Public Petitions Committee, 02 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Official Report 254KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Enterprise Education (PE1216)

A number of individuals have been looking forward to this item. I welcome to the committee some S3 students and two older gentlemen who are sitting to either side of them—I thought that you two had been kept back at school a wee bit. Appearing on behalf of the students at Berwickshire high school we have Mr Tim Clancey, who is calling on the Scottish Parliament to consider the need for new legislation to improve funding to promote and support enterprise education in schools. Accompanying him is another teacher, Mr Ken Walker, and two pupils, Robin Gillie and Grant McWilliam.

We spoke earlier today, which was useful. We also had a chance to look at the display of students' enterprise work on the table outside the hall. I do not know whether they managed to get a sale out of Robin Harper MSP. If they did, that should go in the bulletin, as it is the first time that I have ever seen him put his hand in his pocket in all the time that I have known him in the Parliament.

I welcome the pupils and their teachers to the committee. Tim Clancey will make an opening statement.

I will keep my introduction brief. I am the main petitioner, and I am afraid that I conform to Nanette Milne's description of a typical petitioner in that I am middle class, middle aged and a man. Nevertheless, I emphasise that the petition has been very much a team effort. I have been involved with it in my role as a modern studies teacher at the school. Grant McWilliam and Robin Gillie represent the S3 modern studies standard grade class who did quite a lot of work on the subject in lesson time. They looked at source material, researched the issue and produced rough drafts of the petition, which were eventually collated into what you have in front of you.

Ken Walker is one of a couple of members of staff at the school who are responsible for enterprise education. They have been invaluable in providing expertise and taking a whole-school point of view, rather than just that of our year group.

I appreciate that, in the current financial climate, members are probably a little bit fed up with people asking for more money. However, I am afraid that that is the crux of the matter in enterprise education. In addition to the petition, we ask the committee to bear in mind not only the case for providing more enterprise education than at present but the likelihood that the funding situation will worsen in the near future. For example, our school has faced a 2 per cent overall budget cut this year, which does not sound very much but, as with any budget, there are many parts that cannot be cut at all. When we consider what can be cut, that might involve only a small number of areas, so they tend to face much more severe cuts than a 2 per cent cut implies. Extra-curricular activities such as enterprise education are especially vulnerable to heavier budget cuts as a result.

We have sought and received, and we continue to seek and receive, financial help from local businesses, so we do not depend just on handouts from different levels of government. However, we must take into account the economic downturn and appreciate that we cannot rely on such businesses being in a position to give us as much help in the future.

Good afternoon, everybody. One of my responsibilities in the school is to run the young enterprise programme for senior students, whom members will have seen outside in the hall when they came in. Part of their programme is to manufacture products or provide a service that they sell to gain experience of running their own business.

I will take a moment to explain how funding for enterprise education can affect pupils. The basic programme involves producing a product or a service to sell and make a profit on. In each of the past years, pupils have always run a successful business. They have always produced a viable product or service and made a profit at the end of the year. On that basis, we consider the programme to be a success.

However, the curriculum is much broader than purely manufacturing goods in a school. I will give examples of activities that we are doing this year and which require funding. Pupils are undergoing health and safety training to equip them with the skills for manufacturing their products. That has been sponsored by one of our major employers in the Duns area. The employer will also return later in the year to deliver presentation skills workshops to those pupils, which it and not the school will fund. Students also have the opportunity to make industrial visits. Students will visit a local company—Ahlstrom—next week to see how a factory works from getting in the raw materials to quality checking and shipment of final products.

The young enterprise students will sit an exam next spring, which is run by the University of Strathclyde's business school, to assess the business knowledge that they have gained throughout the programme. Several companies in the Duns area sponsor that exam; we rarely obtain funding for it in the school. Finally, pupils who are on the young enterprise programme gain opportunities throughout the year to make excursions and attend conferences that equip them with business skills and teamworking skills and allow them to see how other young entrepreneurs have started up and developed their own businesses.

Many such activities are run with the funding and support of local businesses. I would like to think that the Scottish Parliament could make more funding available to schools so that those elements were not almost an optional extra with local businesses' funding but an essential and key part of the curriculum. That would give local businesses the good will to focus on activities in schools that are over and above what we should be providing ourselves.

As a pupil here, I do not think that there is enough for the younger portion of the school. After three years of being at the school, I have been offered only one enterprise education thing. It is not really acceptable. We are thinking about getting jobs now because we have just come of age. I am not sure what I am going to do. I do not have any experience in that area. I will not be able to work anywhere without some sort of enterprise education. It is not really fair on us.

I agree with Robin Gillie that the younger end of the school needs more enterprise education. Their social skills need to be developed throughout their time in the school. It is essential that they get enterprise projects so that they can develop those skills for later life.

Committee members will ask you questions now, so whoever feels comfortable can come in first. You can share questions or, if someone is hogging the mike, you can just shove them out the road.

Enterprise education has an enormous amount to offer within the framework of the curriculum for excellence. The personal and social development skills that are encouraged in enterprise education are particularly important. It gets young people out of school and cannot be assessed by examination. Like the old social and vocational skills, it has to be done through experience. I remember that, 15 years ago, Armadale academy in West Lothian insisted that all third and fourth-year students did social and vocational skills because it saw those skills as doing a great deal for pupils. Enterprise education follows on from the philosophy that was inherent in social and vocational skills. Do Grant McWilliam and Robin Gillie agree that what is crucial is the confidence that you get from engaging in enterprise education? You might forget some of the detail, but you do not lose the confidence and experience that you gain from it.

I remember the first time that my mum said to me, "It's time for you to get a job." I worked at an ice rink and, after a few days of work, I was able to help younger children—it became natural. I had the same routine. It was brilliant and I really enjoyed it. It would be good if we could start that from an even younger age in schools—it is about the feeling of accomplishment you get, to see it in front of your eyes—

A skill and a confidence that you will not lose. It is nothing to do with forgetting or remembering anything—it is part of you. Is that right?

Yes.

That response does not surprise me. These soft skills—I think they are called—are important. Many employers say that such skills are lacking in some school leavers these days. Have you had any feedback from local businesses about what they think of enterprise education? Are they seeing a difference in the young people coming out of Berwickshire high school?

We have had people come out of the different enterprise projects in the school—for example, young enterprise—and go on to do seasonal work or longer-term work in some of those local businesses in order to gain further experience. Running the enterprise programmes in the school allows those businesses to see how pupils deal with customers and work in teams and so on. In one or two cases, the businesses have asked the school whether a pupil or pupils are interested in seasonal or longer-term work. It does not just benefit those one or two people. Everyone involved in any kind of enterprise activity in the school is gaining life skills that will see them way beyond school. That is why it is so important to have the appropriate funding in place.

