Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Official Report 659KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
HPV Vaccination Programme (PE1939)
Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. PE1939, on amending the date of birth to allow wider accessibility to the human papillomavirus vaccination programme for boys, was lodged by Suzanne Thornton. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to health equality for young males who were born between 1 September 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access the HPV vaccination via the national health service.
The petitioner has told us that she is concerned that the current vaccine eligibility criteria are creating a health inequality. She has noted that all girls, as well as men who have sex with men aged up to 45 years, are offered HPV vaccination, but young males who were born prior to September 2006 are unable to access the vaccine. Should a young male who was born prior to that date wish to receive the HPV vaccine, he would have to do so through private healthcare, which the petitioner has advised us would cost approximately £500 per person.
The Scottish Government notes in its response that eligibility for teenage immunisation programmes in Scotland is defined by academic year rather than date of birth. As such, any boy who started in secondary 1 in 2019-20 would have been offered the vaccine and will remain eligible up to his 25th birthday. The response also notes that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation does not currently recommend a catch-up programme for boys and states that the evidence suggests that boys are already benefiting from indirect protection as a result of the roll-out of the vaccination programme to girls.
I know that the HPV vaccination has been controversial and that it has been the subject of previous discussion in the Public Petitions Committee in earlier parliamentary sessions.
Do members have any comments or suggestions in relation to the petition?
This is an area that requires to be looked at in a little bit more depth in order to get more clarity, so I suggest that we write to the JCVI to ask whether it has any plans to review the need for, and the value of, the catch-up immunisation programme for males aged 25 and younger. I also suggest that we write to the Teenage Cancer Trust, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, Young Scot and the Men’s Health Forum to seek their views on the issues raised by the petition. All of that would be of interest to us in clarifying things and seeing what would be required in future.
Thank you, Mr Stewart. If colleagues have no other suggestions on organisations to contact, is the committee content to keep the petition open and to pursue further evidence from those sources?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition will stay open, and we will seek to gather evidence for consideration at a later date.
Peer Support Programmes (Public Sector) (PE1942)
PE1942, on encouraging peer support programmes in public sector organisations, was lodged by Fiona MacRae. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer support programmes such as trauma risk management, or TRIM, and sustaining resilience at work, or STRAW, in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health.
The petitioner has told us that use of the TRIM and STRAW processes could help to create psychological safety at work by encouraging employees to complete an incident report when they experience or witness behaviours that might affect employees’ mental health. She has also suggested that early intervention could help to reduce the number of employees experiencing mental health problems and contribute to a safer and more positive workplace culture.
In responding to the petition’s aims, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has provided information on a range of actions that are being taken to promote mentally healthy workplaces, including a mental health transition and recovery plan, funding for a national trauma training programme, and the establishment of a peer recovery hub by the Scottish Recovery Network.
Do members have any suggestions or comments with regard to further action?
I wonder whether we can keep the petition open so that we can get more information. We could write to relevant stakeholder organisations, including the Mental Health Foundation, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Samaritans, the Scottish Recovery Network and the Laura Hyde Foundation, to seek their views on the value of, and the need for, the provision of peer support programmes in workplaces across Scotland.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. If colleagues have nothing to add, are members content to keep the petition open and to write to the organisations that Mr Torrance has suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Brownfield Sites (Remediation and Reuse) (PE1943)
PE1943, which is on helping to prevent the destruction of greenfield sites by providing financial incentives for the remediation and reuse of brownfield sites, has been lodged by Victoria Mungall and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use, while discouraging developments on greenfield land.
Victoria Mungall tells us that brownfield sites can often be difficult and expensive to remediate due to contamination, unstable ground and other challenges. That results in greenfield sites being targeted for development, as they can be far less expensive for developers to build on. She also highlights that, in England, grants have been introduced that allow local authorities to contribute to the remediation of brownfield land.
In its response, the Scottish Government provides details of the vacant and derelict land investment programme, which was launched in March 2021. That £50 million fund is available on a competitive basis to all Scottish local authorities and to the Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company.
Members might be aware that the draft national planning framework 4 proposes an updated and expanded policy on vacant and derelict land that discourages development on greenfield land, unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available.
Do members have any thoughts or comments?
The committee should keep the petition open until the fourth national planning framework is finalised and approved, so that we can see an updated version. We should also write to the Royal Town Planning Institute, Homes for Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek their views on the issues raised in the petition.
Are members content with those suggestions? Should we write to any other organisations?
Vacant and derelict land is a particularly acute issue in Glasgow. I think that the bulk of Scotland’s derelict land is in Glasgow, so it would be interesting to get insights from the Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company, which is the only urban regeneration company left in Scotland, about its work and the model that it has adopted.
