Official Report 198KB pdf
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to 16th meeting in 2006 of the Public Petitions Committee. I have received apologies from Sandra White, Jackie Baillie and Charlie Gordon. Rosie Kane has advised us that, because of difficulties with trains from Glasgow this morning, she is trying to get here by another method and hopes to be here as soon as possible.
Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PE985)
Our first new petition is PE985, by Mick Napier, on behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to congratulate the Palestinian people on their ability to conduct democratic elections while under Israeli occupation, to call for the ending of all sanctions against Palestine and to invite Palestinian parliamentary spokesmen to address the Scottish Parliament. Mick Napier will make a brief statement to the committee in support of the petition.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to use the important democratic institution that is the Public Petitions Committee.
As you rightly identified, many of the issues that you have asked to be dealt with are reserved to Westminster. This Parliament can make its voice heard on issues—we are not restricted in that way—but we cannot make the decisions that you would like us to make. You asked us whether we could congratulate the Palestinian people on their ability to hold the elections. There is no difficulty in any individual member offering such congratulations; the question is how we could get the whole Parliament to do it.
This is an important and difficult issue. You speak from personal experience. There is nothing controversial in your petition and what you ask for is reasonable. I should be honest and say that I come from a position of support for the Palestinian people. It is quite incredible that sanctions are being imposed on them. What is happening to the Palestinian people because of the sanctions?
In July, I led a delegation of people from Scotland to different cities in Palestine. We visited hospitals and spoke to doctors, who told us that drugs are running low and that they are unable to find clean surgical instruments with which to deal with members of the public who suffer trauma. We spoke to people in schools, nurseries and right across civil society. What we found was a tale of unendurable suffering—a tale that shocked and horrified many of the people who were visiting Palestine for the first time. I could go on at great length. We have published a considerable report—about 80 pages—on what we saw when we were there. No one could read that without feeling the impact of the sanctions and the suffering that the Palestinian people are going through.
The convener is right that it may be extremely difficult for us as a committee to force Parliament to make any commitment or statement but what would your message be to individual MSPs? What could they do?
They could visit Palestine. They could invite a speaker from the Palestinian Parliament to come here and explain what is happening to their people—that Parliament is the fruit of democratic elections that no one faults. It is possible to invite someone from one Parliament to this Parliament—that is a fairly commonplace activity. Quite rightly, democratic institutions the world over should support each other; therefore, that part of the petition is within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
A friend of mine, the former MSP Lloyd Quinan, visited Palestine while he was an MSP. When he came back, he showed me photographs that he had taken. It shocked me to see bombed-out houses and children without food and medicines. I would certainly be happy to lodge a motion along the lines that you have described, if you would like me to.
Thank you.
I would hope, too, that the Scottish Parliament could invite someone from the Palestinian Parliament to come and address us.
John Home Robertson and Pauline McNeill might well be known to the petitioners—both have undertaken a fair amount of work on the Palestinian situation. I know that they have been involved in arranging for speakers from Palestine to come to the Scottish Parliament.
Numerous petitions have been submitted to the Westminster Parliament. We operate in Scotland—the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign lobbies Scottish educational, trade union and parliamentary institutions. We leave petitions to the Westminster Parliament to people in London and the United Kingdom as a whole to deal with. I know that similar petitions have gone to the UK Parliament, although I am unable to give a detailed report on them.
I feel strongly that if you want the concerns of Scotland to be represented, you should take the issue to Westminster parliamentarians because they can influence decisions on such matters. The Scottish Parliament may or may not be able to exercise influence by expressing the views of individual MSPs, but you will appreciate that because of the settlement on devolved and reserved matters, it is important that people who want to effect real change take their concerns to the place that is able to bring about such change.
Helen Eadie makes a valid point but, on the other hand, politics is often about symbols, which can be very powerful. It is within the power of the Scottish Parliament to adopt a symbolic position of support for human rights: it could congratulate the people of Palestine on their incredible achievement of expressing, under military occupation, their democratic voice, and it could say that it respects that choice and will act on that choice in terms of building Parliament-to-Parliament relations. That would be seen by people throughout the middle east and beyond as the Scottish Parliament taking a stand for human rights.
I agree that symbols are important, and there are certainly moral arguments as to why we should all take various actions. Nevertheless, if you want to effect change where it matters—where decisions are made—you really must take the matter to Westminster. I do not think that it is good enough to say that we should leave it to England, Ireland or other parts of the UK. People in Scotland need to take the matter to where the decisions are made. I feel strongly about that.
I agree.