I absolutely agree. The experience in my area, in the north-east of Scotland, would be much the same. At this point in the economic cycle, it is difficult to obtain funding, and Government funding is probably as difficult to obtain as any other funding. Have you exploited businesses in the area completely? Are there further opportunities to involve smaller or bigger businesses?

We are always in contact with a number of local businesses—I am reluctant to use the work "exploit", but they show us a lot of good will, at considerable expense to themselves. I do not want to push our luck. If we can gain additional funding for enterprise education, businesses in the area will continue to support us, but we may be able to expand our enterprise activities further into the school and, as Robin Gillie and Grant McWilliam said, further down the year groups—perhaps to first to third year. At the moment, much of our work is focused on the senior school.

I want to pursue the issue of who delivers enterprise education in the school. Mr Clancey, in modern studies, and Mr Walker have a share on the teaching side, but the petition that has been submitted to us makes clear that, before the start of the academic year, the headteacher decides what budgets are available. I assume that that decision is based on the budget that the local authority sets for the headteacher. What types of bids are made to the headteacher to get more enterprise education in the school, and who makes them?

Bids can be made for events that are known in advance, at the start of the year or of a two-year period, but ad hoc opportunities may arise in the course of a year, depending on what is happening in the economy and the news, the ability of businesses to offer visits and the availability of speakers. Although the school has some funding at the moment, through initiatives such as determined to succeed, that is not guaranteed in the long term—it will be available until about 2011, when it will be reviewed. There is a need for additional funding in schools on a month-to-month or term-to-term basis to allow pupils to take advantage of ad hoc initiatives and experiences as they become available.

I know that, in principle, the rector of Berwickshire high school is extremely supportive of enterprise education, but often it comes down to how much money is left once all the essential requirements of the different departments and other areas of the school have been met. This year, it has not been possible to run some courses that have been run at the school in the past. I am sure that that is linked to the 2 per cent cut that has been made to funding at a general level. The school is making good use of the money that is available to it to provide enterprise education, but it has had to prioritise. The S4 year group—especially those pupils who are likely to leave education at the end of S4—has been targeted for the provision of life skills relating to enterprise education. That is one reason why enterprise education is having an uneven impact and there is not as much of it as we would like further down the school.

Is the determined to succeed funding that is available enough, as it filters through local authorities to the education system? The global budget for the initiative at Scottish Government level is about £19.2 million. Is that funding sufficient by the time that it gets to local authorities and local high schools? I expect you to answer that it is not sufficient to meet your needs or to fund what you want to deliver. Do you think that the budget should be higher?

It should definitely be higher. At the moment, we have to prioritise the activities that we can offer to students. Although a number of students benefit from enterprise education, we think that more funding should be available so that every pupil in the school can benefit from it to a much greater degree.

What is your estimate of the annual shortfall in your determined to succeed budget?

I do not have the figures; I am responsible for only one aspect of enterprise education. It is difficult to put a figure on the ideal amount. I could say that, ideally, we should have double the available budget. I know that we could make very good use of that money by expanding enterprise education to all pupils.

I am well known for my campaigning on another area that delivers similar skills to those that enterprise education delivers—outdoor education. I do not think that that undermines the case for enterprise education.

Earlier, you spoke about having a certain shyness in asking for funds from business. You have an educational product that delivers confidence, decision making, the ability to assess risk, good communication skills and the ability to get on with others. Those are attributes that local businesses would die for. It is very much in the interest of local businesses to encourage those skills through working with young people so that they stay in the area and use the skills and experience that they have gained in enterprise education.

Businesses will never give more than they can afford to give. Surely a selling point in talking to a local business would be to say, "If you help us to develop these skills in our young people, they are more likely to stay in the area. You will do well out of retaining them in the area." The school's English department may shoot me for saying this, but we should face up to the fact that someone who knows how many Ms, Ts and Es there are in the word "committee" is of less use to a businessperson than someone who has all those skills. Do you agree?

Fully.

Unless they are being asked to sell books.

In going about my constituency, I have witnessed at first hand the great importance and value of these projects. The key issue is not only the funding but ensuring that we have suitably motivated staff who are willing to get involved in these projects and see them delivered. At Berwickshire high school, we are very lucky to have staff who are willing to do that, but I know that there are other schools that are not so fortunate and which do not have staff with the desire to achieve these worthwhile projects.

Why are these projects so important? As has been said, they are good at developing the skills that young people who are about to enter the workplace need, particularly in the current economic climate. Having spoken to many local employers in my constituency, I know the value that they place on students who come through these schemes. When those students enter the workplace, they are able to add value beyond that which an employer might expect of the average student who has not had the same experience.

How are you finding the process of trying to get the cash? The fundamental point is that you want the money. You believe that you can do things with it that will benefit students in the school. You also know that the more money you get, the more things you can do and the more youngsters who will benefit. Are the funding streams overcomplicated? If there have been funding cuts and you can no longer access certain funding streams, are there other ways in which you can access funding from other parts of national or local government? Those questions may be more for the teachers who deal with the process, but I have a couple of questions for the youngsters, which I will put later.

I do not necessarily think that the process is overcomplicated. The biggest issue for us is that we are unable to plan in advance. Funding is often available for enterprise education-related projects that we want to do, but we cannot guarantee far enough in advance that that money is going to be available. That makes it difficult to plan what is going to happen year on year. If we could be sure—or, at least, more sure—of what funding was going to be available, that would be helpful to us. At the moment, we are overdependent on what is left over from the school's general budget allowing us to carry out such projects.

As Tim Clancey says, it is not always possible to plan in advance because of the number of initiatives that can come up on a yearly basis. It also depends on the number of pupils who express an interest in April in doing courses the following year. The budgets are often set quite a bit before that, and what subjects or activities pupils are able to undertake as they move up a year in school is often dictated by budget limitations that have determined course availability for months or even a year beforehand.

Are the pupils worried that they might not get the same opportunities that older pupils have had as they have gone from fourth year into fifth year?

Yes. I was halfway through first year when I saw the child care course. That was about the last time that I saw it. It looked so interesting that it seemed impossible that we would lose it. The amount that the fourth-years learned from it made it a benefit. Why was it taken away if it was doing them some good?

We have the S6 express, which you might have seen in the canteen. That is useful in helping the sixth-years to develop their social and mathematical skills. I am not sure whether that will be secured for my age group, but I think that I would enjoy such an experience. It would be useful if we could secure it and other enterprise projects like it.

Thanks very much.