It would also be worth while engaging with the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Building, which has proposed a demolition levy to promote the reuse and renovation of buildings. A major disincentive has been created through the tax system whereby the renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings is subject to 20 per cent VAT, but demolition and new builds are zero rated, so a handicap is imposed on what should be the right thing to do. That is why you often see otherwise pleasant-looking buildings being destroyed; it does not make any financial sense for the developer to renovate them. There are some perverse incentives out there that should be investigated, because addressing them could be part of the remedy.
I am very happy to accommodate that suggestion. Are members of the committee content to keep the petition open and to write to the organisations suggested ahead of further consideration when we receive responses?
Members indicated agreement.
Peat (Ban on Extraction and Use in Horticulture) (PE1945)
PE1945, which is on banning the extraction and use of peat in horticulture and all growing media by 2023, was lodged by Elizabeth Otway. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat and peat imports, exports and sales in order to protect peatlands in Scotland and worldwide.
Elizabeth Otway states that the Scottish Government’s investment in peatland restoration is undermined by continued extraction and use of peat in horticulture. The call for a 2023 deadline is in line with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendation to ban peat extraction, sales and imports by 2023.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that the Scottish Government’s commitment to phase out the use of horticultural peat has been made for several years. The UK Government aims to end the retail sale of peat and products containing peat in England and Wales by the end of the current UK Parliament, and by 2028 in the professional horticulture sector.
The Scottish Government’s response indicates that a public consultation will be launched shortly to inform its work in relation to banning the sale of peat-related gardening products, and it has commissioned research on the issue. The Scottish Government states that it is committed to setting a timescale for phasing out peat and to introducing legislation to support that.
In view of that suggestion to us from the Scottish Government, do members have any comments or further suggestions?
We should keep the petition open and, in doing so, write to the Scottish Government to highlight the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations to ban practices such as rotational burning on peatland by 2020 and to ban peat extraction, the sale of peat and peat imports by 2023. We should ask how feasible it would be to ban the extraction and use of peat by 2023; when the Scottish Government expects the delivery plan and timetable for phasing out horticultural peat to be developed and produced; when the public consultation will be launched; and how the petitioner can contribute to the consultation.
11:15
I was not quite sure whether the petition was calling for restrictions beyond the use of peat for horticulture. From what David Torrance said, and the reference that he made, it would appear that the Climate Change Committee recommends going further than that and banning peat for burning. Given that we all know that the burning of peat is traditional in crofting counties as an essential means of heat and is a cultural practice that has gone on for centuries, I wonder whether any attempt to ban said practice would be met with horror and outright opposition, if not direct action, by crofters. We might write to the Scottish Crofting Federation to seek its guidance on whom we should be consulting on the matter, because I suspect that it will become—to use a rather poor pun—a burning issue.
I wondered which pun, from a range of poor puns, you were going to reach for there, Mr Ewing.
I am happy for us to do that. Are members content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Homeless Temporary Accommodation (Scottish Government Funding) (PE1946)
PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Clerkin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for temporary accommodation for homeless people, including writing off the £33.3 million debt that is owed by homeless people to local authorities for temporary accommodation.
Sean Clerkin tells us that vulnerable homeless people, including working people,
“are being forced into serious debt.”
His recent submission highlights the increase in the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation over recent years and states that the situation will worsen given the cost of living crisis. He says that, without the action that is called for, the financial burden and further poverty will drive many people into physical and mental ill health.
The SPICe briefing that the committee received states that councils use different methods of calculating charges for temporary accommodation and that a Social Bite report found that there was wide variation in costs, which ranged from £65 to £400 per week. The Legal Services Agency published a report that noted
“varying levels of detail in local authority policies and varying regard for, and definition of, the affordability of temporary accommodation.”
The LSA recommends that, in the longer term, charging individuals for temporary accommodation should be prohibited.
The Scottish Government’s response highlighted its forthcoming housing bill, which will seek to prevent homelessness through principles of shared public responsibility, earlier intervention and increased housing choices for individuals. It has also established a temporary accommodation task and finish group, which will review charging practices and affordability concerns.
Do members have any suggestions or comments in relation to the petition?
Perhaps the committee could keep the petition open and, in doing so, write to the Scottish Government to ask whether the forthcoming housing bill will include provisions to prohibit local authorities from charging individuals for the provision of temporary accommodation, and whether the Government will give consideration to paying for temporary accommodation for homeless people and to waiving the outstanding debt that is owed by homeless people to local authorities for temporary accommodation.?