Good morning. As you have heard from my colleague, the main responsibility seems to rest with our colleagues at Westminster. At the same time, there is—as I am sure the committee will agree—nothing to prevent our inviting someone from the Palestinian Parliament to address the Scottish Parliament. I see in our papers that members of the Palestinian Legislative Council visited the Parliament in 2003 to see how the new Government in Scotland works. I am sure that there is everything to be gained by continuing that link.
The United States has backed the sanctions, Israel enforces them, the European Union has joined the call for sanctions and has implemented them and the World Bank has imposed sanctions. Even Arab banks that want to transfer money that has been raised openly and legitimately to pay the salaries of Palestinian Government officials—including teachers, hospital workers and doctors—are afraid to do so because sanctions are threatened against those banks by the United States.
I quite agree that it is unjust. I cannot understand why a caring world would want to impose draconian measures on individuals, groups and organisations who find life difficult enough already.
There is a tremendous dissonance between official policies and public opinion. People around the world—opinions polls have convinced me that this is true in Scotland and throughout Britain—are deeply apprehensive about what is happening to the Palestinians and about what happened in Lebanon a month or so ago. There is a dangerous lack of overlap between public opinion and official opinion.
I wonder whether I can make a recommendation, convener.
Before you do, I want to make a couple of comments. Although our number is depleted, I doubt very much that the committee members who are not here will disagree with the points that have been made this morning. The committee does not often reach a unanimous decision on a petition; however, when it does, it clearly states its support for it. It might well be no more than a symbolic pronouncement, but we as a committee of the Parliament can say that we support the basis of the petition and agree that the Parliament should send the congratulatory message that you seek.
I agree with almost, but not quite, all your comments, convener. I will not oppose what you have recommended, but I suggest that we also ask the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentary Bureau to consider the petition and to tell us whether they have any plans to invite a speaker from Palestine to the Parliament.
Do members have any other suggestions about how we can support or endorse the petition?
I agree with your suggestions, convener.
We will write to the cross-party group and the Foreign Office and advise them of this morning's deliberations. We will also ask the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentary Bureau whether they intend to give a speaker from Palestine the opportunity that has been afforded to representatives of other Governments across the world to come and talk to Parliament in some capacity.
Thank you very much.
School Clothing Grants (PE999)
Our next new petition is PE999, by Jim Milne, on behalf of the Dundee Anti-Poverty Forum, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the school clothing grant system. Before the petition was lodged formally, it was hosted on the e-petitions system, where it gathered 28 signatures. Jim Milne will make a brief statement to the committee in support of his petition. He is supported by Caroline Morrison.
Actually, Caroline Morrison will present the information.
That is fine.
I will give a brief overview of the current situation in local authorities in Scotland and make some recommendations for the committee to consider. Currently, 75 per cent of Scottish state schools require children and young people to wear a specific uniform. The ideals behind uniforms include engendering a sense of identity and belonging and creating a feeling of equality that masks differences between more affluent students and their less affluent counterparts. However, the purchasing of uniforms can exact a heavy financial toll from those who are least able to afford it.
You have put forward an eminently sensible and positive suggestion for how the matter can be addressed, but there is one issue that I would like to explore a bit with you. It was recently brought to my attention that certain schools encourage parents to go to one supplier. Like you, I thought that that might prevent people on low incomes from obtaining school uniforms from outlets other than the recognised supplier, but I was told that if an individual supplier is identified and all parents are directed to buy from that supplier, the bulk buying of uniforms can bring the cost of supply down and therefore reduce the price that parents have to pay. Is that your experience?
The Office of Fair Trading report stated that when a specific uniform was requested and it was available only from specific retail outlets, parents would generally pay 23 per cent more than they would in other outlets, and up to 150 per cent more than supermarket prices.
It is basically because of the specialist type of uniform that some schools ask parents to supply their kids with. There may be certain colours or certain braiding on the blazer. Such uniforms tend to cost more. If suppliers have a monopoly, although they might make some saving by buying in bulk, that kind of uniform will tend to be more expensive.
I take it that they would also have the school emblem stitched on, which is what would make the uniform specific to that school.
Quite possibly.
I too think that you have brought us a good petition. I was a councillor on Fife Council, so I know about the controversy that school uniform policy can generate among families. We made a change to the rules in Fife because at one stage families were going to the local retailer—I think it was British Home Stores—where a shop assistant would direct all parents with school vouchers to a certain till. Those parents were stigmatised because they had vouchers, so I sympathise with you on that point.
That is not something that we have considered in any detail, although we took the opportunity to read the Office of Fair Trading report and to mention that to the committee in our evidence. I do not know whether some schools would want their uniforms abolished. I tend to think that they would not, but that is another issue. Our petition is really about the criteria, the level of grant and the targeting. Even when there is good practice in a local authority and generous criteria to qualify for generous grants are available, targeting still seems to be a problem.
I commend you on the petition, which is excellent. Did I pick you up right that Falkirk Council runs a voucher system?
Yes. The two options in Falkirk are a clothing voucher scheme or the council issues a crossed cheque, so the recipient must have a bank account.
Is Falkirk the only local authority in Scotland that offers such options?
As far as I am aware, Falkirk is the only one that still operates the voucher system.
What is your preferred option—cash or vouchers?
Issuing cash provides parents with the responsibility to spend it efficiently. They could make maximum use of it by going somewhere where they can get more and cheaper clothing that would do the child over the school year. That is the way in which we would encourage any system to be implemented. Vouchers carry a stigma, they are antiquated and should not be used in a modern society.
Additionally, the voucher system might restrict parents to purchasing school clothing in certain places.
To play devil's advocate, some people will say, "Yes, but would the money really go to pay for the children's uniforms or would it go with the dad down the pub?" Such accusations are made in council circles when cash is proposed rather than vouchers.
It is amazing and unfortunate how rich and poor people always attack the poor. Our line is that people should be given the responsibility to spend their money and benefits in ways that are appropriate for them. We all like a bit of enjoyment in life.
Good morning. Just to clarify: you seek amendments to the way in which the grant is administered. Currently, the local authority is given grant-aided expenditure as a lump sum and decides what allocation it will make to the school clothing grant. Or does it meet the demand as it is presented?
I am not sure of the exact formula for the bulk grant that local authorities receive, but it is meant to be enough to ensure that everyone who is eligible for the grant can receive it, but that is not what happens because, for some reason, people do not apply for the grant. In most local authorities there is a difference between what is available for a primary school child and what is available for a secondary school child—the level tends to increase, except in Edinburgh where it decreases slightly.
Yes. It seems that the debate has concentrated on the blazer. The committee's briefing paper says that the clothing grant is designed to help children participate in their education. If a child has a keen interest in physical education and sports, would an education authority consider grant aid for a pair of new trainers as opposed to a school blazer?
I do not know. It would be the parents' choice when they were purchasing whatever they thought was necessary for the child at that time. Because most of the grant is available at the start of the summer/autumn term and they cannot apply for other support later in the year, it tends to be summer clothing that is purchased, not duffel coats, heavier coats, heavy shoes and that type of thing. In the winter months, when the weather gets a bit more inclement, they will have to find money elsewhere for those things or the kids will go without.
But you agree that it should be a clothing grant rather than a grant to buy a school blazer.
Very much so.
It should not be prescriptive.
No. It should not be £40 for a blazer and £20 for whatever. Parents can be inventive in looking about and getting as much for the money as possible. There has been negative inflation on a lot of school clothing in the supermarkets, for example. Parents can now perhaps eke the money out further to get more than they could in previous circumstances. Nevertheless, the grant is so low that it does not nearly cover the cost of the full uniform and all the sports clothing as well.
Did you say that you would prefer not to have the voucher system?
Yes.
As Helen Eadie said, there is a degree of security in the use of the voucher system, as the voucher can be used only for the purpose for which it was awarded. If cash is awarded, it can be spent in any way the parents like.
The petition asks the review to take account of the level of take-up. If the voucher system is used in Falkirk, it would be interesting to see whether there is a higher level of take-up there than in other areas. You might find that the level of take-up is not much higher.
It is an indictment of politicians and society that we are talking about this in 2006. As you know, we are talking not just about clothes, but about brands and the stigma that children feel for being poor. Unfortunately, children are not slow to identify somebody who is a bit different, which can create problems for a child at school. Thirty or even 40 years ago, when I was at school, children who wore hand-me-downs or clothes that were not quite up to the best standard were identified and got slagged off, maybe even bullied. It is terrible that we still have that problem in 2006.
We priced items at a supermarket and found that the minimum cost for both boys and girls was approximately £50. The maximum grant is £65.
You are talking about the very bare minimum.
Yes, that was a very basic uniform of a jumper, a shirt and a pair of shoes. It did not include winter clothing or anything like that.
I notice that One Parent Families Scotland carried out a survey that found that, since 2000, two local authorities have reduced the grant. Do we know where they are?
I do not know. What seems to happen is that if the grant is not allocated to families, it disappears into the main education budget. I do not know whether that is why some local authorities are quite happy that take-up is low.
I invite members' suggestions on how to take the petition forward.
