Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
War Memorials (Protection) (PE1830)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1830, on protecting Scotland’s war memorials, by James Watson on behalf of friends of Dennistoun war memorial. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that recognises desecration or vandalism of war memorials as a specific criminal offence. The Scottish Government’s submission advises that vandalism is a crime, regardless of the motivations for it, and it condemns all acts of malicious vandalism and graffiti. The submission notes that, as legislation is currently in place to deal with the vandalism and desecration of statues and memorials, including war memorials, the Scottish Government has no current plans to introduce new legislation for that specific purpose.
It is an interesting and important petition. I should declare an interest in that I have publicly supported the friends of Dennistoun war memorial, but there is an issue in many communities. There is an issue about respect and recognition of what the memorials stand for. It is about recognising the suffering of communities, individuals and families when people went to war. There should be respect. There is an issue about what schools can do to speak to young people. A lot of groups across Glasgow have done positive work to engage with young people to try to get them to understand why the issue matters.
The question is whether there should be legislation and whether, at this stage in the parliamentary session, we can do much about that. My view is that, even if we close the petition, we should underline and emphasise to the petitioner that we recognise that the issue is important and serious.
I am interested in my colleagues’ views.
I agree. The petition puts me in mind of the one that we had about dog theft. There was an issue about specific crimes being included under the offence of public disorder. In this case, the issue is covered by vandalism. However, I hate to say it, but I think that there are different levels of vandalism. The sort of vandalism that the petition raises, which is similar to when people go into cemeteries and graveyards and deface tombstones or knock them over, is just completely unacceptable. I would hope that, if such a crime was prosecuted, the procurator fiscal would look at the specifics and would see it for what it is, which you aptly described, convener.
Although I feel strongly about the issue, I do not think that there is anywhere that the committee can take the petition. We should say to the petitioner that, if they want to, they can bring the petition back to the committee in the next session of Parliament and have it considered. I would be absolutely supportive of that. However, for us, the creation of new legislation is outwith our capabilities. Again, we should reluctantly close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I fully agree with my colleague Gail Ross. As the Government has confirmed in its submission, there is sufficient legislation in place to prosecute any vandalism of this sort, which is totally despicable and has no place in our society in Scotland. It causes hurt and grief to those who are connected with any person who is mentioned on the war memorial or anybody who has taken part in that particular campaign or era.
10:45We have legislation in place covering this sort of damage. There can be fines and even imprisonment, as the case may be, to cope with the issue. Therefore, at the moment, we should just close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that there is legislation in place to cover the vandalism and desecration of statues and memorials. Certainly, there is no place in society for anybody who damages or sprays graffiti on them and so on. I agree with my colleague that we should close the petition.
As the Scottish Government is not going to introduce any new legislation and the current legislation is fit for purpose, the committee has no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I agree with my colleagues. The vandalism of war memorials is a very sensitive issue for those whose loved ones are remembered. I am conscious that there are other symbols that are not war memorials and that are important to other groups of people, and that vandalising those is equally offensive and needs to be considered. Therefore, special legislation for war memorials is not appropriate. Given that there is legislation that covers all vandalism and that the courts have an opportunity to vary sentences according to the seriousness of the offence, I am satisfied that we cannot add to the situation. Therefore, it is appropriate to close the petition at this stage.
Tom Mason makes an important point about damage to other symbols and relevant things in our community, which can be offensive, and Gail Ross makes a point about graveyards. I find it deeply upsetting that anybody would even think about doing that, and we know about the distress that that has caused.
I think that we are agreeing to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. We appreciate the significance of the points that have been raised in the petition. We thank James Watson and the friends of Dennistoun war memorial, not just for lodging the petition but for their work to maintain the war memorial. We thank them for their engagement with the committee. They might wish to return to the issue. Of course, the point has been made that there is legislation in place and the issue is taken seriously, but there is a whole job to be done to educate people about why memorials and other things matter so much to people. We thank the petitioners for their engagement.
