Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petition
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
School Bus Safety (PE1223)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of continued petitions.
We will deal first with petition PE1223, by Ron Beaty, on school bus safety. I welcome Stewart Stevenson MSP, who has a long-standing interest in the issues that we are going to discuss. At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to Transport Scotland. We sought clarification from it on its response to a pilot programme on school bus signage that was conducted by Glasgow City Council. Transport Scotland has provided a response indicating that it considers that a one-size-fits-all approach to the issue is not merited, and that the case has not been made for a national roll-out. Members will see from the clerk’s note that Transport Scotland has undertaken a range of measures, including contacting the UK Government to enhance awareness of the school bus sign in the “Highway Code” and the driving test.
As members know, we received the very sad news that Mr Beaty has passed away since we last considered the petition. I am sure that members will wish to join me in expressing our condolences to Mr Beaty’s family and in recognising Mr Beaty’s efforts in raising the issue with the Scottish Parliament over many years. It is worth noting that Transport Scotland’s submission dated 21 September commended Mr Beaty for his achievements in influencing Scottish policy on the issue. I am sure that members will agree with me that, even from reading the evidence that he provided, we can acknowledge what is a very powerful message about the need for action.
Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we take forward the petition? It might be worth while for Stewart Stevenson to make some comments at this point.
Thank you very much, convener. I am sure that Ron Beaty’s family will very much appreciate the kind remarks that you have made, and indeed the comments that Transport Scotland made before he died, which, being prospective, are possibly even more highly valued.
It is worth making the general comment that Ron Beaty, following an accident involving his granddaughter, first petitioned the Scottish Parliament on the issue of school bus safety in 2004. He was, beyond doubt, the most persistent and one of the most effective petitioners, and his would be a good model for others to pursue. He had a proper and mannerly way of dealing with difficult issues, which this one is.
Turning to the subject before us, the response from Transport Scotland is perfectly proper. In relation to school bus signs in particular, which is one of the two topics of the petition, it identifies that, in its tests, only 11 per cent of people identified the signs in hazard perception tests in daylight conditions, and 8 per cent or so did so in darkness. That broadly leaves open the question whether more can be done but, noting that the “Highway Code” has been amended at rule 209 and that the test is being amended to raise awareness, we can count that as a substantial and real achievement, although it is perhaps not the closing of the issue in the long term.
The committee may also care to consider the other matter that is addressed by the petition, which is that of making overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence. I am not sure that that is within the gift of the Scottish Parliament—I believe that it is not. I suggest that the only further thing that the committee might consider doing—I am not urging; I am merely informing—is to ask the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which has responsibility for transport this session, whether it might care to consider issues arising from the petition, including stationary school buses and defences associated with that. I suspect that, for this committee, given that the petition has gone on since 2009 and has notched up a fair number of achievements and changes, you may be running out of options.
I understand that the question of overtaking is reserved. I think that there is a broader issue about the mindset of drivers. In my time as a schoolteacher, we lost young people because they were knocked down coming round the front of a bus. I do not know whether we can legislate for driver mindset, but I am sure that even the fact that the issues have been discussed and raised over a period of time will have had an impact on public perceptions.
What are members’ views? It feels to me that we would want to close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis that Transport Scotland has identified alternative measures to address the issues raised by the petition. Do members have views on Stewart Stevenson’s specific suggestion that we flag up to the relevant committee those broader questions that he has identified?
The point about overtaking a stationary bus makes the assumption that people can identify the bus as being a school bus and whether schoolchildren are aboard the bus at the time. It is almost a dual issue; I feel that being able to properly identify the bus as a school bus is key, but it would be problematic to make the overtaking of a stationary bus a criminal offence. The convener talks about addressing the mindset of drivers. That issue is probably more akin to issues to do with the “Highway Code”.
In Glasgow, very few schoolchildren are on school buses, because most are on regular buses. The examples that I could give from my teaching career involve youngsters who were on regular buses. None of the suggestions really addresses that question, which is that, at certain times of the day—quarter to 9 in the morning and half past 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon—drivers should be very alive to the fact that large numbers of young people are getting on and coming off buses. That does not feel to me to be a matter that even Transport Scotland could address.
It feels to me that we should be doing something but, unhelpfully, I cannot think what.
I am minded to say that the petition should go on to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee but, to clarify, would it just be the issue of overtaking school buses that is the reason that it would go there? Is there any other reason why it would go there?