We have had a presentation and a cross-examination—that sounds terrible. It was a question-and-answer session, although it was more like a question-and-question session. What do we want to do with the petition? I invite members of the committee to make suggestions. This is the first stage of the process—it is not the end game; it is the beginning of the journey that the petition will make as we seek responses to the concerns that it raises.

It is a difficult one. You will realise that MSPs are constantly bombarded with complaints from councils and councillors about the lack of appropriate funding from central Government. The other complaint that we keep getting is that councils do not want the money to be ring fenced for specific projects or enterprises; they want its use to be left to the discretion of local authorities. Therefore, we face a bit of a dilemma. Is the problem a reduction in funding from central Government or is it to do with the allocation of funding within the local authority?

I wonder whether there should not be more funding for enterprise education. The more an enterprise develops, the more viable it becomes, hopefully, but the more support it needs to keep it viable. You have quite a dilemma ahead. I think that we should support the petition and raise the matter with the appropriate parliamentary committee. I do not know whether it should be directed to the Education and Sport Committee or to the Finance Committee, but we should certainly make a plea for it.

We have a list of organisations to which we could write to seek their views on the issue. Irrespective of the effect on funding in the short term, the spirit of the curriculum for excellence is delivered in the long term by enterprise education, outdoor education and a few other subjects. The aim of the curriculum for excellence is to rebalance Scottish education in favour of developing personal skills as well as delivering basic education. The higher the profile we can get on the back of the petition for enterprise education, the better it will be in the long term for enterprise education and the curriculum for excellence, because we will begin to deliver on their aims.

Among the organisations to which I would like to write are Young Enterprise Scotland, which has experience in the area, the Prince's Trust Scotland, which does tremendous work with young people, World of Enterprise Scotland, the Enterprise Education Trust and Careers Scotland. We should seek the view of each of those organisations on what importance enterprise education should have in the curriculum for excellence throughout Scotland.

We should seek a ministerial opinion on the issue, too, by writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning through her civil servants. It would be interesting to know what emphasis the Government puts on enterprise education, which is clearly important for young people going out into the community and seeking jobs.

I support Nanette Milne's view that we should ask the Government what it is doing on enterprise education. John Farquhar Munro suggested referring the petition to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, but we might also want to chap on the door of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee regarding the petition.

The two main organisations that are charged with developing enterprise in Scotland are Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. We should approach those bodies, too, to find out how they support the delivery of enterprise education in schools. We have heard today about courses in which young people can participate but for which money is not available. However, there may be other ways of getting young people to participate in such courses that might not cost the education and training department money.

I suggest that it would also be worth while contacting the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland. We should also contact the Educational Institute of Scotland to get a view from the teachers' perspective. We have heard from Mr Clancey and Mr Walker about the commitment in Berwickshire high school to trying to deliver enterprise education. However, as John Lamont indicated, other schools in Scotland may be unable to deliver enterprise education because they do not have the teaching staff. If that is the case, it is a condemnation of the education system. We should ask the EIS whether it has identified problems in Scotland's education system that should be addressed in order to encourage the delivery of enterprise education in all our educational establishments.

Those are helpful and useful suggestions. I am hesitant about inviting Robin Harper back in, but he seems to be desperate to speak again. I will set a time limit on this occasion, Robin—hurry up.

I suggest that we also contact Learning and Teaching Scotland and Skills Development Scotland. John Wilson's suggestion that we contact the EIS reminds me that the colleges of education might have something useful to say to us on the issue. It could be helpful to write to the four colleges of education for their observations on the training of teachers in that respect.

Okay. Those are useful suggestions.

I have heard for a number of years that without money you cannot do much. However, at the same time, money is not everything. To take the nation forward, we should make people willing to take part wherever they can do so. My way of thinking might be different, because I was brought up differently from what happens here. For me, money is not everything. If you are willing to take part and work and if you have the will power to make something work out, you can do so. I suggest that people should do that, rather than ask for more and more money. It is not the case that without money we cannot do anything. I am not saying that money is not important—it is very important but, at the same time, it is not everything.

You are going to be a cruel granddad this Christmas. I have been having conversations about that with my weans this week. That is a strong message.

To add to what Bashir Ahmad said, the youngsters are demonstrating an enterprising spirit. Schools want to create space and some money could help with that, to allow those young individuals to flourish and perhaps make a career in enterprise. We are all doomed if we do not create young entrepreneurs for the future who have the dynamism and experience that Bashir Ahmad showed in his business activities prior to being a parliamentarian. He started with very little other than sheer hard work and determination and a belief that he had something that people would want to pass over money for so that he could benefit and his business could grow. That is what enterprise education would develop in youngsters, as well as social skills.

I know that the adults will be familiar with some of the process, but I will explain it for the students, who are just exploring it in the classroom. We will write to all the agencies and organisations that members have mentioned and we expect to get answers back from them. We should probably also write to the local authority, Scottish Borders Council, to ask about its experience of its budget and whether, given its priorities, it can release more money for education. I am loth to do that because, as John Wilson knows, I am always respectful of the historic concordat that has been struck between local government and the Scottish Government. However, that is like the draping round the room, whereas I have always been concerned about what happens inside the room and where the chairs are allocated. I am interested in getting a wee bit of information on that, which would help a bit with some of the issues.

We expect the responses to come back to the committee in due course. Mr Clancey, as the core petitioner, will be kept informed about what is happening. He can feel free to communicate with the clerk at any time. We expect to discuss the petition further at a future meeting. Obviously, that will take place in the Parliament, but your elected member will track some of the issues. I am sure that he will follow through the petition on your behalf. As a member, he can be invited to participate in the discussion although he is not a member of the committee. I am sure that Mr Lamont will ensure that that happens in due course.

I hope that that was not too frightening or intimidating for the witnesses—I am speaking to the two adults. Robin Gillie and Grant McWilliam did very well. Robin, you were really nervous before you came to the table, but you were fantastic. You can have a big sigh of relief now.

---

Bus Services (Rural Areas) (PE1215)

Thank you for your patience. I worried when I saw you taking the microphone, Janie, but you are a seasoned veteran.

The next petition is PE1215, in the name of Janie Orr, whom I welcome to the committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to improve the frequency of, access to and routes of buses in rural areas in order to increase mobility and to open up communities' access to social, entertainment and education outlets.

A number of students are here with Janie: I welcome Ben Black, who made a contribution earlier, Abbey Nevins, who has also made a contribution, and Garry Pearson. I invite Janie Orr to make opening remarks.

I am the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for my area. We are all higher modern studies students who want to our voices to be heard on improvements in frequency, routes and access to bus services in rural areas.

