Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Group B Streptococcus (Information and Testing) (PE1592)
The next item is continued petitions, on which we are taking no further evidence. The first continued petition on the agenda is PE1592 by Shaheen McQuade on group B streptococcus information and testing. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions that we have received.
We decided to defer our consideration of this petition until the UK National Screening Committee published its report on the evidence in relation to screening for group B strep. That report has now been published. Members will see that its key findings are summarised in the clerk’s note and a link to the full report is also provided. The report’s conclusion is that it does not recommend screening for group B strep. I understand that the Scottish Government is represented on the committee and that relevant stakeholders, including Group B Strep Support, were involved in the review process.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I would like to write to Dr Sue Payne, who was the Scottish Government observer. I understand everything that has been said by the UK National Screening Committee, but it would still be worth getting Dr Payne’s view before we take any further and decisive action.
It seems that there is still an unanswered question, so perhaps Rona Mackay’s suggestion is correct, although I am not convinced that there is anything else that we can do.
We have been struck by the power of the petition and the courage of the petitioner in raising the issue, given her tragic experience. It appears that the clinical view is that screening would not be beneficial. However, we could take up Rona Mackay’s suggestion and ask for further information to give us absolute confidence in the decision.
Dr Payne was involved and we do not know her view, although we have all the other views here. From the petitioner’s point of view, it would be courteous to ask for Dr Payne’s view, even if it does not change anything.
I agree.
Does the committee agree to take forward that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
When the response comes back we can reflect again on what we want to do. We thank the petitioner for the work that she has done to highlight the issue.
Motorcycle Theft (PE1618)
The next petition is PE1618 by Carl Grundy on behalf of Riders Club Edinburgh on combating motorcycle theft. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions that have been received.
Police Scotland has provided a supplementary briefing, outlining the relative increase in thefts and also explaining the action that it is taking to address the issue. VisitScotland has also provided a submission and notes that it is not aware of theft having any impact on motorcycle tourism in Scotland.
We have also received a submission from YouthLink Scotland. It considers that the police have adequate powers to tackle the issue but provides some useful information on how youth work organisations may be able to assist the police in addressing the issue.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Police Scotland has the powers to deal with the issue. In VisitScotland’s submission, it is clear that there is no question of there being an effect on tourism. Therefore, I propose that we close the petition under standing order rule 15.7 on the basis that the stakeholders consider that Police Scotland has adequate powers in relation to motorcycle theft and that there are already measures in place to deal with the wider social issues.
In closing the petition, the committee might wish to make Police Scotland aware of YouthLink Scotland’s suggestion that they work together to resolve the issue, if there is one. However, it is in Police Scotland’s powers to deal with it and there is nothing more that we can do.
What struck me was that, if those people were stealing cars instead, would Police Scotland make the same judgment about having a no-pursuit policy?
That is a good point.
It struck me that it is not just a Police Scotland issue, and that a more multidisciplinary approach seems to be being taken. You are right, convener, that they would be more likely to be pursued if they were stealing cars, but that is probably because it is easier to pursue a car than a motorcycle.
Another thing that struck me is that it seems to be more prevalent in the Edinburgh area than in the rest of Scotland. Is there a council issue here?
It might just be a cultural thing among the perpetrators at a local level.
I hear what Maurice Corry said about closing the petition and I suspect that that is the right thing to do, but I am interested in the views of other members.
I recall that in our meeting with the petitioners—the fact that we met in private says something in itself—they said that they had tried a lot of things. They had tried to engage with the young people who were involved and they understood the level of risk. The petition was an expression of their frustration so, in closing the petition, we could acknowledge and recognise that frustration, and encourage them to bring it back to our attention at a later stage, if they feel that there is no change.
By them bringing the petition, which is fairly longstanding, the issues have been highlighted and, if all parties work together to try to lessen the problem, that will have been worth while. As you say, convener, if nothing improves, they can bring it back.
