Public Petitions Committee, 10 Dec 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 10, 2003

Official Report 290KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Further Education (Management Practices) (PE574)<br />Further Education (Governance and Management) (PE583)

We can take PE574 and PE583 together. PE574 is on the management of Scotland's further education colleges. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to inquire into the governance and management of Scotland's further education colleges and to consider reforming the legislative framework governing further education. PE574 was prompted by specific concerns relating to Central College of Commerce in Glasgow. PE583 was prompted by the petitioner's concern that the predominance of business representation on college boards of management has allowed financial considerations to take precedence over educational priorities, to the detriment of students, local communities, the voluntary sector and the society and the economy in a wider sense.

The previous Public Petitions Committee considered the two petitions jointly at its meeting on 25 March 2003 and agreed to defer further consideration of the petitions until the new session, once the outcome of the Executive's review of governance and accountability in the FE sector could be taken into account. The Executive has now provided an update on the implementation of the review and has stated that it intends to conduct a consultation on the implementation of the proposals, as well as a separate consultation on the proposals that would require legislation. It has committed to review the need for further changes after two years. I invite members' views on that response.

I do not think that the Executive's response is adequate in relation to some of the issues that have been raised. There are broader issues around the independence of the further education sector and the involvement of businesses on college boards. The whole question of the management and public accountability of further education needs to be explored. I am not sure whether we should just keep the situation under review. There are probably political differences on what should happen in the further education sector. Employment relations problems have definitely increased since further education colleges obtained independent status. I do not think that the wider problem will be addressed through the Executive's proposed actions.

What do you recommend that we do?

I think that the petition should be considered by the Education Committee.

The petitioners will have a copy of the Executive's review, which was published in March, but do they have a copy of the Executive's response to us, which was produced less than a month ago?

The petitioners have not been asked for their comments on the Executive's response.

In addition to Carolyn Leckie's comments, it might be worth asking the petitioners the extent to which the Executive's response addresses the issues raised.

We will write to the petitioners and ask them for their views, and will consider the matter again at another time. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Eating Disorders (Treatment) (PE609)

The final petition before us today is PE609, on the specialised treatment of eating disorders. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to address, develop and fund the specialised treatment of eating disorders in Scotland. The previous Public Petitions Committee initially considered the petition on 25 March 2003 and agreed to write to the Scottish Executive, the mental health and well-being support group and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Responses from all three organisations have been circulated to the committee for its consideration.

It was said informally earlier that the length of time that a response has been awaited and the requirement for the Public Petitions Committee to send three letters on the matter are unacceptable. That should be communicated to the Executive.

The issue of specialist services for the treatment of anorexia has not been dealt with by way of resources. It is an abdication of responsibility for the Executive constantly to respond to issues to do with resources and services in the NHS by saying that funding is allocated by health boards, whose responsibility it is to prioritise.

A political question arises over how much emphasis or priority should be placed on addressing particular problems. The Executive needs to be seen to be implementing what ministers say is a priority. If, by their actions, health boards do not look like they are treating those issues as priorities, the Executive must surely have some locus in changing that.

I take your first point. I am more than happy to write to the Executive, pointing out our disquiet at the length of time that has been taken to reply to some of our correspondence. The clerks chase up letters—that is part of the process. However, it is unacceptable that we have to write three times to get a response on a specific issue. I will write on behalf of the committee to make that view known.

It is grist to the mill, in respect of PE682.

As I suggested informally, before the meeting opened, I think that you should raise the matter at the Conveners Group, convener.

I will certainly do that.

I think that we should refer the petition to the Health Committee.

Is everyone happy with passing the information to the Health Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of the business on our agenda this morning—although it is now this afternoon. Thank you very much for your participation, colleagues.

Meeting closed at 12:29.