As we say in the petition, we have spoken again to Michael Russell, the Minister for Environment. I have a quotation from him here. He said:

"As someone who lives in a rural area, I know how difficult it is to transport members of family to various places. It would be intelligent to reduce carbon emissions by providing an integrated rural bus service and would drastically reduce the need for so many vehicles to be on the country roads."

I will give an example of a rural service, which shows why we need more. I and other students have extra after-school tuition, which means that our parents have to drive us 8 miles to Duns, drive back home, and then repeat those journeys to get us back home again. An 8-mile journey becomes a 32-mile round trip, which is costly. Better access to bus stops and routes and more regular times would ease a huge amount of strain, especially during these tough economic times.

It is a simple equation, really: if more people used buses, there would be fewer cars on the roads, less traffic congestion and less air pollution. Increased bus use would also lower transportation costs for individuals and would mean more money for bus operators and local councils. Members—especially John Farquhar Munro, as an MSP for a rural area that is similar to the Scottish Borders—will know that this is a problem for many constituents in the countryside. We know that the issue affects every age group, from the young to the elderly, so improvements need to be made now.

MSPs, local councils and bus companies need to find out exactly what the demand is for rural bus services. Why do they not ask what everyone in the countryside wants? That would improve bus services and encourage more people to use buses in the first place. More rural bus stops are the key, which would mean that more people could finally use this vital service for whatever they require.

I would like to comment on what Michael Russell said about carbon emissions. We agree that environmental as well as social factors are involved. Good rural bus services can offer an alternative to car use that will cut traffic and carbon emissions. Cars are heavily relied on in rural areas, which has a large environmental impact. People who live in rural areas might have the option of using bus services but cannot do so because most would have to drive to get to the bus stop, which completely defeats the object. There needs to be improvement in rural bus services.

As young people in a rural area, we rely heavily on bus services because we cannot always rely on parents or friends to take us everywhere. The lack of buses in rural areas means that it is quite hard for us to get to shops or our places of work at weekends, for example. The services could do with an overhaul.

My son tells me that he does not always want me to know where he is going. If I have to take him there and back, I know exactly where he is.

Do you have anything to add, Ben?

It would be good to have more buses in the area, which is very rural. It would be a good thing for me because, as well as coming to Duns for school on school buses, I come in at night during the week for activities such as rugby training and at the weekend for rugby. It puts quite a strain on my mum having to drive me in every night and every weekend. I am not necessarily asking for more buses; it would be better if the existing services had a wider span so that they could bring people into the bigger towns in the area.

Well done. Thanks for that.

I invite questions from committee members.

I am not familiar with the detail of bus services in the area. How many bus companies run services? Have you had the opportunity to make direct representations to the companies to find out what their plans are and to put your case?

Off the top of my head, I believe that two companies run services in the area: FirstBus, which runs services for Scottish Borders Council, and Wait's buses, which I think is a local company. We chose to submit the petition because of our experiences. For example, the bus stop for getting to Galashiels is 3 miles from where I live, so when I wanted to get to Galashiels, I had to get my mum to drive me. Everyone in our class has had similar experiences. The buses do not run at decent times. As Abbey Nevins said, the latest bus she can catch if she wants to stay out later is at 20 past 8. I will let her explain.

If I want to stay out late with my friends in Berwick, for example, the buses home are at 8.20 or 10 past 10 at night. There is a big gap in between when there is no way of getting home, so more frequent buses would be a great advantage.

If the bus companies are to make a livelihood, they must consider whether routes are profitable. Some routes have to be subsidised as social bus routes, whereas others are operated competitively. Are you in a position to prove to the bus companies that there would be sufficient demand to make them think that your request was a competitive proposition?

The bus companies have probably looked into that, although I have had no indication that they have done so where I live. They have probably looked at the little areas of housing around the Borders, especially in Berwickshire, and thought that there is not enough demand for buses. I have seen research on the topic that shows that not just young people like us, but elderly people who live in the area would find it extremely beneficial to have bus services to and from the bigger towns, such as Duns and Coldstream, which would make it much easier for them to go out and get shopping and be brought back again. That is probably the biggest concern. Such services would offer an alternative to having to get in the car and drive everywhere, and would probably be cheaper to use.

You make an interesting point about older people. An interesting presentation was made to Parliament about a community bus service in the area; I was only able to hear part of it, but your MSP John Lamont was there.

I find community buses interesting. They are run by the community as—I hesitate to say this—almost a social service, and can probably cater for local demand better than the bigger bus companies that are trying to make profits. Do you have any comments to make about community bus services? Would they be of any use?

I am sure that all the witnesses would say if they were asked that they would love to be able to use local transport links. I attended a Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee meeting in which community transport and, specifically, elderly people were discussed. People can call up a bus company, which will pick them up an hour later. That is a brilliant idea, but it seems that there are no such services for our age group—they are only for the elderly, although I am sure that everyone would love to use them. We would.

We also want to use buses because we have the advantage of having Young Scot cards, which give us discounts of around 25 per cent on fares. We would prefer to use local bus links, but would definitely consider using community transport if we had the option of doing so.

There could be a possible tie-up in that context.

There is no doubt in anybody's mind that a real issue was not addressed in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was the first transport act to be passed in the first session of the Parliament, from 1999 to 2003. Sarah Boyack was the Minister for Transport, and I served on the Transport and the Environment Committee at the time. I called the bill the "buses and other bits and bobs bill". It introduced quality contracts and quality partnerships. At the time, it was hoped that many bus companies would engage with local authorities in quality contracts, which would have guaranteed services in a way that quality partnerships do not, but there are very few quality contracts; rather, there are mainly quality partnerships. Under such arrangements, if the bus company provides a service on a route and finds that it is not profitable, it can simply withdraw it at its own will. It is an open market.

An artificial distinction is involved in considering whether a service qualifies for a subsidy. If a service is socially necessary, it will qualify for a subsidy; if it is not, it will not. Of course, I would argue that all bus services are social and socially necessary and that such a distinction is unhelpful, to say the least. Some 40 per cent of the people of Scotland do not own cars; therefore, it is increasingly necessary to view all bus services as being socially necessary. We should not think of buses as a luxury or an extra, especially in rural areas, where the distances to be travelled are much greater but people still have a right of access to libraries, cinemas and shops, for example. We should provide proper transport for people in those areas.

The petitioners have brought to us an important consideration that is even more important from their point of view—it is important for young people in areas that buses do not serve. They cannot jump into cars, unless they have very understanding and generous parents who are prepared to drive them anywhere, any day of the week. I am sure that some of the petitioners' parents do so, but that is a burden on them.

