottish local government partnership and the Mayor of London. We have received responses from COSLA and the Scottish Government, plus a submission from the petitioner. The Scottish Government maintains its position against road pricing now and in the future, and COSLA suggested that the issue might be discussed when the third report on policies and proposals is published. The petitioner repeats his query as to why current legislation is not used by local authorities.
Do members have any suggestions for action on the petition?
There is probably a fear factor, as far as local authorities are concerned. I know that when I was on Falkirk Council and the City of Edinburgh Council was planning to introduce congestion charges, we in Falkirk were all for it. However, I wonder whether we would have been so in favour of it had it been proposed for Falkirk. Local authorities are probably reluctant to take a bold decision on congestion charges.
Is there anything in the legislation that makes it more difficult for local authorities to consider congestion charges, rather than it just being a question of local authorities saying, “Well, look what happened in Edinburgh. Let’s not go there.”? Is there something in the legislation that causes problems for local authorities with regard to considering congestion charging?
There could well be. Perhaps Angus MacDonald, who has much more experience of local government, knows whether congestion charging is difficult for local authorities to approach.
From my point of view, it is not. It seems to be just a reluctance to take bold measures.
You did not want to charge your voters.
It is a radical step.
I think that local authorities are looking at other measures in this area. Car parking in Glasgow, for example, is expensive and I think that Edinburgh has reduced its speed limit to 20mph in the city centre. Councils are taking different measures to address perhaps similar problems.
Having more park-and-ride opportunities could help, too.
Would it be worth checking whether current legislation blocks local authorities from having congestion charges? We could address that specific question to COSLA if it has not already answered it. The other option is to defer further consideration of the petition until it becomes clear whether the relevant issues will be included in RPP3.
We could seek clarification and defer the petition, because there might be measures in RPP3 that will assist local authorities to take action.
Okay. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Wholly Owned National Private Pharmaceuticals (PE1608)
Petition PE1608, which is on wholly owned national private pharmaceuticals, is a continued petition and was lodged by Martin Keatings. It calls for the establishment and ownership of a medical manufacturing organisation in Scotland to provide the manufacturing of drugs that are out of patent and to develop and research new drugs, in line with the needs of the Scottish population.
In our previous consideration, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the British Generic Manufacturers Association.
The ABPI said that in principle it did not have any concerns with what the petitioner suggested, but that it was ultimately for the Scottish Government
“to assess the benefits and costs of such an enterprise”.
The Scottish Government said in its response that it does not consider the proposal to be “feasible” or “sustainable”. It considers that existing arrangements and policies work well but says that it will consider any future policy changes following the Montgomery review.
What are members’ suggestions on how we should proceed with the petition?
I think that we should close it. The Scottish Government’s views have been set out, and the arguments for not taking the approach are quite clear in the bullet points in its letter. The Montgomery review should answer some of the questions. I do not see any merit in keeping the petition open. It has been answered sufficiently by the Scottish Government’s response.
I agree. The whole principle of the petition flies in the face of what is currently happening. There is nothing to stop a pharmaceutical company setting up in Scotland as it is, apart from the fact that that would cost a fortune. We are already well set up, and I cannot see how the petition can go anywhere.
I agree.
The issue might be one for individual political parties that are seeking election in future. They might put in their manifestos something that they had identified and done a bit of work on. We know that there will be findings from the Montgomery review, which might inform future decisions.
Do we agree that we should close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
NHS Scotland Treatments (PE1609)
Petition PE1609, which was lodged by Robert Marks, is on NHS Scotland treatments. It calls on the NHS to refuse treatment to patients with what are considered to be self-inflicted illnesses and conditions, and for the financial savings to be allocated to other areas of NHS Scotland.
In our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action that is called for by the petition and information on what measures it is taking to promote preventative care and early intervention. A response has been received. The Scottish Government notes that current
“Health policy seeks to engage citizens positively in improving their health rather than sanction them for the choices they make.”
It also outlined a number of its preventative and early intervention healthcare initiatives and its views on the most cost-effective and ethical way to treat illnesses.
Do members have any comments or suggestions on the next stages?
Ethically, we cannot judge somebody on their personal decisions when they become ill or do not take treatments that have been recommended to them. I do not think that our society would ever agree to the non-treatment of an illness. I cannot see where the petition can go, and I would like it to be closed.
I agree with Brian Whittle. On the ground of compassion, the proposal is not one that anyone would be in a position to sign up to. Therefore, the petition should be closed.
I agree with both colleagues.
Okay. In that case, do members agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that: current healthcare policy is aimed at prevention and early intervention; the Scottish Government has set out its view on the most cost-effective and ethical way to treat illnesses; and, with the emphasis on preventative help, we hope that the problems that perhaps motivated the petition will be addressed?
Members indicated agreement.
A75 (Upgrade) (PE1610)
We come to the final petition on the agenda today, petition PE1610, by Matt Halliday, which calls for an upgrade to the A75. Members have a submission from the Scottish Government providing an update following the transport summit held in Dumfries on 22 August 2016.
Members are advised that the Minister for Transport and the Islands has announced an update to the strategic transport projects review and a review of the national transport strategy. Options for dualling the A75 will be considered as part of those reviews. The Scottish Government could not provide a timetable for the process but has said that it will keep the committee informed.
Members also have a submission from the petitioner, who has expressed concern at the uncertain timeframe for making a decision on the issue. Mr Halliday is concerned that the local region is negatively affected by the current condition of the A75, and that the impact may worsen if action is not taken to upgrade the road soon.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I think I mentioned this the last time we discussed the petition. I was at the summit that the transport minister chaired. The action points that he took away from that included consideration of a range of inputs from the floor.
As we mentioned before, the A75 is a Euro-route. I think that we also mentioned before that a high volume of articulated lorries pass through some small villages, and not all of those villages have speed cameras and the like. Furthermore, there is the potential impact on Stranraer as a port if that part of the Euro-route is not dualled, given the evidence that a couple of ports south of the border have had significant investment and development. There is a perceived threat to Stranraer.
I would like to move the petition on quite swiftly. I suggest that we ask the Minister for Transport and the Islands to come and give us an update. The other possibility is to bring in the MSPs who represent the area. They will have more information than I do on the matter. It is an issue that needs to be brought to the fore and pushed on.
Any MSP is free to come to the Public Petitions Committee. We have had experience of that with other petitions. People will be aware of that invitation.
The question is about not having an absolute timetable. Would it be worth writing to the minister to say that, given the uncertainty and concern, we would expect a timetable? If that is not forthcoming, or if there continues to be uncertainty on the matter, we could consider it further in the new year. I do not know how long such reviews normally take, but I am sure that people locally will want to know that there has been an active review, as opposed to the issue going into the long grass.
If I remember correctly, the minister suggested that there would be a reply to the conference by the end of the year. That is why I am suggesting that we ask the minister to come to the committee and update us on where the Scottish Government is on the matter.
I would be happy to defer the issue until the very start of the new year, and then ask for a further update. I am not sure what merit there would be in bringing the minister here before the end of the year.
Realistically, we would not be able to do that anyway.
No—we would not have time.
I suggest that we write to the Minister for Transport and the Islands, saying in general terms that the committee wishes some certainty around the timescale. The Government must have one, even if it has not made it public. Its officials must be working to an expectation of when they should be reporting. If the Government can share that information with us, well and good. If it continues to say that it does not have a timescale—when we get a response—we could perhaps make a decision on whether to have the minister in. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We have now concluded all the items on our agenda. I thank you all for your attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:14.Previous
New Petitions