Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Private Criminal Prosecutions (Legal Aid) (PE1766)
The next item is the consideration of a number of new petitions.
The first new petition for consideration today is PE766, on legal aid for private criminal prosecutions for unwaged and/or learning-disabled victims of abuse. It was lodged by Andrew Buchan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to provide free legal aid to people who are unwaged and/or learning-disabled victims of abuse who wish to bring a private criminal prosecution. Our briefing explains the background to legal aid, including financial eligibility and public and private prosecutions.
In a written submission, the petitioner advises that the intention of the petition is to make legal aid for private criminal prosecutions standard, without any criteria having to be met other than that a crime or crimes have been committed.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
At this early stage, we need to write to the Scottish Government to get its views on the petition and how it relates to the whole legal system. From dealing with legal aid for constituents, I know that the system can be complicated. An overview of the current situation would inform our thinking.
The petition says that there should be legal aid where crimes have been committed, but the test for legal aid is the likelihood of securing a prosecution. That begs the question whether, with a private prosecution, that distinction would be made if a case was not deemed to be prosecutable.
There are interesting issues. There are more general issues about access to justice and the limited role for private prosecutions. It would be interesting to know the Scottish Government’s view on that. The petition was prompted by the issue of access to legal aid, but there may be a broader question about private prosecutions in general and a feeling that the prosecution service does not recognise sufficiently when a crime has been committed. People are often disappointed that their case has not been pursued.
As members do not have any other suggestions, writing to the Scottish Government is probably reasonable to start with. Are we agreed to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Children’s Hearings (Record of Proceedings) (PE1768)
The second new petition for consideration is PE1768, by James Mackie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all proceedings in children’s hearings are minuted or recorded.
Our briefing provides background on the children’s hearings system and the legislative framework under which it operates. The Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Rules of Procedure in Children’s Hearings) Rules 2013 provide for how children’s hearings are run in more detail and set out duties for the chair of the panel and the reporter. Rule 6(1)(c) states that the chair must
“ensure that a record is made of ... the decisions or determinations made by the children’s hearing or pre-hearing panel, as the case may be; and ... the reasons for those decisions or determinations”.
The chair must also
“sign and date the record of the decisions or determinations.”
Rule 13 sets out the record-keeping duties of the reporter at a hearing, which relate to the location, time and date of the hearing, details of the child and any other attendees and details of the decision and any directions made.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
This is another new petition that raises lots of questions so, again, we should write to the Government in the first instance. Obviously, there are reasons why the system is set up in the way that it is, so it would be good to get feedback on that from the Government.
It is interesting that neither children nor parents are involved in the discussions. I have limited knowledge of these matters but, on the face of it, I would certainly like to understand that a little better. I would like us to write to the Children’s Hearings Improvement Partnership on that particular point to ask why parents and children are not involved in the discussions.
Parents and children are involved in the panel discussions. From my experience of the hearings system, one of its strengths is the opportunity for a frank and open conversation about the issues that a young person faces. My instinct is that we would want to explore whether recording everything that is said would inhibit the conversation. The Education and Skills Committee recently carried out a review of the hearings system that looked at its strengths as well as at issues such as whether it is appropriately funded. I am sure that members can access the report of that.
11:00My concern—which has been flagged up before—is that, already, the scale of legal representation at a hearing is far greater than it ever was in the past and the process is more formal than it was back in the day, when I attended hearings. However, the core strength of the process remains the ability to enable a conversation to take place with the young person, their family and other relevant people about what is happening and how they can be supported. It would be worth asking for the views of the Government and CHIP on that. We need to satisfy ourselves with regard to the question whether we are unnecessarily formalising something that has huge strengths in terms of the welfare of the young person.
I agree. I was suggesting that I would like to formally hear why parents and children are not involved in those discussions. I am quite sure that there will be legitimate reasons that are similar to those you have just mentioned, but it is not my area of expertise.
Do we agree to write in those terms to the Scottish Government and CHIP?
Members indicated agreement.
Higher Education (PE1769)
The next new petition is PE1769, by Marie Oldfield, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the way higher education in Scotland is set up and delivered, including how students’ rights are enforced and whether there is scope to allocate more power to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
Our briefing explains the background to, and organisation of, quality standards in teaching and the various Scottish Government initiatives in this area.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The Education and Skills Committee has done a reasonable amount of work on the matter. Obviously, we will take the petition forward, but I think that it will end up in another committee. We should write to the Scottish Government seeking its views on the action that is called for in the petition, and I am sure that we could seek the views of a variety of stakeholders, but I come back to the point that the petition will ultimately move on to another committee to deal with.