I am discovering that one of the frustrations in this committee is when we find ourselves in a position in which we are not able to think of anything else that we can possibly do to help, and this petition presents us with one of those situations. I do not feel that there is anything else that we can do.
The petitioners had already thought of all the things that we are now reflecting on.
Looking at the evidence, the police are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the question of pursuing a young person who is reckless enough to steal a motorcycle. The option of pursuit, which could put people at risk of harm, must be balanced against the option of not pursuing, which risks there appearing to be no consequences as a result of stealing a motorcycle, because the person who takes the motorcycle will not be chased. That is the dilemma.
As there are no contrary views, does the committee agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
In closing the petition, we recognise that there are significant unresolved issues, but we hope that the police will be alive to the concerns of the petitioners and will work on a cross-agency basis with organisations to ensure that they deal with the issue.
We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition. Members will recall that we met the petitioner informally to discuss the issue, which clearly has a significant impact on those who are affected by such antisocial behaviour. We hope that, through our highlighting of the issue at a national level with our consideration of the petition, Police Scotland might be able to forge stronger links with local youth organisations to effectively tackle it. We recognise the dilemma for everyone.
Sepsis Awareness, Diagnosis and Treatment (PE1621)
The next petition is PE1621, by James Robertson, on sepsis awareness, diagnosis and treatment. Members have a note by the clerk, along with submissions by the Scottish Government and the petitioner.
The Scottish Government indicates its support for a public-facing campaign to raise awareness of sepsis and provides some thoughts on how that might be achieved. It also appears to be confident that there would be no unintended consequences, which was a concern that was expressed by some health boards. The Government does not consider that a staff-facing campaign is required, and it provides its rationale for that position.
The petitioner welcomes the Scottish Government’s support for the public awareness campaign, but raises specific questions in relation to the view that a staff-facing campaign is not required. They are set out in part 1 of his submission.
Do members have any views on what action to take on the petition?
I note an interest, in that the petitioner is my constituent.
I think that we should take forward the petitioner’s questions about the Scottish Government’s response. Basically those questions ask for more detail about the continuing work on the awareness and management of the Scottish patient safety programme—what it would entail and how its impact would be measured. He is seeking more detail on where sepsis is included in the life support training programmes and undergraduate training programmes across the country. It would be helpful to know what is being taught in relation to sepsis in the early stages of staff education and about the consistency of that teaching among health boards.
I think that that issue is vital to the awareness campaign, so I propose that we write to the Scottish Government to ask it the questions that the petitioner is asking.
Is that agreed? Are there any other suggestions?
I am pleased that the Scottish Government supports the awareness campaign, but the petitioner has raised a number of questions that require further clarification, as Rona Mackay highlighted.
The salient point in the Scottish Government’s response is its highlighting of the point of the UK Sepsis Trust that a similar awareness-raising exercise in England has not resulted in extra workload for health boards. As we have read in the submissions, that has been a concern of a number of health boards in Scotland, but the situation in England suggests that there has not been an increase in workload. That is a salient point that should be on the record.
Absolutely—I agree. If there are no other comments, will we write to the Scottish Government, as suggested by Rona Mackay? We will have an opportunity to further reflect on the petition once we get a response.
Members indicated agreement.
Local Authority Education Committees (Church Appointees) (PE1623)
The next petition is PE1623, on unelected church appointees on local authority education committees. It was lodged by Spencer Fildes on behalf of the Scottish Secular Society. Submissions by the Scottish Government and the petitioner have been circulated to members, along with a note by the clerk.
The Scottish Government identifies the number of responses that it received on its education governance review and says that it will publish its findings in due course. In response to our question on any assessment it had undertaken in respect of the public sector equality duty, the Scottish Government advises that such an assessment was not a requirement at the time that the legislation was instructed, but that is something that it will seek to undertake on any policy proposals that arise from its governance review. The Government adds that it intends to consider any of the petitioners’ proposals that are not addressed through the governance review.
