Contents
- Attendance
- Current Petitions
- New Petitions
Current Petitions
Alzheimer’s and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the seventh Public Petitions Committee meeting in 2015, and I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones and electronic devices, as they interfere with the sound system. Apologies have been received from John Pentland and Kenny MacAskill.
The first item of business is consideration of five continued petitions. The first petition is PE1480, by Amanda Kopel, on behalf of the Frank Kopel Alzheimer’s Awareness Campaign, on Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
The most recent letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport advises that she met the petitioner at the end of January and that the Scottish Government is considering what further action it can take to deliver fairer care. Talks on the issue have been on-going with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for some time.
I invite contributions from committee members.
It is encouraging that the Scottish Government has altered its stance from November 2013—when it stated that it had no plans to lower the eligibility criteria—to now considering the matter. I am also pleased to see that the petitioner, Amanda Kopel, has met the cabinet secretary and that the cabinet secretary recognises the concerns that she has raised.
Given that the cabinet secretary has said that she is considering very carefully what further action the Scottish Government could take, it would be helpful to seek further clarification from the Scottish Government about when its work will reach a conclusion.
I support that suggestion, although I have to say that I am rather disappointed by the lack of action and progress from the Scottish Government on this matter. We quantified that it is a relatively limited number of people who are currently under the age to be eligible for care to whom the benefit would need to be extended, and there was general sympathy and support from all parties. When we saw the former cabinet secretary, sympathy and support were also expressed.
I am not really clear why no further action was being considered at that time. I am pleased that the matter is now being reviewed, but—unless someone can flag up to me why—I do not feel that it should necessarily require an extended review. A decision will be taken either that the principle is accepted or that it is not.
Therefore, when writing to the cabinet secretary to find out what further action the Government will now consider, I think that we would welcome early confirmation of that action and we should ask the cabinet secretary to explain what she believes that the issues are that would be weighing any decision by the Government in either direction.
I support Jackson Carlaw in that assertion. The difficulty is that, while we may write to the Scottish Government, the response from the cabinet secretary makes reference to what is being undertaken by COSLA in relation to a financial assessment template.
If we are going to write to the Scottish Government, I suggest that we also write to COSLA to find out when it expects to have the financial assessment template ready for use by local authorities throughout Scotland, and to ask what discussions COSLA has had with the cabinet secretary and her staff about any changes that may be required to ensure that the wishes of the petitioner are met in this case.
I concur—I think that all that needs to be said has been said.
I agree with the further comments that have been made. However, if we are writing to COSLA I wonder whether there is any merit in writing to the breakaway group of local authorities, which seems to have formed a separate organisation to COSLA. I am not sure how many authorities have actually signed up to it, but it may be something to consider in the future.
Is the committee happy to take forward the recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Group B Streptococcus in Pregnancy (PE1505)
The next petition is PE1505, by Jackie Watt, on awareness of Strep B in pregnancy and infants. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
The petitioner has raised a number of other questions that I think that we should be asking the Scottish Government to consider. The petitioner has challenged the views expressed by the Government and has indicated that, contrary to the response from the Scottish Government and some of the evidence that we have received, the enriched culture medium test is not—as far as she is aware—widely available in England. I think that it would be useful to submit the additional questions that the petitioner has raised to the Scottish Government and to seek its responses to the issues raised.
The only other issue I want to raise is that of patient-centred care. The response from the Scottish Government indicates that it would be up to the clinician to decide whether it would be appropriate for a test to be carried out. I think that we may want to get a message out to the Government that, given that we consider patient-centred care to be at the heart of national health service provision, it is worth reconsidering the wishes of the patient in circumstances where they feel that it may be appropriate for an ECM test to be carried out. It should not be purely at the clinician’s whim.
As John Wilson rightly says, the petitioner has raised a number of further points that merit a response from the Scottish Government. She states in her response to the Scottish Government’s latest letter that it raises even more questions. We should feed those points back to the Scottish Government to seek its further response.
In addition, it would be helpful if the Scottish Government could provide a timeframe for the publishing of the revised booklet “Ready Steady Baby!”. It will contain information about Strep B because the Government has promised to include it in the next edition. It would be good to find out when that is due to be published.
If there are no other contributions, are members happy to take forward the recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Private Schools (Charitable Status) (PE1531)
The next petition is PE1531, by Ashley Husband Powton, on removing charitable status from private schools. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
It is clear that as this petition has progressed it has generated quite a bit of debate and flagged up a number of issues regarding state schools.
It is interesting to note, for example, that local authorities have discretion to apply rates relief to non-profit-making organisations such as schools. That may be a way forward, perhaps creating a level playing field for both state and private schools. I believe that the figures would be in the region of £150 million for state-funded schools and around £9 million for independent schools. One report that I read—I think that it was in the Sunday Herald—mentioned a figure of £4 million, but I think that it is probably nearer £9 million for independent schools. State schools clearly deliver a social good, so perhaps they should be entitled to rates relief as well.