The question is whether we should accept that. The issue is a fundamental one about standards in higher education and how those are quality-assured and so on. There are issues about access and so on, but the petition is very much about enforcing the rights of students and maintaining the quality of the education that is delivered—people are being taught in bigger classes, getting less time in seminars and so on.
It is clearly a big issue, and the question for us is whether, rather than us, it should be the Education and Skills Committee that considers the petition, in the context of the work that it is doing around standards. Of course, the Scottish Parliament has debated some of those issues already.
I agree that the Education and Skills Committee should consider the petition.
I am concerned about learning support at that level—the issue was highlighted to me when I was reading the committee papers. I would like that issue to be added to what we say with regard to quality assurance.
There is certainly an issue around access and student support. It has certainly been said to me that student support, in terms of how people are coping, is less visible in higher education than it is in further education, and that that might have an impact on drop-out rates and so on.
We could, as a starter for 10, write to the Scottish Government and stakeholders and then, once we have got those responses, we could send the petition to the Education and Skills Committee with the suggestion that it take forward that first wee bit of work that we have done.
I entirely support that. It is important that we do that work first, so that we can highlight some of the points that might be raised.
What the petition calls for is quite open ended with regard to the idea of public confidence in the quality of the student experience. If you came to me, I would go down a certain route in that regard, but I am sure that others would go down a different route. That said, I think that you are right to suggest that we should make those initial inquiries and then decide whether we should send the petition to the Education and Skills Committee—I am pretty sure that that is where it will end up.
Certainly, the Education and Skills Committee has looked at this issue and there were some representations to us about the impact of the teaching excellence and student outcomes framework, which is led by the Office for Students in England. That is connected to the capacity to charge tuition fees, which is not a regime that operates in Scotland. However, the question then is, what is happening in higher education in Scotland? Does the amount of money that is invested by the Scottish Government match the level of tuition that young people need? That may be taking things in a slightly different direction.
I suggest that we write to stakeholders to get a response, but note that we remain very alive to the fact that these are huge issues and, in the longer term, the whole matter may be more properly dealt with by the Education and Skills Committee. Do members agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
School Curriculum (Sex and Relationships Education) (PE1772)
Our next new petition is petition PE1772, which has been lodged by Pamela Suarez, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teaching and sexual pictures from the curriculum of secondary and primary schools.
The petition argues that the presence of LGBT teaching and sexual pictures in the curriculum of secondary and primary schools
“due to its cultivation of a new ideology of gender is dangerous in education and formation to girls and boys.”
The petition also states that
“the government is going against the moral value taught in the child’s home by violating human and parental rights.”
Our briefing states that the Scottish Government announced in November 2018 that Scotland would be the first country in the world to have lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex inclusive education embedded in the curriculum. The Government accepted in full the recommendations of the LGBTI-inclusive education working group. Those 33 recommendations, which cover the professional learning of teachers, practice and guidance, school inspections and anti-bullying, are to be delivered before the end of the current parliamentary term in March 2021.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Yes—I have several. There are various aspects of the petition that are simply incorrect. There is no promotion of homosexuality in our schools. It is a learning system that allows young people to see themselves being reflected in the education that they get. We know that the work that Time for Inclusive Education has done has been very successful in bringing about a change that helps children in their learning and attainment. It builds their confidence and they do not feel that they are alone. The committee briefing mentions the Equalities and Human Rights Committee’s report on bullying. I was on that committee when we worked on that report and some of the evidence from young people about prejudice-based bullying was very distressing.
Any attempt to roll back those rights and education standards would be a massive step backwards. It is 20 years since we repealed section 28. There is cross-party agreement on continuation of LGBTI-inclusive education in schools—and rightly so. I strongly suggest that we close the petition because there is no appetite for what the petitioner is calling for.
I agree with Gail Ross. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament should be really proud of their equalities agenda and of what we have achieved in relation to equalities. There is no place for the petition. The Scottish Government has already committed to putting LGBTI-inclusive education in the curriculum, so I would be happy to close the petition.
I do not have much to add. The reality is that the Scottish Government and Parliament are committed to ensuring LGBTI rights—in fact, the rights of any part of society. No matter what we decide to do here, the Scottish Government will not move from its position—it is very committed to ensuring those rights, as is Parliament, so it is difficult to see where the petition could go.
