Official Report 345KB pdf
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
We move on to item 4 on our agenda, which is consideration of 13 current petitions.
I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that we are still in an unsatisfactory place. As Bill Butler will be, I am conscious that aspects of the Coroners and Justice Bill that is before the Westminster Parliament came to our Justice Committee for consideration. I think that that bill will do something to help—providing that it is passed in the form that it was in when it came before us—by making it slightly more difficult for convicted criminals to profit from their memoirs. I am sure that that is a step in the right direction. The sad part, which, as I pointed out at the Justice Committee, does not seem to be being addressed, is that if I were the world's worst criminal—you might decide that I am—although I might not be able to write my memoirs and benefit from that, there is nothing in the present legislation that would prevent my son from writing those memoirs and profiting from them, and I might not necessarily object to that. Even the changes to the law that we are being told about, which may yet happen, do not go far enough—we know that.
I agree. We could write to the Scottish Government about the forthcoming consultation on defamation, asking what specific measures will be included that will be directly relevant to the petition, what the timetable is for the consultation and whether the petitioners will be involved in the preparatory work for it. It is reasonable to ask those questions.
I am aware that the family members are here, and that the petition has been in the system for a long time. We want to get the best possible answers, but we are constrained by our ability to influence the legislative framework at the UK level. We should take Bill Butler's comments on board and raise the matter with the relevant Government minister to see whether we can bring the issue into the discussion on defamation. I hope that we can get support from elsewhere in the UK, too.
I am in complete agreement with everything that has been said so far. We ought to congratulate Mr and Mrs Watson on what they have managed to achieve and the fact that they have persisted with the petition for such a long time. It is not as if they have not got anywhere; what they have achieved is magnificent. Yes, we want to achieve more, but they have taken a huge step forward and should be congratulated.
I have dealt with the family in the past and I know what they have been through. No one would wish that on anyone. They have been committed to getting justice so that other families do not have to face the terrible realities that they have had to face through the conduct of those responsible. We will keep the petition open and try to use our role on the committee to seek a positive conclusion for the campaign that the petition raised.
I see from our notes that Mrs Watson has requested a meeting with the Minister for Housing and Communities.
Yes. I think that the family has met the minister, and that the meeting has been described as a positive development.
Violence against Women (PE1103)
PE1103, by Susan Moffat, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to prioritise the continuing development of strategic work on violence against women by following the three Ps approach of active prevention, adequate provision of quality support services and appropriate and effective legal protection. Mary Scanlon, who has been very patient this afternoon, is keen to speak to the petition.
Thank you, convener and members of the committee, for allowing me to speak to the petition, which is on an issue that I have been concerned about for some time. I have been working on it with John Wilson, and we had a helpful meeting with the minister quite recently.
Are there any immediate comments on those practical issues?
I declare an interest. As Mary Scanlon pointed out, for some time she and I have been working on the issue, particularly where domestic violence is perpetrated by women against men or in same-sex relationships.
Mary Scanlon has made some valid points. There is definitely an issue about female-to-male violence and violence in same-sex relationships. I hope that, if possible, we can develop her concerns. Obviously, we will be guided by what we are allowed to do in the context of the petition, but if possible, I would like to keep the petition open so that we can pursue the issues that she raised.
Is it within our remit to widen the scope of a petition? I take on board Mary Scanlon's points—it is important that we address them—but would it be better for a separate petition to be lodged on general family violence that includes all the specific points that she mentioned, rather than opening a general set of inquiries on the back of PE1103, which we could close today? All the issues that the petition raised are being addressed by the Government.
That is the dilemma for us. Committee members are in no way disinclined to address the points that Mary Scanlon has raised, but we cannot do so through the framework of PE1103 without a response to that effect from the petitioner. It might be worth while identifying who might best raise those points directly by submitting another petition, to which the committee would give a fair hearing. That would allow us to consider the wider issues that such a petition might raise so that we could address in more detail the concerns that Mary Scanlon has highlighted. I know that MSPs cannot lodge petitions, but campaign groups, pressure groups or other individuals who have seen this emerging problem might wish to do so. The new petition could then be hosted on our website, where I am certain it would receive broad support. That might be the best course of action, given that the structure within which we operate does not give us the power to make dramatic changes to the petitioner's intention.
I am sympathetic to the general concerns that Mary Scanlon has raised—who would not be?—but, in light of the convener's guidance, which I am sure is informed by the clerk's advice, I agree that we cannot significantly broaden or change the terms of a petition. The convener's wise words should be acted upon.