Much of the debate has centred on whether private schools deliver a social good. There is an argument to ask the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator to carry out some research on the contribution of private schools, on the basis that OSCR must substantiate that they are delivering a social good. I suggest that we write to OSCR asking it to undertake that research.
I agree with those sentiments. What needs to be established is the fact that there is a social good. If the state schools are looking for rates relief, it is appropriate that we should ask OSCR to give us some guidance and to carry out some work so that we can be better placed to make a decision.
I am interested in that observation. My understanding is that OSCR is currently required to investigate whether a social good is delivered and that it already does so. Many independent schools have been found wanting and have had to correct the level of contribution that they are seen to make.
I do not think that it is a case of challenging OSCR. The Government monitors the work that OSCR does; it seems to be content that OSCR is functioning in the way that was intended—that the legislation is actually operating. I am quite happy for OSCR to be invited to produce a report detailing what it has done and where it thinks it has progressed to.
When we took evidence in the first instance, I floated the idea that rates relief might be extended to state schools and I remain in favour of that. It seems to me to be a perfectly equitable thing. I gather that there are some technicalities with the law concerning how it would have to be managed, but I believe that it could be managed.
I also say that I find the correspondence that we are receiving from the petitioner to be intemperate, lacking in respect for the Parliament and for this committee, and to demonstrate a level of immaturity. I regret that—I have not found it constructive. The letter I have before me from the petitioner this morning is not one that encourages me to think warmly of the approach that has been taken.
Angus MacDonald’s suggestion that charitable status should be extended beyond the independent sector was loftily dismissed by the petitioner when evidence was taken on the first occasion. The suggestion that we extend a broader review of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 is extraordinary. Some 20,000 charities are involved, and the implications in terms of the time cost and the aims and objectives that would underpin it are not clear.
I am happy with Angus MacDonald’s suggestion that we ask for some sort of report. I am sure that OSCR has already had to make a report, and that if such a report was made available to the committee it would satisfy us that the terms of the 2005 act and the regulations under it are being rigorously enforced. There is evidence for that in comments in the public media about a number of schools that have had to adjust the support that they give.
Some of the evidence that we have received for discussion today has been quite interesting, particularly the submission from the independent schools. However, we seem to be pulling two things together—the definition of private schools versus the definition of independent schools.
I have done some calculations, and based on the letter from the independent schools it works out that some 22.26 per cent of pupils attending independent schools in Scotland receive some form of grant support or funding support. However, part of that calculation takes in the schools, such as Donaldson’s, that provide for pupils with additional support needs. There is quite clearly a need for that type of school provision; local authorities themselves feel that it is more valuable to have specialist support provided for some of those pupils.
10:15If we write to OSCR and the Scottish Government, could we request that they break down what is meant by independent or private schools in Scotland? Unfortunately, what I consider to be the more charitable elements within the independent school system are lumped together with the rest, which mixes up the message about what we are trying to examine. There are a number of schools that make good provision, and we need to separate out the additional support needs provision and understand that the independent or private school sector is not all the same.
It is not that all schools do not provide valuable services, but there are particular schools in what is called the private or independent sector that are providing valuable services by delivering support to pupils with additional support needs in Scotland. We need to recognise that provision as separate from some of the other arguments that Jackson Carlaw has quite rightly identified in relation to the petitioner’s issues regarding private education in Scotland today. We need to make that distinction: there are two elements of the education system included in the definition of the independent schools sector, and I would like to see them separated out.
We need to be clear that there are 600 pupils or students in the sector who are on full means-tested support when they receive education and others who are receiving some form of bursary support or support from the private education sector itself.
I have a slight confusion about that suggestion. OSCR is required to ensure that any school that has charitable status has demonstrated that, irrespective of its founding principles or definition, it is meeting the test.
I am not sure how interesting it would be to have the number of pupils educated in each sector identified. It would not really mitigate the need for every school to be able to demonstrate that it is fulfilling the obligations in order to be eligible for charitable status. Angus MacDonald’s initial request is one that effectively incorporates OSCR’s judgment of its work in ensuring that the charitable test is fulfilled by every school.
It depends who sets the test and how that test is applied. The petitioner quite clearly identifies that, in her view, the test is not currently sufficient to determine whether some of the schools in the private or independent sector should be receiving charitable status. I think that there are schools that genuinely would meet society’s wider concern about charitable status; some other fee-paying schools that exist in Scotland, however, may be run or operated on a profit basis or a not-for-profit distribution system—
Is that not the responsibility of OSCR? It is not the raison d’être of this committee but of OSCR to ensure that the test is adequately applied.
Under guidance from the Government.
OSCR assesses school by school and not across the sector; it assesses every individual school for charitable status, as it does any individual group that hands in its accounts at the end of the year.
Is the committee happy to take forward Angus MacDonald’s recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Scotland’s National Anthem (PE1541)
The next petition is PE1541, by Chris Cromar, calling for “Flower of Scotland” to be officially recognised as Scotland’s national anthem. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
Come on, Jackson. [Laughter.]
I was obviously somewhat disappointed not to be here when the committee took evidence on this petition, having a track record of commenting on the number of petitions that we receive encouraging us to adopt a national this, that or the next thing.