Dyscalculia (Awareness) (PE1833)
The second new petition is PE1833, on raising awareness of dyscalculia. The petition, which was lodged by Jade McDonald, calls on the Scottish Government to help raise awareness of the learning disability dyscalculia. The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states in his submission that education authorities are required to identify, provide for and review the support for pupils who need support to overcome barriers to learning, including dyscalculia, and outlines a range of resources that are available to help achieve that.
The Deputy First Minister also highlights the Scottish Government’s additional support for learning action plan, which was published in October and which sets out how the Scottish Government will address the recommendations of the independently chaired review of the implementation of additional support for learning. Our briefing paper highlights the considerable work that the Education and Skills Committee has done and continues to undertake in its scrutiny of additional support needs.
Again, there is an issue for us. A theme has been developing over many months in this committee about access to education and support for additional support needs. The petition has been effective in raising awareness of dyscalculia, because I was not aware of it previously and it is interesting to learn a little more about it. However, as I say, we have been aware of the theme of support for young people with various additional support needs. In the past, we have dealt with part-time timetables and lack of staff, and the issue was mentioned even earlier in the current session.
I am interested in members’ views on how we might take forward the issue. There will be significant issues in the coming period about ensuring that we are clear about the number of young people who are identified with various needs and what relevant support is being put in place for them.
The petition is very interesting. I have had some experience of the issue in primary schools. Some years ago, I was on a parent and teacher council and the issue was beginning to come up. The matter needs further examination. The issue has certainly been highlighted to the committee, and I thank Jade McDonald for bringing the petition in front of us.
The Scottish Government has recently published its additional support for learning action plan, and we are aware that the Education and Skills Committee has been investigating and continues to investigate additional support for learning, which I hope includes the issue of dyscalculia. However, we need to home in on the issue. We should write to the Education and Skills Committee to highlight the concerns that are raised in the petition for consideration in its on-going work on additional support for learning.
What more can we do in relation to the petition? The Government has updated its statutory guidance on the implementation of additional support for learning. I should declare that my wife is an additional support needs staff member at a primary school and she comes across the issue quite a lot. The Government has also published its additional support for learning action plan, as I said, so quite a lot of the issues are covered. We can strengthen that by writing to the Education and Skills Committee but, at the same time, we should close the petition on the basis that I have just set out. I recommend that approach to the committee.
We should write to the Education and Skills Committee to highlight the concerns that are raised in the petition and to ask what progress has been made by the Government. The Government has updated the recommendations, but we still need to see the timescale for implementation of that. I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but we have to highlight it to the Education and Skills Committee.
We should write to the Education and Skills Committee to make sure that the matter is progressed. Although we recognise that the Government has made some progress and is taking the right actions, unless some committee keeps the matter under review, it might go by the wayside. It is appropriate to close the petition.
The petition raises very important issues, but I agree with the course of action that my colleagues have suggested. I do not have anything to add to the suggestion that we close the petition but write to the Education and Skills Committee to highlight the concerns.
I think that there is agreement that some progress has been made, but that it needs to be monitored closely. David Torrance’s point about timescale is important. I feel that the Scottish Government needs to be open to seeing what is happening and the patterns in the experiences that have been brought forward by groups and individuals such as the petitioner who feel that their experiences are not properly taken into account. That is an important point.
We are agreeing to close the petition, but we will write to the Education and Skills Committee. That relates to one of the earlier petitions. There are important concerns about awareness of the particular condition, and there are more general issues around additional support needs. I hope that the Education and Skills Committee will look at the issue in its on-going work in the new session of Parliament.
We agree to close the petition. We thank the petitioner very much for their engagement with the committee. They can return to the issue in the new session.
Citizens Advice Bureaux (Funding) (PE1834)
The next new petition on our agenda today is PE1834, on urgent funding for Citizens Advice Scotland. It was lodged by Alistair Stephen.