The petitioners broadly welcome the Scottish Government’s response but contend that it will not be possible to establish whether any proposals that emerge from the governance review address the issues that have been raised until they have been assessed.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action to take?
First, I think that we should seek from the Scottish Government an update on its anticipated timescale for the publication of its findings from its education governance review, which will apply to the local authorities as well. Subsequently, we should have clarification on whether the Government will carry out any equality impact assessment on policy proposals from that review. Thirdly, we should have clarification on whether the Government’s reference to the Scottish Secular Society’s proposals relate to what is called for in the petition or to the society’s response to the consultation. It is also important that we refer the matter to COSLA for its views.
Okay. We got some information from COSLA in response to our initial search for evidence.
Do members agree that we write to the Scottish Government as suggested? I was quite interested in the idea that the public sector equality duty does not apply to legislation that we have already passed—I was quite intrigued by that. That seemed to me to be saying, “Well, that was before we thought about the equality question, so we don’t have to include it.” I suppose that the question for the Scottish Government concerns the point at which it looks at things that have been done in the past to see whether they match up, and whether the governance review affords the Government the opportunity to consider that issue.
I agree. We need clarification on the points that Maurice Corry raised. After we get a response, we can decide how to take the petition further.
Okay. Are we agreed on the action to take?
Members indicated agreement.
Again, we thank the petitioners for their on-going interest in the question.
Bus Services (Regulation) (PE1626)
The next petition is PE1626, on the regulation of bus services, which was lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite the Union. Eight written submissions have been provided to members, along with a note by the clerk, which includes an update from SPICe on the UK Bus Services Bill.
The Scottish Government does not support the petition’s call for an inquiry into bus regulation, after confirming its intention to introduce a transport bill in this session of Parliament. It suggests that the core of the bill will be the provision of bus services and therefore considers that its consultation on the bill will allow people to comment and to contribute to developing bus policy.
The Scottish Association for Public Transport considers that a new framework for public transport is required and has provided some suggestions about how that can be achieved. Scotland’s regional transport partnerships have said that there is
“clearly a need for greater public sector involvement”
and, along with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, identifies statutory quality partnerships as one of a range of potential options for achieving that aim.
The petitioner has welcomed the comments offered by some respondents and has offered some of his own comments, which are directed at the Scottish Government. In response to the Government’s view that
“the ownership of the means of delivery is less important than the outcomes delivered”,
the petitioner says that the
“deregulated commercial model is diverting money away from service delivery.”
The petitioner has also identified in his submission a number of areas on which he seeks clarification from the Scottish Government.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on the petition? We previously took the view that there was definitely an issue here, but the question is whether we conduct an inquiry or ask the relevant committee to do so. Alternatively, would stage 1 consideration of the transport bill afford the opportunity for the petitioner’s questions to be raised?
That is the question that I was going to ask. How will the transport bill afford us an opportunity to consider the petitioner’s points?
It depends on what the transport bill’s provisions are. If the bill is drawn too tightly, it might not be possible for amendments concerning bus regulation to be produced by, for example, the Scottish Co-operative Party’s people’s bus campaign—I should declare an interest as a member of that party—or by the other campaigns that we have heard from. The question is whether the transport bill will allow the debate that the petitioner seeks, with all stakeholders and, indeed, the general public being given the opportunity to submit written evidence and so on. However, my concern is that we do not yet know what provisions will be in the transport bill and given that, I do not want to close the petition at this stage.
I agree that we should not close the petition, in light of the Minister for Transport and the Islands announcing a few weeks ago the intention to have a transport bill. Indeed, I think that I saw the news first in the Sunday Post, and I was particularly encouraged by the suggestion that local franchising could be introduced, which would, in effect, allow local authorities to become bus operators. I welcome any legislation that makes it easier for councils to develop services, and I think that that would go quite a long way towards providing what the petitioner is looking for. We will have to wait and see the detail, but it could be a solution to a big problem.
Bearing that in mind, would it be pertinent to write to the Scottish Government to ask how widely it intends to throw the net for the consultation?
