Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023

Official Report 525KB pdf

---

Continued Petitions

---

British Sign Language (National Qualification) (PE1867)

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1867, lodged by Scott Macmillan and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

A BSL interpretation of our discussion will be on the Parliament’s BSL channel following today’s meeting.

We last considered the petition in November 2022, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on the development of the next BSL plan and an exploration of how BSL national qualifications might be developed. We have received a response from the cabinet secretary that suggests that the Scottish Government will undertake engagement and consultation work to inform the priorities of the BSL national plan for 2023.

The cabinet secretary has also provided details on BSL awards currently available at SCQF levels 3 to 6. While delivery of those awards is still at an early stage, the cabinet secretary has indicated that uptake is increasing. The cabinet secretary goes on to state that, while the Scottish Government shares the petitioner’s vision for BSL to be more widely taught in schools, having qualifications in place does not necessarily lead to the language being offered at level 2 by schools and it remains the choice of schools to decide which languages to teach. The Scottish Government, therefore, does not believe that the steps sought by the petitioner are necessarily sufficient to support an increased take-up of BSL.

We have considered the petition on a number of occasions. Do colleagues have any suggestions in light of the cabinet secretary’s letter and her commitment to consult further on the 2023 plan?

Might the committee be minded to keep the petition open and to write to the Scottish Government to seek details of the engagement and consultation that it plans to undertake when developing the new BSL national plan?

Are we content to do that? These are vulnerable communities, and it would be too easy for us to say, “Let’s just close the petition”. We should keep up what pressure we can to see what changes we can help to facilitate.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Digital Exclusion (Rural Households) (PE1931)

PE1931, lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Government to prevent the digital exclusion of rural properties and households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the relevant contractor—BT Openreach—to seek further information about how work is sequenced and prioritised. The Scottish Government’s response explained that it conducted an open market review to identify the premises that would be eligible for public investment through R100. The intervention area identified was tested through a public consultation to confirm that it was accurate. The Scottish Government also weighted the scoring for some rural locations as part of the bidding process to encourage deployment in those areas. The submission provides information about the full fibre charter for Scotland, which aims to extend build further into remote, rural and geographically challenging areas.

BT Openreach’s response to the committee explains its inside-out approach to sequencing works, whereby build begins from the primary exchange location, where the main fibre controls unit is located, out into the communities. The rationale for that is to make the most use of public subsidy and extend the network as much as it can with the funding that is available.

Finally, a recent parliamentary question from Willie Rennie MSP highlighted an FOI that, he said, reveals that the full R100 programme will not be delivered until March 2028.

The subject has entertained the chamber with a degree of controversy for as long, frankly, as I can recall. Colleagues, have we any comments in the light of the evidence that we have received?

As you say, this is a very topical issue and members and communities have been sceptical about what is taking place. More requires to be done. We should keep the petition open. It might be useful to find out from the Scottish Government what proportion of Scotland currently has superfast broadband and when it is anticipated that all households will have it. In your comments, you touched on rural locations and geographical challenges. It is vital that we find out whether the Government has evaluated the full fibre broadband charter in Scotland and the efficacy of extending and expanding the build into remote, rural and geographically challenging areas. That is the crux of it. It is those locations that have the problem. Those communities and their representatives are sceptical about where things are going and how they are progressing. If we can get some of that information from the Scottish Government, it will help our deliberation.

Are there any other comments? Are we content to proceed as Mr Stewart suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Ministerial Code (Independent Committee) (PE1935)

Next is PE1935, which is not the year in which an infringement was last upheld, just the number of the petition. Lodged by Dillon Crawford, it calls on the Scottish Government to create an independent committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the Scottish ministerial code.

The committee, at our last consideration, agreed to request a Scottish Parliament Information Centre briefing on the ministerial code equivalents in the partner nations: England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The SPICe briefing provides detail of the processes followed across the UK. In Scotland, the First Minister is the only MSP who assesses and decides action for a breach of the ministerial code.

All MSPs, including ministers, are expected to abide by the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”. The briefing states that that is consistent with arrangements at a UK level and in the other devolved nations, where there are separate codes of conduct for members of the Government and members of the respective legislatures.