The petition calls on the Scottish Government to provide urgent funding to Citizens Advice Scotland to ensure that citizens advice bureaux continue to provide services for people across Scotland. Our meeting papers explain that each CAB is an individual charity and is therefore responsible for its own funding. The Scottish Government provides funding to the advice sector, but the funding is to deliver specific projects, for example on welfare-reform mitigation and the Scottish Government’s money talk team service.
In her written submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government highlights the increased support that has been provided to the sector, including to Citizens Advice Scotland and to individual CABx in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. That has included funding to help to set up a national helpline, to purchase personal protection equipment, and to make physical alterations to bureaux to enable their safe opening for face-to-face advice services.
Again, we want to think about what action we can take. I cannot overstate the importance of the advice sector at this time. There has certainly been a crisis in Glasgow, and the issue of funding for the sector has been raised. It is one thing for the Scottish Government to fund individual projects, but it is also necessary to sustain the network of advice services. Without core support and funding, other projects cannot be delivered. That is a more general issue that has been flagged up over time.
I think that we have to close the petition, although I am interested to hear what members have to say. My view is that it is not enough for the Scottish Government simply to say that it funds projects and that it is not its responsibility to fund individual bureaux. CABx have a fundamental role, at this time.
I do not think that we have even the imagination to understand the scale and seriousness of the crisis that we are facing. This is about accessing advice on welfare and other things. We know the important job that CAS plays in that regard. I am interested to hear the views of the committee; it is not clear how we can progress the petition at this time. My personal view is that we should underline that we recognise the significance of having a properly funded advice sector so that we can meet the challenges that are ahead of us.
Thank you, convener. CABx are important, especially locally. MSPs know that certain services have better knowledge, so we pass constituents to them. It is therefore very important that they are funded. However, the Scottish Government says that it funds the whole advice sector, not just one part of it, and funding is available to CAS from other sources including local authorities, the national lottery and so on.
I know that CABx are individual charities and that it is important for every one of them to go out there and get funding, as somebody who is—[Inaudible.]
I do not know whether we can take the petition any further. I appreciate the help that CABx give to the citizens whom we represent. I think that we must close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but I am open to hearing the feelings of other committee members.
It is difficult; funding is becoming an issue for such organisations as a result of various problems, including Covid-19. I think that we should ensure that the subject is kept under review by another committee, if we close the petition. I do not know which would be the appropriate committee, but we could write to a committee to ensure that core funding is available to advice organisations, because it is vital that advice is available to everybody. I am not quite sure what would be the most effective mechanism by which to achieve that. I do not think we can take the petition very far forward, so closing it might be the only option that we have.
11:00
As you said, convener, we cannot overstate how important CAB is to everyone in Scotland. I deal with local CABx in my constituency quite often, and we help each out with constituents’ issues. They are the gold standard in the services that they offer.
We have to look at the matter, as Tom Mason rightly suggested, through the lens of diminishing budgets and the Scottish Government’s inability to borrow. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I would pass the matter on in a letter to another committee. I do not know whether we should include the matter in our legacy paper, but I certainly think that we could flag it up to the Local Government and Communities Committee. I know that it does—all committees do—on-going budget scrutiny throughout the year, so it might be able to find a place for the matter in an evidence session. The Social Security Committee, too, might want to look at the subject. It is important. This committee’s hands are tied, but I would like to see the matter being taken up in the new session by another committee.
I absolutely agree with Gail Ross about putting the matter before the Social Security Committee and the Local Government and Communities Committee. It is a very important subject.
I know that in my time as a councillor from a rural area on rural Argyll and Bute Council that we have had a lot of issues to do with CABx. A fundamental thing when we set budgets at the council is that funding of the service is a line item, and we could afford to fund only one office, and not two other offices in Campbeltown and Oban. We simply did not have the cash. I think that the matter is one in which we need to involve COSLA.