I am content to support Mr Torrance’s calls, convener. As you indicated in your opening remarks, there is no doubt that the cost of living crisis will have a knock-on effect on all of this, and there might well be a need to clarify what will be developed in the housing bill so that we can make progress. Without that, the situation could spiral into a much larger issue for many local authorities and individuals.
I propose that we invite Shelter Scotland to make a submission on the petition, as it might have some important insights.
I am happy to accommodate that.
As there are no further suggestions, are members happy to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis? We can consider the petition afresh when we receive the submissions that we are now seeking.
Members indicated agreement.
Youth Violence (PE1947)
PE1947, which was lodged by Alex O’Kane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. The petitioner highlights a culture of youth violence in Glasgow city centre, saying that children as young as 13 years old have been kicked unconscious and that such incidents have been videoed and circulated on social media. He also sent us a further submission to highlight a recent incident involving a young girl. He says that children should be safe on our streets and that young people
“need to learn about consequences and deterrents or they will simply become adults without fear of consequences and deterrents.”
The Scottish Government’s response outlines a number of on-going programmes and the work that is being undertaken with partner organisations such as the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and Medics Against Violence. It also highlights a notable decrease in the number of young people frequenting Glasgow city centre and an associated decrease in antisocial behaviour and violence.
The Government states its plan to publish the first national violence prevention framework for Scotland, which seeks to refresh its approach to violence prevention and harm reduction. Its submission also notes that there was an 85 per cent reduction in the number of children and young people being prosecuted in courts between 2008 and 2020.
In view of the Scottish Government’s response and our own thoughts on this important petition, do members have any comments or suggestions?
This is a very important petition. I know that it talks primarily about Glasgow, but there are other locations across Scotland where people are suffering from the blight of violence and where young people who find it difficult to assimilate what they should or want to do choose to go out and be involved in antisocial behaviour and vandalism, which can sometimes lead to violence. The petitioner has given us some strong examples of what is taking place and has highlighted how social media is being used to publicise and promote some of these things. That, too, is a dangerous development.
I suggest that, as a first step, the committee might wish to seek evidence from those with lived experience across the board, because that will give us an opportunity to have further discussions with individuals about the details of the situation and to hear about certain circumstances. There is also a role for community safety, the police and other authorities to play in all of this, so it would be very useful for some of those people to be involved and to participate, too.
The petition was lodged following a spate of violence in Glasgow city centre and surrounding areas that the petitioner brought to my attention earlier in the year. Since then, there have been several instances in which the level of violence on display has been absolutely horrifying, most notably in the case of 13-year-old Abbie Jarvis. I do not want to get into the specifics of the case—legal proceedings are under way and I do not want to prejudice them—but I point out that, following media coverage, this petition has become known as Abbie’s petition, and I know that my colleague Pauline McNeill MSP has been engaging with Abbie’s family to see what can be done to support them.
I would therefore like the petition to be kept open and progressed. I know that the Government has responded by setting out the measures that it is taking to try to reduce youth violence in Scotland, but I put it to the committee that those measures have not been adequate and that in big cities such as Glasgow—particularly in the city centre—the situation is getting worse. From my conversations with Police Scotland and the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, it appears that there is no one reason for the recent increase; indeed, the problem is multifaceted. I therefore think that the committee will benefit from hearing from the likes of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and, if they wish to appear before us, families who have been directly impacted by youth violence.
Mr Stewart has suggested that it might be of interest for us to proactively visit communities that have been affected by the issue. Does that appeal to the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
We will therefore write to organisations involved in order to do that and ask the Parliament’s engagement team to develop a programme for us. Are members happy for that to happen?
Members indicated agreement.
Would members like us to visit anywhere in particular, bearing in mind that, given our timetables, any visit is not likely to happen until the new year, or is the committee happy for the engagement team to come back to us?
A particular focus of antisocial behaviour has been St Enoch square and what was formerly known as the four corners area of Glasgow around Argyle Street and under the Hielanman’s umbrella, but I am sure that the petitioner will have suggestions, too.
Are we therefore content for some recommendations to be evolved on where we might visit and to plan to undertake that visit early in the new year?
Members indicated agreement.
The clerks will take that forward for us. On that basis, we will keep the petition open.
Unexplained Deaths (PE1948)
PE1948, which was also lodged by Alex O’Kane, is on improving the way in which unexplained deaths are dealt with. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review its practices for dealing with unexplained deaths, from initial recovery through to the support that is offered to family members.
Alex O’Kane stresses that, when a body is discovered with no clear cause of death, there is a vital window of time when decisions are made and evidence can be secured or lost. He says that, because an unexplained death is not considered to be a crime, the same level of resources are not invested to support the person’s family, and victim support is not involved. He also stresses the need for good and supportive police communication with families in such situations.