While there are similarities, the briefing notes that there are differences between Governments in how alleged breaches of the relevant ministerial code are dealt with, the status of the independent advisers and the sanctions available to the Prime Minister or the First Minister in relation to breaches of the relevant ministerial code. Have members any comments or suggestions for action?

We can take the petition no further on the evidence that we have, so I would like to close it under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that an operational system of independent advisers on the ministerial code exists; the Scottish Government has no plans to amend the decision-making process in any way proposed by the petitioner; and no current examples of independent committees in UK legislatures exist in any way proposed by the petitioner.

It is a controversial subject. Has anyone anything else that they would like to contribute? If not, are we content to thank the petitioner for raising the issue and to point out that, in view of the information that we have received and the responses that we have been given, it seems that we are unable, through petition at least, to effect a change and that therefore we will close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Physical Education (Privacy) (PE1937)

PE1937, lodged by Gillian Lamarra, urges the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their physical education kit to school on the days when they have PE.

At our meeting on 28 September 2022, we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner to seek their views on the action called for in the petition. I had not realised that it was as long ago as that; it seems fresher in my mind. In response, the commissioner set out their view that primary schools should adopt a flexible approach to policies on changing for PE classes. The commissioner’s response also highlights long-standing concerns about other parts of the learning estate, such as school toilets. The response also suggests that, although different PE changing practices among primary schools may be justified, the Scottish Government should explore whether national guidance is required to help create some degree of consistency.

We have also received a response from COSLA that highlights that extensive work is under way across councils and schools to support the vision of a Scotland where children’s human rights are embedded in all aspects of society and public services. COSLA goes on to state that local government believes that it would not be appropriate for the important matters raised in the petition to be subject to national-level policy or guidance, with schools best placed to determine the design and delivery of policy around wearing PE kits.

I imagine that the school estate across Scotland will be hugely varied, so some schools will find it easy to make different arrangements, while others will probably have to plan over a longer period to make such arrangements possible.

Colleagues, in the light of the submissions that we have received, what do you suggest would be an appropriate way forward?

There is no doubt that COSLA has a strong case with reference to the estate, but the Children and Young People’s Commissioner also gave us some suggestions. It might therefore be useful to not close the petition at this stage but seek more information. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration has been given to reviewing and updating the learning estate strategy in the light of the comments that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner has made. That might give us further indication. I acknowledge what COSLA says and that the petition may not be able to progress after that, but, at this stage, it might be useful for us to get some of that information.

Colleagues might agree with your suggestion. I was minded to close the petition, given the difficulties with the school estate, but I take your point. It may well be that, given the strength of expression from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, it would be useful to see the Scottish Government’s response to that. I still think, however, that it is unlikely that it will choose to err on the side of a national directive, but it is worth seeing that response. Are we content to make that further inquiry?

I just want to support Alexander Stewart. If the Children and Young People’s Commissioner has indicated that there may be more that we can do, it would be useful to explore that to its end point.

I am happy that we do so.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Cats (Compulsory Microchipping) (PE1938)

PE1938, lodged by Carlie Power, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce the mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland and to assess the effectiveness of current microchip-scanning processes.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has informed the committee that microchipping domestic cats has been identified in its recent work programme as an issue to potentially focus on in the medium term. The Scottish Government has stated that it does not consider that microchipping or the scanning of microchips should be made compulsory for cats at this time. The recent submission raises concerns shared with UK counterparts that it could create an enforcement role for veterinary surgeons or result in pet owners avoiding taking their cat to receive medical attention if the animal is stolen or unchipped.

The petitioner has provided two further written submissions to the committee. She notes that owners of 71 per cent of cats have accepted the recommendation on voluntarily microchipping cats but that that statistic brought the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the conclusion that advisory action is not enough. She raises concerns about road traffic accidents that result in euthanasia for minor injuries because locating the cat owner had not been possible. It is highlighted that waste departments often take a role in the disposal of cat remains but do not always have access to a microchip scanner or an understanding of the scanning process.