I agree that we are between a rock and a hard place and I agree with colleagues that we have no option but to close the petition, but should write to the two committees that have been mentioned.
We should also write to COSLA because this is about allocation of budget increments by the Scottish Government to local authorities. When local authorities set their budgets, one of the line items is funding of CABx and it is always an extremely contentious issue. Sadly, people slip through the net because we do not have advice services in communities.
I recommend that, if we close the petition, we also write to those who have been mentioned and consider whether special funding can be given by the Scottish Government apropos the post-Covid scenario. There will certainly be an increase of people coming through CABx doors.
Everybody recognises how important the issue is and that we want the Scottish Government and COSLA to be aware of its importance, which is not just about funding being a vehicle for projects that have been identified. CABx need to be supported and funded appropriately—in these times more than ever. We could work with COSLA and write to it in that vein. We could also flag the matter up to the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Social Security Committee.
In my experience, interventions by and support from a local CAB can make the difference in people securing appeals and getting appropriate funding. That has been true in another issue that the Public Petitions Committee has dealt with in the past—women who have been affected by mesh implants. CABx have been able to support women in making the case for why they need support through the universal credit system. That has been very effective.
In other times, we would have written the letters then come back to the petition, but we are at the end of the parliamentary session. I think that we are agreeing to close the petition, but will send the suggested letters to ensure that the substantial matters in the petition are flagged up. In closing the petition, we thank the petitioner very much and remind them that they will be able to return with a petition in the new parliamentary session, should they want to ensure that the issue is highlighted. Maurice Corry wants to come back in.
I want to emphasise that we should make sure that the matter goes in our legacy paper.
In other circumstances we would write to COSLA, get a response back and reflect on that. We want to underline to COSLA the importance of funding for the advice sector, and the importance of it flagging up to Government when funding is inadequate and there is a big gap. It is important that citizens are able to enforce their rights.
Of course, CABx do more than just advise about social security: in a lot of cases the advice is about consumer rights. They are where people go when they feel that they need advice and advice organisations in local authorities no longer exist.
We recognise the limitations of correspondence; we are not going to bring the matter back before the committee, but it is important that we at least flag it up. We agree to close the petition. We thank the petitioner for bringing the matter to our attention; if they want it to be pursued further there is an opportunity for them to do so later.
Child Protection Cases (Submission of Information) (PE1835)
The next new petition in our agenda today is PE1835 by James A Mackie. The petition calls for the Scottish Government to make it a criminal offence for any person knowingly to submit misleading and false information to a sheriff or children’s hearing in child protection cases.
Our meeting papers outline the opportunities that are currently available to allow information that is presented as part of court proceedings in the children’s hearings system to be challenged, and that the offence of perjury applies in civil as well as criminal proceedings. Our papers also outline the professional sanctions that could be taken should someone knowingly provide false information to a hearing. In his submission, the petitioner reiterates his belief that reports that are prepared by social workers are not always based on facts and explains that in his view the action that is called for in the petition is necessary to ensure that all reports are based in truth.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? The petition relates to child protection issues that we have been dealing with.
I am conscious that the petition could be paired with petition PE1836, which follows this one. They go together. The action is not a criminal offence at the moment, in order to maintain the informality of the children’s hearings and make sure that they do not get into a confrontational situation. If it was made a criminal offence, the advice that would be given would be totally different and less expansive, and people would have to take legal advice continuously. On whether the committee should support the petition, I do not think we should take it any further now. In making our judgment, we should consider the following petition at the same time. May we do that at this stage?
It is slightly complicated. We have to make a decision about this petition because we have not formally brought the two petitions together and they deal with slightly different issues, although I agree that they are related. Specifically, we are looking at the point you make, which is about the nature of the hearings system. It is not that people are being dishonest, but there is a sharing of information and social workers and others have to meet the standards of their profession. It is not possible to consider the two petitions together, but it may be that the discussion informs what we do with the following petition.