Those comments are helpful. Obviously, MSPs may not lodge petitions, but I will ensure that a petition is submitted to the Parliament to highlight the issues that I have raised today. I thank members for their assistance.
We appreciate your contribution. I am conscious that you wanted to put those points on the record, but a new petition might be a better way of amplifying the issues.
Members indicated agreement.
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
PE1124, by Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue Trust, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. The issue has been previously considered both in the Parliament and in this committee.
Obviously, I am new to the committee but, having read the briefing paper and the correspondence, I am not satisfied with the Government's response. I am in favour of inviting the minister to come to answer questions on the issue.
I draw the committee's attention to some of the information that we have received. The Government's response states that
The response from the Scottish Government official is wholly unsatisfactory, as it just repeats that one sentence and does not answer any of the committee's specific queries. On that basis, it would be helpful to us, so that we can come to a reasoned and informed view, to invite the responsible minister to the committee to discuss the matter. If the official had been more specific, perhaps that would not be necessary, but I feel that the response that we got back—not from a minister in the Scottish Government but from this particular official—is bordering on insulting. I do not think that any of us are here to be insulted, do you, convener?
I hope not—I will need to bear that in mind the next time that I am convening a meeting of the committee.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Agricultural Wages Board (PE1139)
PE1139, by John Quigley, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. Given that the Scottish Government has announced that it will retain the board but will not expand its remit at this time, do we want to close the petition? Do members have any comments?
I welcome the Scottish Government's decision to retain the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. There is some disappointment that it did not take the opportunity to widen the board's remit, but I am glad that it has been retained and that it will continue to operate in the areas in which it was originally established to operate. Now that the board is to be retained, I hope that we can get the Government to review its role and remit and expand those so that it can cover workers in related industries throughout Scotland.
I have nothing to add. I echo John Wilson's comments and his disappointment at the non-expansion of the board's remit. I hope for better in future.
I support the suggestion that has been made. For the record, I note that a number of members have been involved with one of the main trade unions that campaigned to retain the board, so that people are aware—just in case there are any conflicts of interest—that members have included in their entries in the register of interests their affiliation with that trade union.
Disabled Parking (PE1149)
PE1149, by Kenny Shand, on behalf of Disability Help Scotland, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow for parking bays for disabled drivers with mobility impairments—for example, outside the individual's home—and for such bays to be legally enforced.
From my experience as a councillor in Dundee, I recognise individuals' disappointment that they cannot have their own space on the road, but the counter-argument is clear: there are not enough parking spaces generally in our conurbations, so it is not really acceptable in the grand scheme of things for someone to have a space that is not on their land but which is private to them. This is one of those compromises in relation to which I think that the Government has probably come up with the right answer. In some places the approach will seem unreasonable, but we need to recognise that there has to be one rule and that this is probably the right one.
Okay. Do members agree to close the petition on those grounds?
Members indicated agreement.
Further Education (Students with Complex Needs) (PE1180)
The next petition is PE1180, from Tom and Josie Wallace, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in achieving further education placements and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up. The petitioners had the opportunity to bring the petition directly before the committee and Alex Fergusson, in his role as the constituency member, has spoken on it at the committee on a number of occasions. We have also had a private briefing on the issue. Alex Fergusson would like to comment on the petition today. After he has done so, we will try to pull together a response.
I am just here to see where your deliberations are leading you on the petition. As you know, I have taken a considerable interest in the petition ever since it was originally sent to the committee. Having spoken to Mr and Mrs Wallace this afternoon, I understand that there are a few questions that are yet to be satisfactorily answered. However, I am not here to say anything today as I have nothing further to add since the last time that I was here. I might have something to say if you decide to close the petition, but I am very happy simply to listen to your deliberations, if I may.
As always, I listen carefully to any representation that you make, Presiding Officer. Hopefully, we can keep the petition open.
The silence in the committee represents the fact that we face a little bit of a structural problem. Clearly, this is one of those petitions that came from an individual case but which recognised that that individual case was only one of many around the country and that there was therefore a general principle that needed to be addressed. At this point, it appears that the individual case is being progressed, which is good. We recognise that there is a general issue, but it is perhaps so general that it is difficult to know quite how to take it forward without going round the houses and discussing the whole thing. I am therefore looking for a bit of help from my colleagues with regard to which bit of the petition we should be progressing. Perhaps the issues have grown so wide that we should be kind of closing the petition, although I do not particularly want to close consideration of the whole issue. Alternatively, perhaps we should try to focus on a particular issue that now appears to be more important than the generality.