We can write to the Government to ask whether it has any sense of the provisions in and the timescale for the bill and about the work—consulting and so on—that it is doing in preparation for it. We can highlight the further issues that the petitioner has flagged up in his additional response and ask for a response from the Government.
I am struck by the gap between the evidence of those who think that there is a problem—they suggest that there seems to be a long-term decline in the use of buses, their frequency and so on—and the evidence of those who think that there is no real problem. Moreover, does the Government’s comment about
“the ownership of the means of delivery”
being
“less important than”
the delivery of the outcome mean that it is closing off the franchising option? If so, that would be quite disappointing, given what is happening in other parts of the country. My view is that the substance of the petition remains to be considered, and we would be looking for some reassurance from the Scottish Government that that had been dealt with.
As we are still in the early stages, it is perfectly valid to pose the petitioner’s questions to the Government. We might or might not get full answers to all those questions, but it is worth asking them.
I want the committee to keep this in mind: if the bill is some way down the line and there is something that we can do to inform its shape and the thinking behind it, we should do it. However, if the bill is to be introduced soon, that will not be the case. There will be a different process, and the relevant committee will be the one to undertake it.
One would certainly hope that the bill would be introduced soon. Given the timescale for getting legislation through Parliament, the process would have to start fairly soon for it to be completed by the end of the session.
Do we agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask about timescales and to flag up the further response from the petitioner? That would allow us to make a judgment on whether it would be relevant for us to provide further information on bus provision through our own activities.
Members indicated agreement.
Ocular Melanoma (MRI Scans) (PE1629)
The next petition is PE1629 by Jennifer Lewis, on magnetic resonance imaging scans for ocular melanoma sufferers in Scotland. The eight written submissions that we have received on the petition have been circulated to members.
Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Support Scotland did not consider themselves able to offer a view on the action called for in the petition. In her submission, the petitioner suggests that
“this serves to reinforce our contention that clinicians and oncologists alike are often unaware of the particulars of our disease”.
According to the submission from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, ultrasound is, in line with national guidelines, the accepted mode for surveillance in England, and it notes that MRI should be used for high-risk patients or where an abnormality is indicated by ultrasound. The petitioner argues that that demonstrates how definitive MRI scans are considered to be. She also points out that the current guidelines are under review and adds that it would be helpful to seek the views of medical, rather than ocular, oncologists.
The Scottish Government submission advises that the policy of the Scottish ocular oncology service is in line with the national guidelines, but it adds that there is
“variation amongst the four UK centres as to which is the most appropriate form of surveillance to adopt”,
and suggests that that is down to lack of evidence. OcuMel UK suggests that MRI is “the scan of choice” for the centres in Liverpool and Southampton, and that appears to be supported by Professor Ottensmeier as well as by Dr Iain Wilson, who refers to MRI as being the “gold standard” for identifying metastases.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
10:45
Given what you have said, convener, it would be pertinent to write to the Scottish Government in order to understand what steps are in place and what support there is for further development.
Would it be appropriate to write specifically to the chief medical officer for Scotland?
Yes.
There is also the question of establishing that the Scottish ocular oncology service must work together with other UK centres. There are centres in Liverpool, Sheffield, London and Southampton. Having done a wee bit of research on this, I have seen that standards definitely differ, and a lot of evidence points to the centres that I mentioned setting the gold standard. The Scottish service could learn a lot from them, so we should encourage the Scottish ocular oncology service to look at an interchange with UK-wide services.
When the petitioners came to the committee, they had quite an impact on us. The thing that struck me was that, if your cancer is a rare one that affects only a few patients—“orphan” was the term that was used to describe it—it can be difficult to make an impact and get research done or to get people to understand the specifics of your condition. As I understand it, it is not just the eyes that are affected; there might be developments in other parts of the body, which I presume is the purpose of having an MRI scan.