This is another example of a subjective view from somebody who has first-hand experience of a sector or something that has happened where the practice differs from the policy. There are a couple of things in the petition that make me feel a bit uncomfortable and I would not want to tar a whole profession because of one negative experience. We need to be aware of that.
The petition has brought up some quite serious issues, but the Scottish Government submission covers all those issues. However, this is another petition on which the Scottish Government has covered all the issues and the petitioner has come back with more evidence to challenge what the Scottish Government has said, thereby prompting further discussion. The Scottish Government has said that perjury is an offence, that people who submit false or misleading information can also be held in contempt of court, and that there can be professional sanctions. The petitioner responds that many such things do not happen under oath, therefore sanctions do not apply.
It is a complex and emotive situation. I would hate to think that anybody goes into children’s hearings or a court who does not have the best interests of the child at heart. To be blunt, if a social worker is not doing the best for the child, they really should not be in the profession.
I do not want to close the petition, but I do not think that the Public Petitions Committee can take it any further. I would like to put something in our legacy paper, and perhaps we could pass it on to another committee. Like Tom Mason, I am open to suggestions from other members.
The petition is a difficult one and I have had one or two cases like this before me, as an MSP and as a councillor. Both sides of it are very difficult. The petitioner comments that
“reports prepared by social workers are not always based on facts and explains that, in his view, the offence is required to ensure that all reports are based on truth rather than opinion or supposition.”
It is very difficult to get beneath and into that. The social worker is trained, and we understand that, but they might see the situation one way while it is another way. I think there is a feeling that there is a presumption of guilt for a family who is brought before the panels and things like that. Certainly, from my experience and from what I know from people who have worked in that area, most cases are pretty watertight, although there might be the exceptions.
I do not know what more the committee can do with the petition. I agree with colleagues that we want to do more but have done as much as we can. Certainly, we should highlight the petition in the committee’s legacy paper. We can only close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that any individual who knowingly provides false or misleading information in a children’s hearing risks potential sanction.
I come back to the points that I made earlier and to the fact that the hearings provide appropriate opportunities for participants to challenge information. I know that that happens because I have experience of it.
The Scottish Government comments that it
“does not consider the creation of a specific offence in relation to children’s hearings proceedings to be necessary or appropriate.”
I take issue with whether it is necessary, but perhaps we could write to the Law Society of Scotland about that in closing the petition. I would be grateful if the committee would consider that particular point and the other points that I made.
11:15
Like my colleagues, I find the petition difficult. I do not think that the committee can take it any further, but I am happy to go with the recommendations of colleagues and write to the Law Society. However, we have to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders because we cannot take it any further.
On the Law Society question, we are straining to do more than simply close the petition and writing. There is an expectation that the Law Society will respond, so closing the petition would not be appropriate.
Tom Mason is right to say that there is a link to the next petition, which is about opening up regulation of how individual child protection complaints are dealt with. We can deal with that separately.
When I was on the Education and Skills Committee, it did an inquiry about how effective the children’s hearings system is and getting the balance right between, as Tom said, informality and allowing people to discuss. The committee had done a similar inquiry not that long before that; the issue is very much on its agenda. There is a concern that what was meant to be about the focus on the needs of the individual child and their support and protection has perhaps become more formal. The presence of lawyers has been greater, and that has an implication for the capacity of the young person and their family to engage. I think that there is an issue.
Of course, the children’s hearings system has been regarded as an important way of addressing the rights of and protections for young people. There is so much reluctance to decide that a young person should go into care that the question is interrogated very seriously.
We recognise that the petition has perhaps been shaped by the petitioner’s direct experience and conversations. My suggestion is that we close the petition but we write to the Education and Skills Committee to say that we know that it has worked on the issue previously, that the petition has highlighted the issues, and that should the committee look at the issue in the future, we hope that the questions could be asked. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
That is agreed. We will close the petition. We understand the important issues here, but we will write to the Education and Skills Committee to ask that, should it look at issues around children’s rights and protections in the future, it takes the issues that the petition has highlighted into account. We thank the petitioner for engaging with the committee on such an important issue.