We should certainly progress the matter, although I do not know whether there will be any quick answers, because I fear that legislative changes will be required. The Scottish Government cannot, for instance, simply say that it will provide more money and that subsidies will ensue. That will not necessarily be an outcome because of how the legislation on the provision of bus services is framed. I fear that a lot of attention will need to be paid to the issue over the next couple of years.

I do not know whether others have mentioned it, but an MSP is proposing a member's bill on regulation of bus services. The purpose of that bill proposal is to set standards that would apply to all independent bus operators. It will have an interesting journey through Parliament, but it raises issues that that will affect all of us, regardless of our party-political perspectives, or if we have none. Perhaps that provides an opportunity.

Do youngsters feel very constrained? Janie Orr mentioned that she is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, so she will speak to others from throughout the country. How sharply do their life experiences contrast with yours? How are the choices that you and the other witnesses make constrained by limited bus services?

Several of the committee members—including the convener—are from Glasgow or other urban areas. Glasgow has many transport opportunities. It has more demand, so it has much more regular services. We all want that kind of service. I have been to Strathclyde, where the bus services are fantastic.

I need you to come to public meetings in my area and say that on my behalf when I get absolute pelters.

Bashir Ahmad said earlier that money is not everything. We do not necessarily want money, but a bit of common sense: we want bus times that are not stupid. For example, I got the bus from Berwick to Galashiels and had to wait two hours for the bus to Edinburgh. Common sense is all that is needed.

People whose work starts at 9 o'clock in the morning have no buses that get them there on time. They would be half an hour to an hour late if they took the bus because there is not a suitable one.

I support the petition. I get a lot of casework about the matter, but I will expand the discussion beyond buses and talk about public transport in the Borders.

There seems to be a view among parliamentarians from outside the Borders that the Borders railway will be the answer to all our public transport problems, but that will not necessarily be the case. I recently sent a Borders railway survey to all my constituents, to which 57 per cent—27,000—responded. The results of that survey show clearly that for people who live in villages that do not have bus services to take them to Galashiels, there is no hope of their being able to use the railway.

It is important for Parliament to realise that the Borders railway will go some way towards improving public transport in Galashiels and Tweedbank, but will do nothing to improve it for many villages in Berwickshire. The buses are part of the bigger equation: the railway will work better and be more productive if there is a bus network that allows people from Paxton, Hutton, Duns and so on to get to it. Do the petitioners agree?

Yes.

That was one that you prepared earlier, John.

Miss Orr assumes that everybody in Strathclyde is well served by buses, but as a parent, I know how difficult it is. I have to transport my 17-year-old daughter around because of where we live. Recently, the operator of the regular bus service to the village where I live decided to retire, which meant that the service ceased and another operator had to be brought in to operate the route at a reduced service.

The legislation is in place but, as Robin Harper indicated, there seems to be no joined-up thinking about different transport methods, such as buses and trains.

As I was saying to someone earlier, in my previous life I did a piece of work in the Borders on transport links in relation to employment. Clearly, Edinburgh is the big centre for employment for many people from the Borders. However, as the petitioners have indicated, links within the Borders can be very haphazard. School leavers hoping to enter employment or further or higher education need transport links that take them to the main centres where that employment or education is available.

Clearly, there is a need to review how the legislation is operating and what local authorities are doing, so that we ensure that people are well served. As John Lamont said, the Borders railway will not deliver a panacea for the Borders, as many people seem to hope. People will be sadly disappointed if, as Abbey Nevins said, there are no links between the buses and the trains. If people need to wait two hours for a connecting bus, it is clear that the system is not working. We need to look at the system to ensure that it works for the people whom it is designed to serve.

I think that there is a consensus on the committee about the need to make progress on the two issues that the petition raises. The first issue is the need for integrated transport, which one or two people have amplified. The second issue—the essential argument—is about increasing the effectiveness of young people by providing connections between the communities in which they live and the places where long-term employment is available. Given that we are moving into a very different economic climate, we need to maximise those opportunities. Mobility will be a key requirement in the difficult period ahead if people are to overcome the challenges.

I think that the committee has a lot of sympathy for the petition. Given the time, we should perhaps pull together some constructive suggestions about what to do with the petition.

It is important to get in touch with the regional transport partnership. Co-ordination is needed between bus operators on matters such as timetabling and ticketing. I suggest that we contact the south-east of Scotland transport partnership to ask whether such arrangements are in place and, if so, why they are not working. SEStran should be our first port of call.

We should also contact the Scottish Government and the Confederation of Passenger Transport. We could suggest to local authorities that they find out more about where demand exists for bus services. Perhaps they could do more in terms of negotiating with the bus companies to fulfil those demands in a way that would meet the needs of people, particularly young people.

Perhaps John Lamont can tell us whether there is a community bus service in this area. Were we being told about a different part of the Borders?

Some communities have community bus services, but those services are for people who have specific needs—who are over a certain age, or who have disabilities that entitle them to such a service. With the price of fuel continuing to rise, I know that the council is facing financial difficulties in keeping those services going. In the whole of the Borders, only three routes are commercially viable. Operators need to be subsidised by the council for the others.

Is it therefore unlikely that there could be any possibility of a tie-up with younger people to allow them to use that sort of service?

That would depend on political will. The Borders railway gives us an opportunity to link up the Borders, which could be the catalyst for further development of such services.

Is that a point—sorry to ask all these questions—that we should put to the Government or to the council?

I think that the point needs to be put to the Government because management of the Borders railway is now with Transport Scotland. I am keen to see Transport Scotland working with Scottish Borders Council—which is not currently happening—to develop the bus network so that the railway can be accessed by as many people as possible.

We should put that point to the Scottish Government.

I agree. That is a helpful suggestion.

I suggest that we also contact the Public Transport Users Committee for Scotland along with—despite the fact that it might sound relevant only to urban areas—Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. My understanding is that, unlike the dial-a-bus service that has been explained to us by the petitioners, the dial-a-bus service in Strathclyde is open to anyone who registers for it. There are limitations on when the bus can be used, but it might be useful to get information on that service to see whether it could be mirrored in other parts of the country.

Given the interesting comments that have been made about community bus services, we could perhaps ask the clerks to find out where community bus services operate. Are there rural parts of Scotland in which viable community bus services operate? How do they link to local communities, and how are they funded?

Those are helpful suggestions.

Buses can often be big things, so if minibuses were run frequently, that could help the problem.

Yes, although we have to remember that there is a carbon issue in respect of frequency of services.

Those were useful suggestions. I suggest that we also pass the petitioners' submission to Charlie Gordon, who has proposed a member's bill on regulation of buses, so that there can be some overview. The bill's core issues are integration of services and the responsibility of bus service providers to look after interests in rural and urban communities.