I am at a loss to know whom we should go to for answers. It is clear from the Equal Opportunities Committee's inquiry into barriers facing disabled people in education that there is a lack of residential colleges, that further and higher education providers are not well prepared to take disabled students and that support is not consistent across the country. There are many questions that could be asked along those lines. We should perhaps write to the colleges or the Government to ask how many residential places have been created since 2006 and how many more will be made available in the next few years. We should ask how higher and further education providers are preparing for disabled students, because providers are supposed to be proactive rather than to react only when a disabled student comes to them. We should also ask about how consistent provision is across Scotland and whether there is any proof that students with additional support needs are finding the system more accessible.
I do not think that we should close the petition. We were wondering what questions we could ask, but it seems that there are many questions to pose. I think that most if not all of the questions that have arisen should be posed to colleges and the Government, so that we can get information about what is really happening in institutions as well as what the Government thinks is happening.
To what extent are the Government and others aware of the level of compliance with the various pieces of legislation and guidance that currently exist? In the first instance, we should ask the Government and other governmental and non-governmental bodies their views on the extent to which FE and higher education institutions comply with legislation and guidance—and we should ask them how they know.
We could scope the possibilities for setting up a specialised residential college in Scotland. There are residential colleges in England, which I believe are extremely successful. Such a college here could be based on an existing one, but it would have specially designed accommodation and teaching courses. Such facilities would be of considerable benefit. The demand for such a college would probably exceed the Government's expectations. The all-round advantages by way of efficiencies, expertise and quality of education would be enormous.
We are beginning to clarify the issue, and I support what Robin Harper has said. We should now be asking for the relevant statistics. What does the Government know about the number of youngsters with considerable disabilities who need further education? The Government will say that the information is not held centrally and that it is for local authorities to make their own provision. We know that. Having asked that question, we must follow it up by asking whether the Government is bothered that it does not know the answer because only local authorities know it. It bothers us, at any rate, so could the Government find out, please?
I did not put what I said a minute ago exactly as I wished. The Government should scope the potential demand. Not enough people are demanding such facilities, because they are not available—people have the sense not to ask for things that they know are not there; they are put off from demanding it. However, the Government should scope the potential demand, and then it should provide for it.
There is substantial capital investment in new colleges in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. The proposals reflect a different way of designing facilities and services to make them more amenable and accessible to individuals with complex needs. I do not have the answer; I just know that a £350 million investment programme is expected for those colleges, all of which will serve a wide geographical area. We will need to see how that is factored in. I know that Glasgow College of Nautical Studies in my constituency is looking at that issue. Because it is a nautical college, it has always had a residential element. How does it factor that in as part of a wider federation of colleges? If a college is doing residential development anyway, could it factor in two or three units that could be much more adaptable, given the needs that we are talking about?
You are a sensible man, convener; I have always said so.
I know that Rhona Brankin was alluding to the variety of different acts that further education establishments—and any other operational facilities—have to abide by. We need to drill down and ask a series of questions of the Government and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council about how they are addressing the issue.
This is slightly difficult for me, because I was not involved in looking at the petition previously, as I have only just joined the committee. It strikes me that one of the key issues is funding. The fact that a local authority could have two or three young people with immensely complex needs that can be met only by intensive and expensive support systems leads us to look at whether there are different approaches to take. South of the border, funding can follow the individual. That raises issues that are fundamental to how we support young adults who have complex additional support needs, which we need to address.
I have said this before but, as I understand it, educational establishments, as well as public bodies, come under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It might be worth writing to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland to find out how many approaches it has had about access to further and higher education. We need to look at higher education establishments as well as further education colleges in relation to access to opportunities for all students who wish to progress their academic careers. Although I agree with Robin Harper, who talked about residential provision in the further education sector, we should not limit the opportunity for anyone in Scotland who wishes to pursue an academic career at whatever level. We need to ask questions not only of further education principals but of the universities. Some of the brightest brains in academia today have experienced disabilities, and continue to contribute to meaningful debates on a range of issues. We need to broaden the debate.
It appears that members wish to keep the petition open. We will continue to pursue the issues that it raises and our dialogue with the petitioners.