Care Inspectorate (Child Protection Complaints) (PE1836)
The final new petition on our agenda today is PE1836, which was lodged by James A Mackie. The petition calls for the Scottish Government to expand the remit of the Care Inspectorate to include investigation of individual child protection complaints.
Our papers explain that, although social work services discharge many of the responsibilities relating to child protection and will often lead in a case, significant collaboration and multi-agency working with police and NHS staff is key to the decision-making process in child protection cases. The Scottish Government states that, as a result, although inspections of child protection activity are led by the Care Inspectorate, they must involve scrutiny partners in order properly to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of child protection practice. It states that the investigation of complaints that involve child protection activity would require a similar approach and notes that that could risk duplication or confusion with the functions of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.
The petitioner argues in his submission that, as there is no single independent organisation that has the power to investigate a complaint holistically, there is insufficient accountability in child protection.
This is an important issue. However, I think that whether the Care Inspectorate should take on such a duty is such a big issue that it would be quite a leap for us as the Public Petitions Committee to take a view on it at this stage. I am mindful of the importance of there not being duplication, but there being co-ordination and people speaking to one other. In recent years, there have been tragic instances in which lack of conversations between relevant bodies has meant that young people have been let down, and sometimes, in very serious circumstances, that has led to loss of life.
There is a challenge for the public organisations and bodies that are involved in child protection to do with how they are co-ordinated and tested to ensure that the right decisions are made. I am not sure that the proposed solution is the appropriate one, but maybe we should investigate that further with relevant organisations, which might have strong views on it.
The basis for the introduction of the proposed legislation on named persons was to make sure that there was one individual who was responsible for different age groups. Of course, we do not have that now.
A lot of issues are thrown up by the petition and the submissions. I agree that it would be wrong to take a view on the petition, or to close it on any basis, at the moment. I would like us to get some more information and evidence from organisations such as the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Children’s Hearings Scotland and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, which you mentioned, convener. I am sure there are other organisations that the clerks and other members could mention.
It is certainly a big issue. Like you, convener, I am not sure that the solution is for the Care Inspectorate to take on the role, but I would certainly like to get some more opinions on, first, whether there is an issue, and secondly how it could be solved.
I agree with Gail Ross. We need to do some more fact finding and information gathering. It is such an important issue, and the petition follows on from the previous one that we discussed.
I recommend that we write to key stakeholders such as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, Children’s Hearings Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, the Scottish Child Law Centre, Who Cares? Scotland and any others that the committee deems appropriate. This is something that we need to investigate further.
Like my colleagues, I think that we need more information before we can make a decision on the petition. I recommend that we write to all the key stakeholders.
I agree with my colleagues that we need more information. The area needs to be investigated and we need to be sure that the hearings are properly policed, if that is the right word. I think that who should police them and on what basis needs to be investigated fully. I agree that writing to the various stakeholders and appropriate organisations is the right way to go.
I agree that we should write to the key stakeholders. The challenge here is to ensure that the rights of the child are at the very centre and that everybody is fully engaged with that so that the protections that we seek for children and young people are afforded to them. We should ask the stakeholders whether they believe that the solution that the petitioner has identified is the right one, and indeed whether they accept that there is not sufficient oversight.
We agree to take the petition forward in that way. We have identified key stakeholders, but if the clerks feel that it would be useful also to contact other bodies that we have not mentioned, that can be done.
We have reached the end of our agenda. I thank the petitioners who have provided us with the subjects for our conversations, and I thank members for their continuing capacity to deal with virtual discussions. I also thank our broadcasting team and our clerks. It is remarkable that we have managed in such a short time to get to a point where we can have our committee meetings in such an efficient and productive way.
Meeting closed at 11:26.Previous
Continued Petitions