The petitioners will have heard what I said earlier to other petitioners. We are in the first stage of the process, and we want to move forward, so we will keep you fully up to date on what happens. I am sure that John Lamont will want to track the issue as it comes back to the committee.

I hope that that was not too unbearable. Are you feeling better after that?

Yes—fine.

You can now tell folk that you have been in front of the Public Petitions Committee. If other members of the Scottish Youth Parliament start bragging, you can tell them that. Well done to Janie and all the others.

---

Licensing Reform (PE1217)

The next petition is PE1217. I welcome Christopher Walker to the committee. Alongside him is John Lamont MSP, who is working for his parliamentary salary this month—I hasten to add that I am not saying that he does not do that at any other time, but he is certainly participating a lot today.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to revise its proposals to introduce new licensing regulations under the proposed criminal justice and licensing bill to protect local tourism and businesses in rural areas from unnecessary regulation and charges.

Others were meant to accompany Chris today, but because of illness and other commitments they are unable to be present. It is disappointing for them as I am sure that they would have liked to be here.

They send their apologies.

That is noted.

Members should also note that we have received a letter from Alex Fergusson, in his capacity as a constituency member in the South of Scotland, to indicate his support for the petition—we say that because we may need the indulgence of the Presiding Officer in future.

Without any further ado, would you like to make an opening statement, Mr Walker?

I thank the Public Petitions Committee for inviting me to speak and for considering my petition.

I will give the committee a brief history of what brings me here and the reasons for the petition. Although the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 was created by the previous Administration, it comes into force on 1 September 2009. All council licensing boards have issued a policy statement to outline the fundamental principles of the act. Scottish Borders Council's fundamental principles are to promote the following objectives, which are important to consider: to prevent crime and disorder; to secure public safety; to prevent public nuisance; to protect and improve public health; and to protect children from harm.

Most councils are well on their way to completing the transition between licences by 1 September 2009. Licensed businesses are busy submitting operational plans, risk assessments and scaled layout plans and attending personal licence holder courses. Scottish Borders Council has followed the guidelines on fees, as set out by the Scottish Government, but has discounted the one-off application fee by 20 per cent, realising the impact that the legislation will have on rural businesses.

Three scenarios relate to the legislation. I start with the example of a small caravan park, complete with a small shop that has a glass-fronted fridge that stocks two or three wines and half a dozen types of beer. The park will be forced to reapply for its liquor licence at a cost of £1,040, which is 604 per cent more than its current annual fee of £172. Thereafter, the annual fee for its application, which comes with layout plans and risk assessments, will be £500, which is a 290 per cent rise. The reason for the increases is that the fees are now based on rateable value.

The second scenario concerns a small deli that sells ham, cheese, breads, olives and other delicatessen products, along with a couple of local beers and perhaps the odd bottle of sloe gin. Like the caravan park, the rateable value of that business will not reflect the true ratio of liquor to other sales, yet both businesses will have to decide whether the profit made on such small sales justifies the council's new fees. The deli, whose rateable value is in category 3, will have a joining fee of £880 followed by an annual fee of £280.

The third scenario involves a hotel whose rateable value is in category 5 and which faces an application fee of £1,360 and an annual fee of £700. That is a 400 per cent increase in the annual fee alone and is a cost that some businesses are not prepared to bear. In the Borders, applications for off-sales licences have dropped by a third.

None of the fundamental principles that are set out in the policy statement is threatened by the caravan park, the deli or the hotel. All councils have capped their fees, and in the Borders the maximum application fee is £1,600 and an annual fee of £900, depending on businesses' rateable value. That means that the Tescos and Asdas of this world—the very culprits who promote loss-leading drinks promotions—get away with multimillion pound liquor sales and chip into the local purse a pittance, or £900 to be exact. The deli chips in £280, the caravan park £500 and the hotel £700. Where is the fairness and how do such anomalies promote the fundamental principles of the act?

The act has failed to tackle those principles and adds another layer of red tape and bureaucracy to an industry already suffering from the effects of the smoking ban and the credit crunch—although I fully support the smoking ban. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 misses the point that it set out to achieve and instead will be viewed as a source of revenue for the local authority.

The legislation has been costly and unfair on many small businesses. The fee structure should be based on turnover specifically attributable to alcohol sales. The 3,000 signatures of licensees throughout the Borders that have been put to my petition speak volumes. They send a message to Parliament via your good selves that publicans, hoteliers and small business owners are not prepared to be buried under another set of red tape and unnecessary costs.

I will expand on a few of Chris Walker's points using my experience of casework received from several licensees, whether they are pub owners, off-licences or clubs.

There are two main issues. The first is the significant increase in the fees that such licensees now have to pay. The bottom line is that many licensed businesses, which provide jobs and enterprise in the community, are no longer able to continue. For example, delicatessens in Hawick are closing and the Royal British Legion club in my home town of Coldstream faces being unable to serve alcohol anymore because it cannot afford the licence fee. The reality for many businesses is that they stop serving alcohol or cease trading completely. As Chris Walker pointed out, there is great unfairness in the lack of difference between what large supermarkets and small licensees pay. I do not think that that was the intended outcome of the legislation, but that is the reality, which is causing problems for many rural businesses.

The second consideration is interpretation of the guidance, which is causing many problems. The issue is not just the licence fees that people must pay, but the cost implications of some local authorities' interpretation of the guidance notes. For example, some councils insist that licensees produce architects' plans of their premises to accompany the licence application. Large organisations such as supermarkets and big hotels will have architects' plans, but the off-licence in Duns, for example, will not have an architect's plan. The cost of employing an architect to draw up a plan is prohibitive. A hotel was asked to draw up an architect's plan for its garden area because it uses it during the summer for weddings. That kind of request is daft and unpractical, but it causes significant costs for businesses.

Some councils have interpreted the guidance notes to suggest that legal advice must be sought on submitting the application and that specialist licensing lawyers must be instructed. As a former solicitor, I am well aware that lawyers like to get as much money in fees as they can. However, from a parliamentary perspective, I do not believe that that was the intention of the legislation.

We must be clear that we do not necessarily want a complete overhaul of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 or for it to be repealed. We want the guidance notes to be interpreted consistently across the board, whether on legal advice or architects' plans. We also want a more practical and commonsense approach to the licence fee system so that there is more of a difference between what the supermarkets and multinationals pay and what, say, local delicatessens and Royal British Legion clubs pay. As it stands, the 2005 act does not accommodate that.

Thank you for that contribution.

You have made valid points, John. In particular, you said that different councils are interpreting the guidance differently. Is that because it is badly worded? I have not seen the guidance, but can it be easily misinterpreted? If so, does the guidance need to be changed?