My understanding is that a lack of enthusiasm was expressed by the Scottish Government for moving forward at this time. Curiously, the existence of the petition has stimulated a limited national debate on the issue. It seems a bit like Marmite: this particular anthem is either loved or loathed. At this stage, it would be inadvisable for a committee of MSPs to embrace any particular anthem. The issue may arise in due course in some way but, at this time, I would prefer to follow a natural evolutionary route and suggest that the petition be closed.
Consensus is breaking out on this one. Clearly, from the submissions that we have had from a number of contributors, the jury is still out as to which is the best national anthem for Scotland. In all the evidence that we have received, the most salient point is in the letter from the Scottish Government dated 13 February, the final paragraph of which states:
“Scottish Ministers believe that consideration of whether Scotland should officially adopt a national anthem and if so, what that might be, should not be led by the Scottish Government or by any single political party. We therefore have no current plans in this regard.”
Given the position of the Scottish Government, and given that there is still a considerable amount of debate outside as to what the national anthem should be, we should close the petition reluctantly and allow that debate to continue.
The petitioner was very passionate in his presentation on considering an anthem but, even on the day, it was suggested that more work perhaps needed to be done. That work does not seem to have happened yet. Hence, in the absence of additional support or of further work to justify which anthem should be adopted, I am also of the view that the petition should be closed. That decision still allows the petitioner to come back with fresh information at a later date, and I would be quite happy to re-examine the issue at that stage.
Is the committee happy to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1542)
The next petition is PE1542, by Evelyn Mundell on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith, on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I welcome Jamie McGrigor MSP to the meeting; Mr McGrigor has a constituency interest in the petition. I invite contributions from members.
As members will know, I have spoken on this long-running petition two or three times before. Thank you for allowing me once again to make a statement in support of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Mundell, and the other affected dairy farmers they represent, several of whom I know.
My constituents are disappointed with the responses received following their appearance at the committee on 13 January. They remain of the view that this is a human rights issue, since the affected dairy farmers in the ring-fenced area were prevented by Government from using their property—the quota they owned—to enable their businesses to survive. All other dairy farmers outwith the ring-fenced areas were able to sell their milk quota.
Many of those in the ring fence were dairy farmers with less good quality land, which meant that they were unable to diversify into alternatives such as arable crops, and many therefore went out of business. Further, individual dairy farmers were not consulted before the ring fence was decided on.
My constituents believe that the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to address their concerns and recognise that their human rights were infringed. While we are aware that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has been considering the current and significant challenges facing the Scottish dairy sector, this is quite a separate issue, and—as they suggest in their response—the petitioners would welcome the Public Petitions Committee continuing the petition and asking further detailed questions of the Scottish Government on this matter. They would also like to present scanned copies of further evidence on the case for the perusal of members of the committee.
I am of a similar opinion. I believe that there is a case to be answered. I see from the cabinet secretary’s response that there seems to be a measure of acceptance on the Government’s part, which is helpful. I therefore suggest that we continue the petition and consider the fresh evidence that has been presented to see how it might help the situation.
The committee will be aware that I raised the issue of ring fencing with the cabinet secretary when he gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee during the urgent inquiry into the dairy crisis. He pointed out that the milk quota system is being phased out at a European level and that, therefore, the ring fencing in the southern isles, Kintyre and Orkney will ultimately be less relevant or will simply be an academic matter. However, he raised the point that protection for the island communities in relation to daily production still needs to be considered.
I take on board the petitioners’ view that the ring fencing in that part of Scotland has not been helpful, and I acknowledge that they believe that they have a retrospective case with regard to their human rights. However, I feel that the solution might involve going down the legal route rather than the Public Petitions Committee taking any further action. Clearly, if there is challenge to the Scottish Government, that must be handled by the courts, not by a parliamentary committee.
I think that we should either close the petition or wait until we have the dairy industry debate in the chamber at the end of the month so that we can see whether the issue is dealt with at that point.
I am optimistic and I always feel that we should go the extra mile for people. The fact that the petitioners have brought fresh information is helpful. We should not crush people’s hopes and aspirations and, therefore, we should allow that evidence to be submitted so that we can consider it. I do not think that it would be helpful to close the petition at this stage. We should go that extra mile and allow that information to come forward. I am keen to see it.
I note that Angus MacDonald asked questions of the cabinet secretary at another committee and that the cabinet secretary undertook to consider these matters.
There is an expectation that the issue might be addressed in the debate that is to take place, but, as debates in this Parliament often do, the debate could focus on some other aspect that arises and might not result in a satisfactory examination of this particular issue. I think that it would therefore be wise to take the debate into account and for us to decide afterwards whether the cabinet secretary was able to give further expression to his thinking on this matter. If we decide that he was not, we should write to him at that point to ask about his position.
Do we agree with the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Jamie McGrigor for attending, and I suspend the meeting for a few minutes to enable the next petitioner to come to the table.
10:30 Meeting suspended.10:31 On resuming—
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions