Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (National Guidance) (PE1548)
10:15
We move on to consideration of continued petitions. Petition PE1548 is from Beth Morrison.
At our previous consideration of the petition in March, we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to invite him to respond to the petitioner’s feedback on the approach that was set out in “Included, Engaged and Involved Part 2: A Positive Approach to Preventing and Managing School Exclusions”, which is referred to as IEI2. The Deputy First Minister has stated that he considers that approach to be correct, but he repeats his commitment to the committee that if it is found that the guidance is not effective, he will report to the committee and consider whether the guidance requires to be put on a statutory footing. He sets out a range of measures that are in place to form an evidence base on which he can report back to the committee in April 2019.
The petitioner welcomes the Deputy First Minister’s continued support and his commitment to report back to the committee, but she repeats her concerns that—anecdotally, and based on responses to freedom of information requests—restraint is still being used daily. The petitioner welcomes the formal investigation by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland on that issue.
Members will recall that the petitioner has also previously contrasted the IEI2 guidance with the draft guidance that was being consulted on in England. Through correspondence between officials, the United Kingdom Government has indicated that its consultation closed in January, the responses have been analysed and the report is expected to be published soon.
Do members have any comments on what action to take?
With regard to the Deputy First Minister’s comments on whether the guidance is effective, knowing whether that is the case will come down to how evidence is gathered and whether reporting on it is effective. We have heard quite a lot of evidence on the issue. I am interested to know when the UK Government’s report will come out, so we could ask when it is due, which would inform what we do next.
We could contact the UK Government on its consultation and how it will develop its draft guidance. I suppose that the question for John Swinney is how he will establish whether the guidance has been effective or not. The petitioner is very positive about her experience and contact with the Government, and with John Swinney in particular, but she says that the reality is that the guidance is not being implemented daily.
That is the concern.
The two things are not being brought together. Should we write to the cabinet secretary asking how he intends to establish whether the guidance is effective, and ask what he will do to make that happen?
Members indicated agreement.
Adult Cerebral Palsy Services (PE1577)
PE1577 is from Rachael Wallace. At our previous consideration of the petition in March, we discussed what further action we wished to take. The options included deferring the petition until the findings of the consultation on the national action plan on neurological conditions are published, or closing the petition and inviting the petitioner to submit a new petition in one year if she remains dissatisfied with the conclusions of the action plan.
The committee agreed to ask the petitioner what her preference would be, and she has stated that she wishes the petition to be deferred until the outcome of the Scottish Government’s work on neurological healthcare services is known. She expressed concern that, if the petition were to be closed, momentum would be lost on the issues that are raised in her petition.
Do members have views on what we should do?
We should respect the petitioner’s wish to defer the petition, for the reasons that have been given. The issue is so important that it would not be right to close it, only for her to have to bring it back. I would prefer that we defer the petition.
At our previous consideration, there were arguments for both cases, so it felt right to hear the petitioner’s view. Deferring it would ensure that we can return to the issue once the findings of the national consultation on the national action plan on neurological conditions are published. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
We can thank the petitioner for responding to our request for advice from her.
In Care Survivors Service (PE1596)
PE1596 is from Paul Anderson, James McDermott and Chris Daly.
When we last considered the petition in March, we agreed to seek the views of members of the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. We have since received submissions from Health in Mind and Wellbeing Scotland.
The clerk’s note summarises the differing views in the submissions. It notes that Health in Mind is part of the future pathways alliance, which is tasked with oversight of the operation of the future pathways fund. Health in Mind sees future pathways as a
“gateway to a wide range of flexible, person-centred support and services, which complement the more limited choices available through conventional funding”.
It states that cognitive behavioural therapy treatments that are used by NHS providers follow
“a biopsychosocial model, not a medical model”.
Wellbeing Scotland, which was formerly called Open Secret, provides the in care survivors service. Although it acknowledges the additional support that is offered by the future pathways fund, it is concerned that it is in
“a subservient power dynamic with Future Pathways”.
Wellbeing Scotland adds that it considers that the model of support, whether that is biopsychosocial or medical,
“has caused further confusion and concern”.