I think that the relevant officers in councils have discretion in deciding what they will require, and I think that some councils have been taking the most cautious approach, as opposed to a more practical approach, to make applications as watertight as possible. Perhaps giving the officers too much discretion has worked against the licensees on this occasion.

You would prefer guidance that is more prescriptive.

Yes, provided that it does not require architects' plans on every occasion or that someone must instruct the most expensive licensing lawyers in Edinburgh, for example. There should be a more practical approach that takes into account the nature of the business making an application, as opposed to insisting that everybody must have architects' plans and specialist advice just to submit an application.

Could the guidance be reworded so that it differentiated between different sizes of property according to rateable value, for example?

Chris Walker's point about the level of alcohol sales might be a way forward in that regard because it would reflect the importance of the licence to a particular business in relation to the rest of the business and its sales.

It certainly sounds to me as if the situation that we have heard about is an unintended consequence of the legislation.

The legislation predates the present Administration and the arrival of some new members. I was not a member of the committee that considered the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, but I presume that the debate was about how to tackle the regulation of licensing, given the consequential problems that were arising. I think that Chris Walker was trying to say that the way in which the legislation is being interpreted is having a detrimental impact on individuals who are not contributing in any way to the difficult social problems that elected members were trying to grapple with through the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005.

Some people will say that when the bill went through the Parliament, some of the views that we have heard will have been articulated. However, we are now at the sharp end and the implementation is causing disproportionate problems. If I picked Chris Walker up correctly, that is the core of the petition. We will want to ask a few more questions on the reality. I invite members to ask some questions and then Mr Walker can respond to the totality of points.

I must admit that I was a member of the Justice Committee when it considered the subordinate legislation on fees and that the issues that we have heard about today were raised then. We were assured by civil servants and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that the consequences for existing licence holders would not be too detrimental. However, what we have heard today does not support what the civil servants and the cabinet secretary said at the time. We need a review of the system. There are issues to do with local interpretation. Asda, Tesco and other major supermarkets are being compared to local corner-shop traders. As Chris Walker said, the licence fees do not seem to bear any relation to the expected turnover of the operators.

Nanette Milne made a point about interpretation by local authorities. The 32 local authorities have, in many respects, taken 32 different opinions on how to implement the legislation. One argument that local authorities raised with the Justice Committee was that the fees would not recover enough money to allow them to operate their licensing operations, which include staff and the licensing board. From what I have heard today, we have grounds for asking the cabinet secretary to carry out an immediate review of the fees, to protect small operators. A caravan park operator should not have to stop providing a service that benefits users of the site simply because the fees outweigh the annual profits from the operation.

I am sure that Chris Walker agrees that the jobsworth approach is a real possibility in many local councils—we see that in other contexts. Does he also agree that a knock-on effect, particularly in rural areas, could be that more and more people make journeys to supermarkets because fewer local shops will survive? The ability to buy a bottle of beer or wine along with the rest of the groceries is one determinant in whether people visit a local shop or get into their car—or on a bus, if one is available—to travel to a supermarket. Therefore, do you agree that the situation might accelerate the decline of Scotland's rural areas?

Yes.

Do you also agree that if, as you say, it costs £500 just to renew a licence for a fridge with a few bottles of beer in it, the licensing board must be seriously inefficient? It cannot possibly cost £500 to look at a few bits of paper and send them back saying, "That is fine, your licence is renewed for next year." I can understand such a fee for supermarkets, particularly if it is assessed on the basis of turnover.

Do you agree that the licensing boards should review the efficiency with which they operate, if there is a justification for fees of between £500 and—what was the maximum?

£1,600.

That is quite excessive.

I agree entirely with Mr Harper. All the licensees I have spoken to who have taken my petition on board have made the point that they never saw the legislation as being a revenue stream for local authorities. Bar the delivery by local authorities, the licensees do not have a problem with the legislation because, in itself, it is relatively sound; the problem is with the fee structures.

The A B C D fee structure can only be moved pro rata, so if 20 per cent is dropped from A, D has to drop 20 per cent as well. Movement of the bands is very tight, especially for Scottish Borders Council. So, for example, the supermarket would be in the top rateable value band, and if the bottom band that the deli is in is dropped by 20 per cent, the capped rate would also drop by 20 per cent. I believe that the capped rate has been a Scottish Government guideline for local authorities, so perhaps there is an issue there that needs to be looked at. Can the cap be taken off for the bigger supermarkets that have multimillion pound turnovers as opposed to the turnover of the little deli or the caravan park?

I have one final point. In fact, we may not need a change of legislation. If the issue is with the guidance, the Government can change it just like that.

So we now need to enter into a serious dialogue with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice about the process for the guidance.

I was going to ask something else but I am getting too old and forgetful. There are a couple of other issues that we will touch on before we conclude.

I want to respond to John Wilson's point about the licensing boards needing to recover their costs. That was one of the ideas behind the fee structure, and I suppose that ties into Robin Harper's point. The point about cost recovery is not disputed, but if the boards were running more efficiently, costs would be reduced. Also, this is about more than the licence fees; it is about the fees for architects and legal fees beyond that. The licensees might have less of an issue if they were only paying the licence fee, but many of them take exception because of the bundle of other costs and add-ons that result from interpretation of the guidance.

I have remembered what I was going to say.

Anyone who has been in public service or who has had the opportunity to serve in government will recognise that this situation is a classic example of the issues with joined-up government. The local tourism action plans are about reducing bureaucracy and maximising efficiency, knowing that areas such as the Borders always operate in a competitive environment given that the cities or the Highlands are more easily marketed. The Borders needs to find its niche, so we want to reduce the number of barriers. Joined-up working should be about reducing bureaucracy and red tape; some of us were talking about that on the way here, and the UK and the Scottish Governments have given commitments to look at regulations and red tape. However, licensees are getting wrapped up in red tape and it is costing them, so we must open up the debate with the cabinet secretary and others and show them the real implications for Chris Walker's network.

Chris, is the local authority willing to engage with you in that process, even though it is the interpreter of the guidance? What is your relationship with the local authority on that point, given the fact that there should be partnerships around tourism and so on?

The local authority seems to be fairly set on the fee structure that is in place. As I said, we are heading towards 2009. It is difficult for the licensees to see how anything can be changed. We must jump through the hoops. We do not mind doing that, because the legislation is sound; the issue is the fee structure that is attached to the legislation and how it is interpreted.