Christine Grahame MSP, owner of Mr Smokey, has provided a written submission as she is unable to attend the meeting this morning. Her submission states that compulsory microchipping would enable negligent cat owners to be more easily identified and help to avoid ownership disputes. Her submission concludes by highlighting the fact that the number of unchipped cats in Scotland is higher than the UK average.

We have also received a late submission from Cats Protection that was circulated to members for consideration.

In the light of the Animal Welfare Commission’s identifying this as a potential medium-term issue and the other evidence that we have received, including Christine Grahame’s submission, do members have any comments?

09:45  

Christine Grahame will be extremely disappointed with me because I do not think that we can take the petition any further on the evidence that we have received.

I ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the petitioner is satisfied that the Scottish Government’s current approach will adequately address the issue of mandatory microchipping of Scotland’s cats; the Scottish Government does not consider that the scanning of microchips should be made compulsory for cats at this time due to concerns about the potential impact on the welfare of cats and veterinary surgeons; and microchipping domestic cats features in the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s work plan as a medium-term issue.

The fact that the petitioner is satisfied with the progress and the response received gives weight to that recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us. As with all petitions that are closed, if, in due course, the petitioner feels that the commitments or evidence that we have received do not lead to a satisfactory outcome, they are entitled to bring the issue back by way of a fresh petition after 12 months.

---

HPV Vaccination Programme (PE1939)

PE1939, lodged by Suzanne Thornton, calls on the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to health equality for young males born between 1 September 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access the human papillomavirus vaccine via the national health service.

We previously considered the petition on 26 October 2022. At that point, we agreed to write to various organisations to gather further information on the issues raised. Members will be aware from our papers that we have received responses from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, Young Scot and the Teenage Cancer Trust. Importantly, in its response, the JCVI set out the reasons why a time-limited catch-up programme for boys was not pursued when the HPV vaccination was extended in 2018. The reasons provided included the different epidemiological situation now compared with when the programme for girls was launched; the good levels of herd immunity as a result of the girls’ programme; and the priority of extending the routine adolescent programme to boys while maintaining high uptake among girls. The JCVI also states that it has no plans to review the need for and value of a catch-up of the HPV immunisation programme for males aged 25 and under, as it believes that that would not be cost-effective.

I also draw members’ attention to the response from the Teenage Cancer Trust, which notes a disparity between the uptake rates of vaccination between males and females of 7.9 per cent and calls for the Scottish Government to include plans for monitoring uptake to be included in the 10-year cancer strategy.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

At the previous meeting, I asked for some of that information, which we have now received. In the circumstances that we now find ourselves in, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the JCVI has no plans to review the need for or value of an HPV vaccination catch-up programme for boys due to the indirect protection offered through herd immunity. We have collated and brought forward information, but I do not believe that it will change the direction of where we are.

From reading the papers, I can see that, in June last year, the petitioner argued that young males living south of the border are afforded protection that is not available for young males in Scotland. I looked at the JCVI response to see what it said about that. Maybe it is my failure to comprehend some of the medical information in that, but I could not see a direct response on why it is fine in England but not in Scotland.

I was looking for the answer to the question that the petitioner has posed. I do not know whether the clerks can help me—maybe it is hidden in here somewhere—but I did not see any reference to what is, according to the petitioner at least, a situation in Scotland that is different from that in England. We are probably reaching the end of the petition, but I wonder whether that is something that the clerks might clarify with the JCVI. Perhaps I have missed something.

No, that is a fair point. Mr Stewart, are you happy for us to leave the petition open while we pursue that point?

I note also the Teenage Cancer Trust recommendation in relation to the 10-year cancer strategy and the disparity that the trust had identified. That is not so much something for a response, but we should certainly write to the Scottish Government to draw its attention to the Teenage Cancer Trust’s representation.

That is a relevant point. We should raise that with the Government as something that it must make sure that it monitors in its cancer plans.

We will defer closing the petition, Mr Stewart, if you are content, although I think that your analysis is largely correct. It would be interesting to put that question more directly back to the JCVI. Mr Ewing is correct: I do not think that, in all the representations that the JCVI has made, we have a specific explanation of why it is right in one place and wrong in another.

I am more than happy to take the views of the committee, convener.

Okay, are we agreed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.