If we close the petition, we would recognise that it includes transport issues, and we would write to the committee that is responsible for transport, perhaps capturing this debate and saying that we would welcome it if the committee looked at the issue further.
I definitely support that suggestion. From reading the background, Ron Beaty had some fantastic achievements. It is a good idea to move the petition on to the relevant committee. I do not think that we can take it any further.
I have a question. Do we have any statistics showing the occurrence of municipal and rural accidents?
I think that there are some figures in the papers.
To clarify, if we close the petition, we would write to the relevant committee to say that we have considered the issues. We cannot direct that committee as to what it might do with the information, but it may wish to look at those matters as part of its work programme. Stewart Stevenson will know better than I do what figures are available, but I am not sure that they capture youngsters travelling on school transport and those travelling on regular buses.
Stewart Stevenson said that the rural aspect is important, and that is something that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee can look at.
I am sorry to come back to my council, but I know that Argyll and Bute Council has started to put wardens on the buses at school time, which has helped.
It is not so much that it is a rural issue—the point is that the rural committee is also responsible for transport.
Sorry—I beg your pardon.
Do members agree to close the petition and take the actions that have been discussed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his attendance. I think that members will again wish to acknowledge the work of Mr Beaty and his family. His legacy is certainly one to be proud of.
Thank you, convener.
Pernicious Anaemia and Vitamin B12 Deficiency (Understanding and Treatment) (PE1408)
The next petition is PE1408, by Andrea MacArthur, on updating pernicious anaemia and vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment. The committee has a copy of the Scottish Government’s latest response and a submission from the petitioner. Members will recall that, since the petition was lodged, the British Committee for Standards in Haematology published guidelines in June 2014 on the diagnosis of B12 and folate deficiency. The Scottish Government received advice from the diagnostic steering group that those guidelines were not suitable for the Scottish practice setting, so it commissioned the Scottish Haematology Society to prepare a summary document based on the guidelines to provide to general practitioners in Scotland.
The session 4 Public Petitions Committee considered the draft guidelines for the first time at its meeting on 1 December 2015. The committee sought further information from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Haematology Society on the draft document to clarify a number of the petitioner’s concerns about it. The Scottish Haematology Society has since withdrawn from the process, citing its limited resources as the main reason for doing so. The latest submission from the Scottish Government advises that no further work will be done on the draft summary document and that there are no plans to publish it, so Scottish clinicians will be expected to refer to the British Committee for Standards in Haematology’s guidelines. In her latest submission, the petitioner has expressed her disappointment with that news.
Do members have any suggestions for action?
Given the petitioner’s disappointment at that outcome, why do we not write to the Minister for Public Health and Sport to ask why Scottish clinicians are expected to refer to the BCSH’s guidelines, although they were previously considered not suitable for use in the practice setting in Scotland?
Yes, it struck me as odd that, although it was said previously that those guidelines were not suitable for Scotland, they are deemed suitable now, following the withdrawal of the Scottish Haematology Society from the process. Is it agreed that we write to the Minister for Public Health and Sport as suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Thyroid and Adrenal Testing and Treatment (PE1463)
The next petition is PE1463, by Lorraine Cleaver, on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment. Members will be aware that this issue is of interest to Elaine Smith MSP, although she is unable to be with us today. Members will recall that, at our meeting on 29 September 2016, we agreed to request a briefing from SPICe and to consider at a future meeting our approach to the petition. A copy of the SPICe briefing has been provided to members. Since then, we have also had a chance to consider our approach to the petition within the context of our work programme. Do members have any suggestions for action?
The petition is on a hugely important issue. I agree with the suggestion in the briefing paper that we prepare a report on the issue and seek a debate in the chamber on it. It is a fairly long-standing petition and we need to try to move it on somehow.
There is no doubt that, over a period of time, the Public Petitions Committee has accumulated a range of information on the issue that would be useful to draw together in the one place. Further, if we had a debate in the chamber on the issue, we would secure a response from a Government minister on it. That would allow members across the chamber or groups beyond the Parliament to highlight the issues involved and to pursue them. Are we agreed on that?
I agree with what has been suggested. As you said, convener, we have accumulated a massive amount of evidence on the issue and it would be good to collate that information in a report. Clearly, a debate in the chamber would help to keep what is a major issue on the radar, particularly the Government’s radar. I, for one, do not understand why T3 is not available through GPs, and we need to get to the bottom of that once and for all.