Given the points that have been raised this morning, perhaps we could invite reaction from the Child Poverty Action Group, One Parent Families Scotland, the Poverty Alliance, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the Scottish Executive. We could get their views on the petition to bring back to the committee.
Most of the Scottish charities you mentioned are aware of the petition and have voiced support for us. We have discussed it in the voluntary sector charitable network.
We are sure that that sort of thing normally happens, but it is useful for us to get the information from the organisations, so that we can discuss the matter later with as much supporting information as possible. Writing to the organisations that Helen Eadie suggested would probably give us the information that we are looking for. That is not to say that you have not given us good information yourself, but it is useful for us to get it from the organisations themselves.
Save the Children would be another good organisation to approach, because it is aware of the petition, too.
That is a good suggestion, which we will take on board. Once we receive those responses, we will provide you with details of them and seek your response to them before we discuss the petition again in due course.
Microchip Implants (PE983)
Our next petition is PE983, by Raymond Bell, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ban the use of microchip implants on young people in Scotland. It would appear that the petitioner has personal experience of an adverse reaction to a microchip implant. We received a very interesting submission from the petitioner. In the light of his experience, we have to consider the petition seriously. We could be found guilty of treating it flippantly if we do not take on board the information that he has given us.
I notice that Mr Bell is going to be viewing the meeting on the internet. He said in his letter:
You are right: we should take this seriously. There is a reference to a nightclub in Barcelona where people are agreeing to have a chip inserted that will allow them into the VIP section of the nightclub. It is absolutely incredible that people are agreeing to be chipped for something so trivial. If I was running a nightclub, I would think that anyone who agreed to that would be too stupid to be in my club. It is a serious point, and we should treat it as such.
I agree. This is a step too far and I do not see any justification for it. There are attachments that can be strapped to an individual's leg or arm to monitor their activities 24 hours a day. It is suggested that this system will be of universal use. I fear for the outcome if we agree to it. Someone might have an implant for medical reasons. That is to be welcomed, because it enhances the life potential of the individual, but this is strictly for surveillance and I cannot support such a suggestion. I am sure that the committee has similar views.
I would like to know whether it is possible for this type of equipment to be used in Scotland and whether anyone would be legally entitled to do here what is being suggested. The issue raises a lot of questions on which we should ask the Scottish Executive to comment. It should let us know whether this technology is possible, what it could be used for and whether there are any programmes into which it would fit. I know that we have had all sorts of accusation about how MI5 can operate recently, but—
That is more to do with a chip on the shoulder than any other kind of chip.
It is worth pursuing the issue seriously, just to clarify whether it is actually possible for the technology to be used here and, if so, in what circumstances.
I think it can be used on animals. There was a BBC news programme about how dogs are being chipped because there have been some really sad cases of celebrities losing their dogs. I just wonder whether it is safe to have such chemicals released into your bloodstream. This is a good petition on which we could seek clarity.
As far as I am aware, chips are used on animals for identification purposes. I do not know how safe they are; I am reading in the papers about chemical leakages and so on. I understand that the implant has to be inserted and administered by a veterinary surgeon, as opposed to a nightclub bouncer. As often happens, there is more regulation for pets than there is for humans. It is a great concern.
I think we should write and ask Health Protection Scotland and the Scottish Executive to give us their comments on the petition and see what responses we get back.
It is nice to know that someone is watching us all the way over in Finland over the internet, convener.
Plants (Complaints) (PE984)
Our next petition is by Dr Colin Watson on behalf of Scothedge, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to provide local authorities with the power to deal with complaints about vigorous growing trees, hedges, vines and other plants. The petitioner considers that legislation is required to protect residents who are facing loss of amenity, devaluation of and damage to their residential property through the improper and unfair deployment and mismanagement of trees, hedges, shrubs, vines and other vigorous growing plants on neighbouring land.
I do not know about other members, but a constant flow of people come to my advice surgeries in my constituency to talk about the issue. I would be pleased if we made progress on the issue, because there is no doubt in my mind that something needs to be done about it. In the interim, so that we know where we are, we should write to Scott Barrie, who has a proposal for a member's bill in the Parliament on the issue. I believe that he is preparing a consultation document. We should also seek information and advice from the Department for Communities and Local Government on how part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which aimed to tackle the problem, is being implemented in England. We have seen photographs of what some people have to tolerate. It is intolerable that we allow that situation.
Does Scott Barrie's proposal include all the hedges, shrubs, vines and other plants that are mentioned in the petition?
I do not know. I do not know what stage his consultation is at, but we should give him feedback on the petition.
There is widespread support for Scott Barrie's proposal.
Yes, but he has not managed to introduce a bill yet. However, if memory serves me correctly, Dave Petrie has lodged amendments to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill to allow local authorities to deal with the issue.