The Scottish Government’s submission sets out the process that is followed by both Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service when managing unexplained, reportable deaths. Police officers are expected to undertake a range of actions during an initial assessment to determine the response. If at any stage circumstances indicate a “police reportable death”, the assessment must be halted and officers must notify supervisors and the criminal investigation department.
In dealing with unexplained deaths, one of the key principles highlighted by the Scottish Government is that the deceased and any family or friends are treated with respect, dignity and compassion. Guidance states that consideration should also be given to the appointment of a family liaison officer for bereaved relatives.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I have engaged with the petitioner on the petition, which I believe is known as Stephanie’s petition. Stephanie Bonner is a constituent who lost her son three years ago in what was recorded as an unexplained death. The family has had no answers, has been let down by the authorities and is awaiting the outcome of a review by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner into the handling of the case. Nothing that I say today will do justice to the importance of the petition.
I am of the opinion that the committee should invite Stephanie Bonner to give evidence on her experience since the tragic passing of her son three years ago. I gave a commitment to the petitioner that I would encourage the committee to invite Stephanie to the committee at the earliest opportunity. Today’s meeting is the first opportunity that I have had to stand by that commitment.
Fundamentally, the petition is about improving the way in which unexplained deaths are dealt with. In order to do that, it is vital that the committee hears at first hand from those with experience of the current system and its flaws, and about the impact that that can have on families who are grieving and seeking answers and closure.
We have a proposal to hear from the petitioner. It might be useful to seek further information from a variety of other organisations ahead of that. Do members have any suggestions in that respect?
I agree with Paul Sweeney’s comments. Can we also write to Police Scotland for information on how a family liaison officer is deployed and on their role, training and accountability in such situations?
We can. We might also want to write to Victim Support Scotland to ask for its views.
I apologise for my earlier mistake—the petitioner is Alex O’Kane. The clerks can liaise with Mr Sweeney in relation to the individual affected who would like to give evidence to the committee.
At this stage, are we prepared to keep the petition open and to explore how we take forward the suggestions that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Trawl and Dredge Fisheries (Inshore Coastal Limit) (PE1951)
That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE1951, which was lodged by Alistair Bally Philp on behalf of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, is on reinstating an inshore coastal limit on the use of dredge and trawl fishing gears. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reintroduce a variation of the historical 3-mile coastal limit on the use of mobile dredge and bottom-trawling fish gears to support: the recovery of Scotland’s inshore demersal fin-fish population and the wider ecosystem; opportunities to optimise the social, economic and environmental returns within the new spatially managed area; and increases in the number of fishing jobs and the revitalisation of coastal communities.
The Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation highlights the decline in fish landings and the significant losses of marine features since the removal of the historical inshore limit. It is concerned that, despite the use of marine protected areas, less than 5 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are currently protected from damaging trawling and dredging activity. The federation has also shared information on economic studies, showing that switching fishing effort from trawl fishery to creel fishery has the potential to
“yield substantial economic, social and environmental benefits to Scotland”.
11:30In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has engaged in extensive discussions on the matter with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and has no plans to introduce a 3-mile limit to restrict mobile gear activity in inshore waters. The Scottish Government suggests that there are already a range of measures in place to protect fish stocks, and it highlights commitments contained in the Bute house agreement, including the designation of highly protected marine areas, which are to cover at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s inshore and offshore waters by 2026.
The petition has already attracted a large number of written submissions, many of which indicate concerns about the Scottish Government’s approach to marine management.
Given everything that we have received in advance of our consideration of the petition this morning, do members have any comments or suggestions? It appears that both Mr Stewart and Mr Torrance are keen to jump in.
Considering that there is another parliamentary committee working in this area, I would like to refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee for it to consider as part of its work on inshore fisheries issues.
I agree. The federation makes some strong and valid points in the petition. It would be more appropriate for the petition to be considered by the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, given that that committee is already looking into inshore fisheries issues. That is the right place for it, because that committee will look at the issue in much more depth and with the appropriate precision.
I cannot remember what stage it is at, but I believe that there is a UK Parliament Fisheries Bill—it might have already passed into statute. It might be worth contacting the Scotland Office to see whether the UK Government has input on the matter.
We can draw that together with the recommendation when we refer the petition. Given that the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee is already exploring the issues, do we agree to refer the petition to that committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. We will next meet on 9 November. That concludes the public part of the meeting.
11:32 Meeting continued in private until 12:17.Previous
Continued Petitions