We all agree that there is more for us to explore, particularly to address the petitioners’ contention that a cancer, if rare, might not be properly screened and identified. We could pursue that with the Scottish Government and the chief medical officer and, as Maurice Corry has suggested, see what plans the Scottish ocular oncology service has.
Is there anything else that we could usefully do?
That would be a good starting point.
In that case, that is the action that we will pursue to address the concerns highlighted by the petition.
Nursery Provision (Funding) (PE1630)
The final petition on today’s agenda is PE1630, by Fiona Webb, on nursery funding for three-year-olds. As members will see, we have received a number of written submissions since our previous consideration of the petition.
The Minister for Childcare and Early Years has provided clarification on how the eligibility requirements operate and has noted that, although the starting points of funded early learning and childcare create differences in the amount of free provision that a child may access, the Scottish Government does not consider that that disadvantages children. Members will see from the minister’s submission that the Scottish Government recently consulted on its policy in that area, and it has yet to provide its own response to the consultation.
Reform Scotland supports the petition, noting that in its estimation only 50 per cent receive the full two-year entitlement. Unison does not support the petition, because it does not consider it to be child centred; instead, it cites recent research that supports a supply-side funding scheme. Children in Scotland and the parenting Across Scotland group have also emphasised the importance of taking a child-centred approach to the issue. Voice Scotland and COSLA have noted the challenges of meeting the existing arrangement and the increase in funding that would be required from the Scottish Government to support the petitioner’s call for action.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on the petition? It is just happenstance with regard to when a child is born that determines whether they get two years of nursery funding. If the issue is one of cost, I simply note that we would not make statutory provision that said, “It’s too expensive to educate everybody at five, so we’ll just educate half of you.” That might be a flippant way of looking at it, but I am not sure that this is a question of cost if what we are talking about is an entitlement. After all, we have already said that all children should have access to that childcare. However, I am also mindful of what Unison and other groups have said about how the terms work.
The argument over the cut-off point for eligibility is a long-standing one. I am not sure what to think.
I am trying to be impartial. Obviously there has to be some kind of framework if there is to be a cut-off point. Given the amount of debate in the committee papers, I am certainly not of a mind to close the petition. One step forward might be to ask the Scottish Government about the timeframe for providing a response to its consultation. As Rona Mackay has said, this has been a long-standing debate in Parliament, never mind the committee, and I would therefore be loth to close the petition at this point.
But what are we looking for? The feeling seems to be, “We think that there is an issue here, and we do not want to let it go”, but we need to look at the practicalities and so on. For instance, the statement that 50 per cent of children do not get their full two-year provision is quite striking, but does that mean that youngsters should just come into the system on their birthday? In realistic terms, how manageable would that be for an early years centre?
There needs to be a cut-off point. For example, children do not enter primary school just on their birthday. The parameters are much tighter in that respect.
They still get a full year.
Not really.
If we are going to argue about entitlements, we could say that—
You do not come in—
You can say that children can start at four and a half or five and a half.
But if they go to school at five and a half, are they entitled to stay on until seventh year at the other end of the system?
I do not think that they are entitled to nursery care until they are five and a half.
I think that, technically, they are.
Are they?
They are until they go to school, I think.
I think that they are entitled if they get their entry deferred.
The debate will rumble on. I think that there is enough evidence to at least go back to the Scottish Government to ask for the timescales for concluding this.
Do you mean concluding its broader look at this?
Yes.
Just to clarify, what is the view that we are asking the Scottish Government for? It is currently in the process of delivering on the extra hours, and that in itself is quite challenging.
Perhaps we should ask it to clarify its view on eligibility.
The policy is out to consultation at the moment, so we could at least get some understanding of the timeframe for the Government’s response. That would be helpful.
Okay.
I am happy with that.
So in recognising that there are issues around this petition, do we agree to ask the Scottish Government about its timeframe for providing the response to the consultation on its early learning and childcare policy?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes consideration of all the petitions in front of us today. I thank the committee, and I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 10:53.Previous
New Petitions