I think that John Home Robertson and Dave Petrie have lodged amendments on that.
On-going consideration of the issue is taking place in the Parliament, either through Scott Barrie's proposed member's bill or proposals to amend the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. We must establish what progress, if any, is being made on the issue so that we can get back to the petitioner with that information and seek their views. Do members agree to do that?
Forth Estuary Ship-to-ship Oil Transfers (PE982)
Our next petition is PE982, by B Linden Jarvis, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the implications of proposed transfers of oil between ships at anchor in the Forth estuary, with a specific focus on the likely impact of such operations on wildlife, tourism and local authority funding of clean-up and on how the Executive may use its powers within the 12-mile tidal limits to protect the local ecology, scenery and environment and areas of special scientific interest and habitats in the estuary. Members will recall considering PE956, by Mary Douglas, which called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the habitats regulations were applied in relation to ship-to-ship oil transfers in Scotland.
The issue has been around for some time. It is about five months since the committee considered PE956. During that time, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has approved the oil-spill contingency plan, which in effect means that ship-to-ship oil transfers could go ahead in the Firth of Forth at any point, should Forth Ports choose to sanction them. Mary Douglas and Linden Jarvis, who has submitted petition PE982, are considerably frustrated that the committee has not received all the evidence that it needs to make progress on the issue. There is a feeling that progress is needed urgently.
I agree entirely with what Mark Ruskell said about the seriousness of the issue. There is no doubt that concern has been expressed by people from around the Forth estuary and beyond and that there is extraordinary support for the views expressed in the petition. Mr Linden Jarvis has given sound reasons for why he feels so strongly that the activity should be directed to Scapa Flow and I support that view. That is what ought to happen.
We need to chase up the responses to PE956 that we sought. We expected to have been able to collate responses before now, but that has not been possible. PE982 provides a timely reminder that we must make progress on the earlier petition. When we receive and circulate the responses, we should include Mr Linden Jarvis, so that we can seek as much feedback as possible and address the issue as quickly as possible.
Can we forward the petitions to the Environment and Rural Development Committee now or in the months ahead?
We cannot do that until we have received the responses. When we have passed a matter on to another committee, it is out of our hands. As we have not yet received the responses, we have nothing to pass on to the Environment and Rural Development Committee. Ultimately I think that we will want to take the matter forward, but we cannot pre-empt the responses of the people whose views we sought or the petitioners' views of those responses. We would be jumping the gun if we forwarded the petition before we concluded our deliberations.
Did you say that we should seek speedy responses from the people who we contacted?
Yes. Are members happy for us to do that, to get things moving?
Statutory Religious Observance in Schools (PE993)
PE993 was lodged by David Walker and calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to remove the statutory requirement on education authorities to provide religious observance in Scottish schools. The petitioner considers that all children should be taught together, irrespective of whether they have religious beliefs. How do members think that we should approach the petition?
The petition is rather broad, because it calls for the removal of the statutory requirement on education authorities to provide religious observance in Scottish schools. "Observance" is different from religious education and I think that there is also a statutory requirement on education authorities to teach religious education.
I think that the petitioner wants that requirement to be removed—that is the point of the petition. We all expressed our personal opinions in relation to the first petition this morning, so we would not be setting any dangerous precedents by stating our personal opinions with regard to this petition. With that in mind, I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the position that Mr Walker takes in this petition. I was educated in a faith school and I saw the value of having my children educated in a faith school. I find it bizarre that people who preach tolerance will not tolerate religious education. However, that is not to say that I would not want to seek the views of various organisations in relation to this petition. I have no problem with that. That would be the fair way to treat this petition, rather than dismissing it because of my personal position.
I agree with you, convener. However, as I said, we have to be clear about the difference between observance and religious instruction.
I absolutely agree with you, convener. I would not want to be obstructive to the petitioner and I think that we should get the views on the petition from the Humanist Society of Scotland, the Scottish Inter Faith Council, Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Scottish Executive. However, my own position is clear. I have a very strong faith. Although I was not taught in a faith school, I feel that faith and spiritual development is important for us all in life.
Is it worth contacting the Educational Institute of Scotland as well?
Why not? I am more than happy to get as wide a view on the petition as possible. I wonder whether we should contact the churches. We probably know where most of them are coming from on this issue, of course, and the Scottish Inter Faith Council would probably be able to give us the churches' position.
I think that we should ask the churches for their views, as the issue affects all faiths. There is the Jewish religion, the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and so on—let us ask them all.
Are members happy that we do that and contact the organisations that have been mentioned?
Next
Current Petitions