There is another area that I would like to mention, given that Mr Wilson was involved in the Parliament's consideration of the subordinate legislation. Personal licence holders are an issue that came up with many licensees. Again, the issue is interpretation. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 says that alcohol must be served by a personal liquor licence holder, but Glasgow City Council has said that that does not need to be the case as long as there is a personal licence holder on the premises. Some councils expected that everyone who served alcohol would have to be a personal licence holder. That would have a significant impact on a small deli that had several part-time staff—as opposed to a one-man business—licences for whom would have to be put through at £75 or £80 a shot. There would also be implications for the larger supermarkets.

I agree with Robin Harper's point and with what the petitioner and John Lamont have said about the way in which the subordinate legislation was presented to the Justice Committee. Architects' fees were not mentioned, because it was thought that agreement would be reached between the local licensing clerk and the licence holder on identifying where the sale of alcohol would take place. That is where architects' fees come in. Part of the 2005 act is about restricting the areas in which alcohol is sold. When the subordinate legislation was considered, we asked about the issue and were told that a sketch plan of the layout of a small licence holder's premises would be fine and would be sufficient for the local licensing board.

Regulation is in place, but it is clear that guidelines need to go along with that to instruct local licensing boards and clerks on the Government's intention because, as the petitioner has pointed out, what seems to have evolved is a process whereby local licensing boards and clerks are taking it upon themselves to insist that it is necessary to have all the documents—including architects' scale drawings of where the alcohol will be sold—in place. In a small corner shop, it is fairly straightforward where the alcohol will be sold; in most cases, that will be done from behind the counter. One gets into difficulty when one enters the realm of large supermarkets.

It is clear that the issue is the interpretation of the regulations. We need to tell the cabinet secretary that a review is necessary. If the situation is not clear to licensing boards and clerks, we must give them clear guidance on what was intended, which differs from what seems to be happening. The cost of paying for the licences alone could sound the death knell for many small storekeepers.

I think that I have a clear view of where the committee wants to go on the petition, but I invite Chris Walker to make a final comment.

Many licensees have given up their grandfather rights because they viewed the impact of the current fee structure as too much of a burden. If the licensing fee structure is changed in the future, I ask the committee to consider whether that could be done in such a way as to give back to small shops and delis the grandfather rights that they have given up because they found the costs prohibitive.

John Farquhar Munro wants to come in—I do not know whether he responded just because the word "grandfather" was mentioned.

You are putting me off my stroke.

I couldnae resist.

The cabinet secretary has stated that he will review the situation once the regulations are in place. I find that a strange position to adopt. It seems that, rather than the regulations, the Government will review the costs that have been incurred as a result of them. How do you view that statement?

I see it as extremely unfortunate in that, as I have just said, those businesses that have decided not to continue with their licence have given up years and years of rights. As Mr Harper said, the fact that the fees are prohibitive could be tackled now just by changing the fee structure; the cabinet secretary would not necessarily have to change the legislation. If a change can be made now, before we hit 1 September 2009, some businesses will have the opportunity to remain in business. Many have had to jump through red tape and bureaucratic hoops because livelihoods are involved and the business would cease to trade without a licence.

So what you are suggesting would give people far more confidence that there is willingness to consider and change the regulations. Once provisions are implemented in law, I cannot see much change happening.

There is a general willingness in the committee to pursue the matter that the petition raises. We have picked up a number of key points that members have made. Members may want to make new or additional suggestions, but I think that we have picked up the key elements that we want to pursue and focus on.

We will take on board the issues that the petition raises. We want to interrogate at least two issues: the discretion to change and the framework of the fee structure; and whether the continuity for those who have taken cautious decisions because of the impending legislation can be revisited. I am sure that others will make representations to the committee following today's deliberations on the matter.

I hope that the discussion has been constructive. We genuinely want to progress matters. I thank the witness for his time and the other two individuals who were to speak to the petition. If they are ill, I wish them well.

---

Autism Spectrum Disorder (PE1213)

The next new petition, on which we will not take oral evidence, is PE1213, from Annette Masson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review the current assessment, diagnosis and appeals procedures for children with autistic spectrum disorder to ensure that they fully meet children's needs, and to consider whether all the support that is necessary within the education system is in place to support children who have been diagnosed as having ASD. The petition raises a number of issues.

Given that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee is considering the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, would it be sensible to refer the petition to it for its information and consideration?

I am happy to support Nanette Milne's suggestion that we refer the petition to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, but if it is going to deal with the petition, it should involve organisations such as the National Autistic Society Scotland and the Scottish Society for Autism.

I have recently had to deal with a couple of constituency cases involving such issues. There seem to be problems with the guidance and guidelines to local authority education departments on, in particular, how they deal with the support plans that should be in place for people who have been identified as having ASD. We should ensure that there is uniformity throughout Scotland in how local authorities address ASD so that children do not become involved in a postcode lottery, and so that receiving the services that they require will not depend on where they live and their particular education department or school.

We will take that point on board, keep it as part of the focus, and accept Nanette Milne's recommendation.

---

Right of Appeal (PE1214)

The final new petition is PE1214, from Emiko Okoturo. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take all necessary action to remove the requirement that an appellant must require two Scottish counsel to sign the appellant's petition before it can be presented to the appeals committee of the House of Lords, as that is contrary to article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Do members have any suggestions about how the committee should deal with the petition? Perhaps we can invite the Scottish Government to make representations to the UK Government to remove the requirement. That suggestion might be worth pursuing.

Yes. I suggest something as simple as that.

I am not sure whether that is the feeling of the committee.

I am just expressing my view as convener. I am not guiding members in any way whatsoever.

I am not sure that we should put the Scottish Government in the position that was suggested because the requirement in question is not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government and any decision on it must be taken in another place. We should bear it in mind that a consultation was held on the rules for the new supreme court and that the issue in the petition was not brought up in that conversation. If we refer the issue to the Scottish Government, we should recognise that we may simply get the response: "We note the subject of the petition that you have referred to us." That might be all that the Government can do.

Can I ask a heretical question? I might get drummed out of the brownies for this one. The issue might not be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, but the Secretary of State for Scotland might be able to raise the issue with the UK Government. Are we allowed to write to the secretary of state on the petition?

We would have to seek guidance on that.

There would be nothing to prevent the committee from writing to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

We could draw the issue to his attention. We could say that it was raised in a petition that was presented to the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, but that it concerns a matter that is for the UK Government to determine.

Would the committee write directly to the Secretary of State for Scotland, or would it ask the Scottish Government to make representations to him?

I am relaxed about that.

I would be happy if we wrote to both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Government to seek their views on the issue. In time, there may be new thinking on the right of appeal referred to in the petition and on how it is dealt with, particularly in the civil courts in Scotland. I suggest that we draw the petition to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the relevant department in the Scottish Government.

Do we accept that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.