We should close the petition. Even if we were to write to the Scottish Government, I am pretty sure that we would close the petition straight after that, because the Scottish Government will not commit to doing anything other than what it is currently doing.
I agree with my colleagues. The only way forward with the petition is to close it.
My sense is that the petition misrepresents what sex education in schools is. It is not advocacy; it is about understanding relationships. It involves provision of age-appropriate information—children will learn about different things at different stages. At the heart of it are the issues of consent, respect and dignity, which apply regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
In my view, the petition misrepresents what is happening in our schools. A conversation is continuing about what that education should look like at every stage, and I know that parents can be heavily engaged in that. The argument is about whether schools should provide sex and relationships education. In my view, they should. If we agree that such education should be provided, there needs to be an understanding of where our young people are, where their families are coming from and some of the complexities of relationships. That can only help our young people; it is not something to be fearful of.
I sense that committee members want to close the petition, not because they do not think that there is a conversation to be had about how sex education is taught in our schools, but because the petition misrepresents it. The idea that 20 years on from getting rid of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 and section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, there would be concern specifically about the teaching of LGBTI issues is something that Parliament has already taken a view on. Across Parliament, there is a very strong commitment to equality, in that regard.
The committee will, therefore, close the petition on the bases that the Scottish Government has committed to having LGBTI-inclusive education embedded in the curriculum, and that the policy has the support of the Parliament. We thank the petitioner for bringing the issue to the committee’s attention. Of course, she has the right to resubmit a petition in a year, should she choose to do so.
Rape Law (PE1773)
PE1773 has been lodged by Sarah Takahashi, and calls on the Scottish Government to update the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 to include the offence of a man being raped by a woman.
Our briefing note explains that the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 created a statutory offence of rape, which replaced the previous common-law offence. Although the act broadened the definition of rape, a woman who rapes a man can still not be charged with rape. The petition argues that that is unfair and seeks a change in the law to resolve that inequity.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I did not know that that was not rape, so it came as a bit of surprise to me to read that.
A prejudice will exist, because a man being raped by a woman has different connotations from a woman being raped by a man. There is a perception that a man is more able to defend himself.
I think that the issue is more to do with the definition of rape. In my view, other kinds of sexual assault are captured in law as things stand, but the issue is about the fundamental definition of what rape is, which is such that it can be done only be a man.
I would like to find out what the Scottish Government’s view on the petition is. There will be other stakeholders whose views we should seek, too, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland.
In legal terms, it is not that long since a fundamental review of rape was carried out, and I am sure that such matters must have been considered at the time. However, I think that it would be worth our while getting views on the issue. Does the committee agree to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
School Curriculum (British Sign Language) (PE1777)
The final new petition for consideration is PE177, which calls on the Scottish Government to introduce British Sign Language into curriculum for excellence.
Our briefing explains that very little of the school curriculum is statutory, although local authorities have a statutory duty to secure an adequate and efficient education for children of school age. Beyond that, young people are largely able to choose which qualifications they wish to take. The Scottish Qualifications Authority offers a number of qualifications on BSL.
The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 places a duty on the Scottish Government
“to promote, and facilitate the promotion of, the use and understanding of British Sign Language”.
Local authorities must also produce BSL plans that set out what they will do in relation to use of BSL.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should seek the views of the Scottish Government and Education Scotland, because the issue comes back to my point about learning support. It is important that it is looked at.
I agree. Notwithstanding the petition, I have heard of a push from a number of sides to have BSL included in the curriculum. It would be interesting to hear the position of the Scottish Government and Education Scotland.
The issue has featured in Parliament since its beginning. Back in the day, there was a lot of very effective campaigning on teacher training. Of course, now we have the 2015 act.
I have been in conversation with young people who use BSL. One of their issues is the capacity of BSL teachers to operate at the level that is appropriate to their level of learning. It is not the basic stuff—for people who are trying to learn advanced higher physics, a much higher BSL skill level is required.
BSL should be more embedded in the system. It is such a basic thing: young people should be able to communicate with other young people, and the matter very much goes along with what we regard as inclusive education.
It would be interesting to write to the Scottish Government and Education Scotland. We would also be interested to hear from anyone else who has an interest in and is aware of the petition. We do not have to write to them, but such organisations might wish to say what they think introducing BSL into the curriculum would look like, and to give their views on schools’ capacity to deliver that. There are some positive actions to take. Do members agree to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
We have come to the end of our agenda. I thank everyone for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 11:17.Previous
Continued Petitions