It suggests that many survivors do not identify with mental health services and adds that anxiety has increased among some survivors because they feel that the future pathways fund is working towards a model of time-limited support and that
“the promise of lifelong support … has been withdrawn”.
I declare an interest as a member of the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I have met the future pathways alliance, the petitioner and Wellbeing Scotland. I had a very productive meeting with the future pathways alliance and was interested to see how that model works. There is a backlog—there is an eight or nine month waiting list. The issue is that if a person who is not registered with future pathways cannot access the services, they are just waiting, even if the service is provided by Wellbeing Scotland. That is a concern.
When I met one of the petitioners and Wellbeing Scotland, the questions that they raised were about the process of future pathways. For example, there was a suggestion that a survivor would have to have a consultation with a clinical psychologist. Many survivors do not want to do that because of their previous experience and because they do not want to have a clinical diagnosis of something that has happened to them, because that could have an impact on their lives. There is a fear that people might not go to the future pathways alliance because of that.
The petitioners and Wellbeing Scotland are also concerned about whether—a group-work model is used—individual counselling over a longer period will be available, and think that that should not be time limited. When I met the future pathways alliance, it said that support does not have to be time limited.
We also discussed the issue briefly at a meeting of the cross-party group, at which it was not possible to reach a unified view. However, there is no doubt that everyone wants to ensure that people get the support that they require. The argument is really about whether organisations should—as other support services do; for example, Women’s Aid—get core funding and be accountable for how they spend it, or be given money by the people whom they treat. Some folk, including Anne Macdonald, who initially petitioned the committee on a strategy for survivors, feel that the brokerage model is not right for people who have experienced that kind of trauma.
I am struck that the debate is now not as much about the specific issue in the petition on funding of Open Secret, as it is about whether we are doing the right thing in terms of how we support survivors. It is a very interesting issue, given the pivotal role of the Public Petitions Committee in getting the Scottish Executive—as it was at the time—to produce a strategy.
Would it be useful to gather evidence on whether the models that are being developed are the ones that people feel the most comfortable with? It is such a live issue because of the current inquiry and because adults are speaking out. We need to ensure that there is support for them. I am sure that we all, including the Scottish Government, agree about that.
There is, of course, the additional issue, which Wellbeing Scotland has highlighted, of the nine-month waiting list and the requirement that survivors must be registered within three months. Clearly, there is disparity and there is a funding issue for Wellbeing Scotland, if it is funded through a brokerage model. The submission from Wellbeing Scotland certainly makes for interesting reading. For someone looking in, at first glance it seems that the brokerage model is working; however, it is not working for Wellbeing Scotland, to the extent that the future pathways alliance claims.
I declare that I had dealings with Open Secret before it became Wellbeing Scotland, so I am fully aware of the issues that it has been facing. Of particular concern to me is the statement from Wellbeing Scotland that the promised lifelong support does not exist. I remember that that was promised way back at the start, when the new model was being considered. It is extremely concerning if the alliance has gone back on that.
There is a strong argument for asking the future pathways alliance to give us evidence face to face, so that we can get to the bottom of the matter. The issue needs to be addressed once and for all; it has been dragging on far too long.
It is exactly as the convener said: we are now considering whether the model and the framework are correct. It is a big issue, so we need to hear directly from the organisations.
It would be fair to say that the Scottish Government has put quite significant funding into the future pathways fund. The extent to which that is channelled towards support is, in itself, interesting.
I made an analogy when I met with Wellbeing Scotland. I said that you would not fund an accident and emergency department on the basis of how many broken legs came in; you would provide the service, and if nobody came in with a broken leg, so be it. I am concerned that the service in question is being funded differently, and I am interested in the argument for why that is the case.
As I mentioned, the original petitioner, Anne Macdonald, said to me that she did not feel that that model was in line with the original view of how to support people. I am not saying that the cross-party group would have taken a completely unified view on that, and I would not want to represent it in that way.
I do not know whether we will go into this kind of detail, but mental health has taken on a much more prominent role in Parliament during the short time that I have been here. I am interested to see how that model fits into our mental health approach, which is still evolving. I am keen to hear evidence on how that model aligns itself with the current mental health strategy.
Certainly, the desire is to have a trauma-informed approach. Survivors often say, “Actually, I am okay; what has caused my problem is the trauma that I have gone through”. That touches on the argument about whether it is a medical model or a social model.
It has been suggested, and I think that we all agree, that we would look for a session with the future pathways alliance, Wellbeing Scotland and petitioners—if they feel able—which would afford them the opportunity to hear that evidence and respond to us. We might want to have another session, after that.
It is also the case that there is among survivors generally a sense that much of the abuse that they experienced was in their own homes and communities rather than in care. That raises the broader point that how we support people who have lived through trauma is important.
Do members agree to give the clerks authority to work out how best to run such meetings?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank all those who responded with submissions. I want to thank, in particular, the petitioner, Paul Anderson, for meeting me.
Legal Aid (PE1645)
PE1645 is by James Ward. After our consideration of the petition in March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to invite it to set out how it would respond to the recommendations of “Rethinking Legal Aid: An Independent Strategic Review”, which was published on 28 February.
In its response of 11 April, the Scottish Government indicates that it is giving serious consideration to the recommendations, and that the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs will meet key stakeholders in the light of those recommendations. Do members have any comments?
10:30
We should write to the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs to seek an update on the meetings that she has had, or is still to have, with stakeholders, which include the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
Are we far enough down the line to be able to take evidence from any of those bodies?
My sense is that the Government is wrestling with the issue with stakeholders; we cannot have a parallel inquiry before we know what the Government is doing. If we can get an update, the petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to provide a further written submission. Do members agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Literacy Standards (Schools) (PE1668)
PE1668 is by Anne Glennie on improving literacy standards in schools through research-informed reading instruction. Since our last consideration of the petition we have received submissions from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Dr Sarah McGeown and the petitioner. There are points of agreement in the submissions. For example, there is an acknowledgement of the evidence base to support use of systematic synthetic phonics as part of a broader package of early reading instruction, and that there are some gaps in the knowledge and understanding of some teachers—both new and existing—of the latest and highest-quality research in early reading instruction.
However, the petitioner and Dr Sarah McGeown express concerns about the teaching and learning toolkit, and about the efficacy of the self-evaluation framework, which was referred to by the Deputy First Minister. The petitioner identifies concerns about the ability of initial teacher training departments to evaluate their own work, and queries whether the self-evaluation framework working group includes
“specifically someone knowledgeable in current reading research and best practices for reading instruction”.
Do members have any comments?
We need to wait for the framework to be published; the draft framework should be available next month. We will be able to move forward depending on what it contains and whether it addresses the concerns that are raised in the petition. That is my recommendation.
I am struck by the fact that the positions in the submissions are closer to each other than had initially been suggested.
Yes. I thought that, too.
It was useful to hear about research-informed reading instruction in its broader context. It is not so much about whether it is used or not used, or whether it is useful or not useful; the question is therefore about the extent to which research-informed reading instruction is part of teachers’ personal professional development.
Do we agree to wait for publication of the framework and to get the petitioner’s view on whether it addresses their concerns? Do we also agree to ask the Deputy First Minister to respond to the concerns that have been expressed about membership of the working group, and to try to get a timetable for publication of the draft framework?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move into private session, I welcome Rachael Hamilton to the committee and thank Michelle Ballantyne for her work with us.
I also note that, sadly, Catherine Fergusson, who has been the clerk to the committee for the past three years, is moving on—and probably up. I, personally, thank her for all the support that she has given to me since I became convener of the committee. She is a brilliant professional and is very organised. She is also very good at dealing with petitioners whose issues are often personal and sensitive, and matter deeply to them. That is a challenge for all our clerking team. The whole team plays a very important role in being as welcoming, considerate and thoughtful as possible to petitioners. I thank you all, but I know that Catherine has led by example. I wish her all the very best: she has visiting rights to come back.
10:34 Meeting continued in private until 10:43.Previous
New Petitions