Okay. Does the committee agree to prepare a report and seek a debate in the chamber?
Members indicated agreement.
School Libraries (PE1581)
The next continuing petition for our consideration is PE1581, by Duncan Wright, on behalf of save Scotland’s school libraries. We considered the petition at our meeting on 29 September, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Library and Information Council. The responses are included in our briefing pack and the note by the clerk provides a summary of the responses.
The Scottish Government appears not to object specifically to the development of a national strategy for school libraries, but it considers that ministers are not necessarily best placed to lead on that.
Do members have suggestions on next steps?
In light of the Scottish Government’s response, we should write to COSLA and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, because there are big issues running throughout Scotland’s 32 local authorities just now, certainly in their budget setting. This has come up time and time again, and we need to get a central view on it from COSLA.
I agree. We need to go to COSLA on this one.
I am intrigued to know why ministers believe that they are not best placed to deal with this, given that it is an education matter.
It is interesting that the Government recognises that there are issues but does not see its responsibility while, equally, the Scottish Library and Information Council recognises that there is a need for a strategy but does not really identify what should be the next step. It seems that everybody agrees that there is an issue.
Working on the assumption that people are not wilfully refusing to have school libraries and librarians, it would be interesting to know why people are making the decisions that they are making, what the pressures on them are, and what the core things are that we would expect from schools and education and the role of libraries within that.
We can write to COSLA, and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland might also have a view.
Absolutely. One of the issues behind the petition is that there is now so much referral to the internet for the collection of information. Kids are encouraged to use it. One of the dilemmas that councils are facing is the reduction in the use of libraries in schools, yet there are some towns where the municipal libraries are well used. There is a real dichotomy at present.
Ideally, a combination of books and the internet, working together, would be good.
Yes—exactly. That is why I think we should go to COSLA and get a steer on this from the directors of education.
Many school libraries will also have facilities with computers and so on. It is a question of the level of professional that is required. When I was teaching, we were still using the Dewey decimal system. I do not know whether that still happens in schools given that people can just Google most things now. I have no doubt whatsoever that librarians, in their profession, will have moved on along with technology. It would be interesting to know more about that.
Do we think that there is a role for the Education and Skills Committee to look at the matter?
I do. As you said, convener, everybody recognises that there is an issue but nobody seems to be able to take on the responsibility. I am interested to see who is making the decisions and to whom the responsibility ultimately falls.
Okay. We can refer the petition to that committee and write to COSLA and ADES. I do not know whether there is anything else.
We have a choice. I am advised that, if we refer the petition to the Education and Skills Committee, it will not come back to us. Do we want to let it go at this point?
No—certainly not.
No.
No. We should write to COSLA and ADES.
Okay. We will write to them, and we will reflect on the responses at a later stage. Thank you for that.
Speed Awareness Courses (PE1600)
PE1600, on speed awareness courses, was lodged by John Chapman. We considered the petition on 29 September, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate to seek his views on the petition and any concerns that his office might have about the effectiveness of speed awareness courses. We have now received the Lord Advocate’s response, which is included in our papers. He indicates that he would be happy to consider a detailed proposal and looks forward to the Department for Transport’s report on its three-year evaluation of speed awareness courses.
Do members have any suggestions for action?
We should defer the petition until the Department for Transport has reported on its evaluation.
I agree.
I do not think that we can make any other decision at this stage.
We could also write to the Scottish Government seeking an update from its strategic partnership board following its meeting on 28 September. I think that everybody recognises the significance and importance of the petition. If we are going to hold on to the petition until the DFT has reported back, we could seek an indication from the DFT about the timescale for publication of the report. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Deaths by Suicide (Inquests) (PE1604)
We move on to PE1604, by Catherine Matheson, on inquests for all deaths by suicide in Scotland. We have received a range of responses, including from national health service boards, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Association for Mental Health. We should acknowledge the seriousness with which the people who have responded take the issue and the substantial number of papers that are associated with the petition. The petitioner has provided a submission to address the points raised in the responses. The petition raises a number of issues about the process that health authorities employ to review the circumstances leading to a patient on a community treatment order committing suicide.