Bone Marrow Services (PE1204)
PE1204, from Jessie Colson, on behalf of the Richard Colson Severe Aplastic Anemia Fund, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to recognise and promote the life-saving impacts that bone marrow testing and donation can have on people with life-threatening illnesses, and to provide adequate funding to the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to support bone marrow services and encourage more donors.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak again on behalf of my constituents. I have spoken to them recently about the petition's progress, and I must convey to the committee the sense of frustration that they feel. They feel that the purpose of the petition seems to have got lost somewhere along the way.
According to the information that the committee has received, the Scottish Government will research the approach that is taken in Germany to increase recruitment to the bone marrow bank. However, we will not get the results of that research until August 2010, which the petitioners may feel is rather a long time from now. Perhaps we could ask the Government to hurry things up; after all, we are talking about another eight months. That seems an unconscionably long time to take over what I cannot believe can be all that complicated a matter. I also note that there is going to be a follow-up meeting in 12 months to explore how effective the proposed measures have been in raising the profile of bone marrow donation and whether anything further is required. It seems that the Government is doing something, but not an awful lot.
I do not think that enough action is being taken. For example, we should ask the Government why the approach between the blood transfusion service and the ANT in England has not been replicated in Scotland.
Although we agree in principle that the Scottish Government is trying to move things forward, the question is about the length of time that it is taking. There is no question but that it has given its support in principle. However, as Rhona Brankin has just pointed out, what action is being taken to hurry things along and find more donors? After all, that is the main objective.
Members have made a number of good suggestions, particularly on research and parallel approaches, that we can pursue. We will keep the petition open for now, but I should say that this is another of those petitions that we have been unable to resolve but are reluctant to close.
Clostridium Difficile (Public Inquiry) (PE1225)
PE1225, from Michelle Stewart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct, with immediate effect, an independent public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the outbreak of Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital so that wider lessons for the whole national health service can be learned. In light of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing's statement last week to Parliament, I suggest that we suspend consideration of the petition until Lord MacLean has concluded his inquiry and announced his recommendations. We can then consider the petition in light of those conclusions. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Biological Data (PE1229)
PE1229, from Craig Macadam, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish integrated local and national structures for collecting, analysing and sharing biological data to inform decision-making processes to benefit biodiversity. Again, we have previously discussed the petition, and I invite members' comments on how we should proceed with it. I note that the Scottish Government science group has invited the petitioner to consider how to use information in environmental statements, which should lead to improvements in this area.
Although it is very kind of the science group to invite the petitioners to discuss the use of environmental statements, it does not answer in any way the petition's call for the Government
Robin Harper's point is reasonable. It is good that the science group is meeting the petitioner but, without rehearsing Robin's point, I agree that we should ask the Government whether it will consider setting up these "local and national structures".
If members are happy to pursue those matters, we will keep the petition open. However, as soon as we get answers to those questions, we will have to consider whether we have reached the end of the road for the petition.
Scottish Class Action Procedure (PE1234)
PE1234, from Peter Brown, on behalf of Leith Links residents association relates to the instigation of a class action procedure or similar in Scots law. Given that the petitioner feels that Lord Gill's review of Scottish civil courts and the favourable reception of its recommendations make the petition redundant, I recommend that we close it.
I agree, because there is nothing else that we can do about it. However, it is worth putting on record that nothing might happen desperately fast. It is not just a matter of the courts saying, "Aye, we'll do that." The Government itself will probably not have to do anything, but the courts are going to have to work out how to deal with the recommendation, and that will not be an overnight decision.
Thanks very much for that. Does the committee recommend closure?
Members indicated agreement.
HM Prison Kilmarnock Contract (Independent Review) (PE1241)
Because of practical considerations, PE1241 has been moved to a meeting in January. The petitioner has been made aware of the fact.
Voluntary Sector Mental Health Services (Funding Framework) (PE1258)
As we have already considered PE1250 with another petition, our final current petition is PE1258, from John Dow, on behalf of TODAY—Together Overcoming Discrimination Against You and Me—which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a fairer funding framework for all local, regional and national charities. I suggest that we suspend consideration of the petition until the Scottish Government has issued its guidance and good-practice materials on the procurement of social care services, which are expected to be published in February. In its response, the Government should specify how the new guidance addresses the issues raised by the petitioner. We are also awaiting the publication of the Local Government and Communities Committee's report on local government finance, which will cover issues of material interest on funding for the third and charitable sectors.
Previous
New Petitions