The overarching issue is whether the Scottish Government is minded to extend the scope of the review under section 37 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 2015. Following the Mental Health Commission’s recommendation, the Scottish Government has already agreed to extend the scope of the review to include the suicide of patients on suspension of detention. The Minister for Mental Health did not comment in her submission on whether she is minded to extend the scope of the review to include patients who were released from hospital or were receiving care in the community under a compulsory treatment order, as called for by the petition. The committee might wish to explore that further with the minister.
Members will see that a number of stakeholders do not agree with the petition’s suggestion that there should be an inquest for all deaths by suicide. However, there was some agreement that there might be merit in reviewing or reforming particular aspects of the NHS’s review process that the petitioner has highlighted. That includes appointing independent chairs to conduct the reviews and sharing experience of how families can be successfully included in the review process.
We were struck by the power of the petitioner’s evidence and the dignity with which she gave it, and I am struck by how seriously respondents take the issue. It is just a question of how we take the petition forward. Do members have comments or suggestions for action?
I have had a message from Catherine Matheson to offer, on behalf of her family and all other families who have lost someone to suicide, her sincere gratitude to the committee for taking the issue forward. She is very grateful.
Thank you.
We should write to the Minister for Mental Health to ask her whether she will expand the scope of the review and why this issue was not included. It is vital to do that. We should write to Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ask for its views on the guidance provided to NHS boards and a number of other points in the recommendations. We need as much information as we can get, and we also need to clarify many of the points made in the information that has already been provided.
The Mental Welfare Commission is also important.
We could write to the MWC to ask for its views.
Absolutely.
I have had experience of this in the past. When NHS professionals are dealing with these issues, they do not want to feel unable to explore what happened, address it and improve the way in which they act. They almost feel that, because the families will be there at the inquiry, they will become defensive. However, the families feel that their individual circumstances are not being addressed fully and that, rather than a proper open and accountable process, it is only about lessons that can be learned for the future. There is a tension that comes through in the responses that says, “We can’t have the families present because it will make people defensive.” If you were the family, though, you would think, “What have you got to be defensive about?” It is a very delicate area.
10:45
That is not just the case with suicides; it applies across a number of areas in the NHS. All that the family is looking for is closure. As you said, convener, the evidence that was given was very powerful and moving. It leads to some of the conclusions that the committee has already made that the petition should continue to be taken forward.
The families are looking for closure. They are also looking for reassurance that things will change and improve for other families who are in that situation. It is very brave of the petitioner to fight on the issue, given the tragic circumstances.
Families also want justice. I do not want to put words into people’s mouths but, in my experience of dealing with such cases, people want to be assured that things will not happen again for others, but they also want to know what happened and why it happened and, if people are culpable or have been neglectful, they want that to be addressed, as would happen in other circumstances.
It is interesting that five NHS boards—Ayrshire and Arran, Highland, Forth Valley, Dumfries and Galloway and Tayside—all have slightly different approaches to their review panel structures. That might well need to be looked at, to consider best practice. I am not saying that they are doing anything wrong; it is just that maybe something could be tightened up.
We could flag that up to the minister and to Healthcare Improvement Scotland.
Yes.
Definitely.
To summarise where we are, we are agreeing to write to the Minister for Mental Health asking whether the Scottish Government will expand the terms of section 37 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 2015 in the way called for by the petitioner; how the findings from the review into the arrangements for investigating the deaths of patients will feed into national policy, including the Scottish Government’s new 10-year mental health policy, which is due to be published this year; and what the timetable is for bringing forward the regulations in relation to section 22 of the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016 regarding the procedure to follow on the duty of candour. That point is specifically about the fact that the petitioner’s son was still under the care of the hospital, although not resident in it—it is not about the broader question of suicide.
We will also write to Healthcare Improvement Scotland to ask about guidance to NHS boards and how it feels about the fact that the boards have slightly different approaches.
It is about whether there is some uniformity and how the boards deal with it.
Yes.
We will also ask for HIS’s views on the petitioner’s suggestions on improving guidance and requiring review panels to be led by independent persons. One response talked about the importance of an independent chair because that gives confidence. We will also ask HIS for its views on how health authorities can share ways in which families have been successfully engaged with in the review process, including directly in review meetings—again, that is a tension that has been highlighted—and whether there would be value in the action that the petitioner calls for to expand the remit of the review under section 37 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 2015. We have already agreed to Maurice Corry’s suggestion that we should write to the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.
A fairly substantial number of issues have emerged. Thank you very much.
That concludes our business, so I now close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 10:48.Previous
New Petitions