Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Official Report 529KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Freight Trains (Overnight Running) (PE1273)

---

Rail Noise and Vibration (Larbert) (PE1302)

Item 3 is current petitions, of which there are 12 for us to consider today. The first two—PE1273, on the overnight running of freight trains, and PE1302, on rail noise and vibration in Larbert—will be considered together. Members have a note—paper 3—from the clerk. I invite contributions from members.

There are a couple of points in the letter from Transport Scotland about practical measures that could be taken to mitigate noise. For example, it states:

“The Minister gained assurance from the operator that through educating drivers about braking and accelerating efficiently, adhering to speed limits and monitoring driving technique, the operator would endeavour to minimise noise and vibration. The Minister also obtained agreement from Scottish Power that they would review the potential for stock-piling coal to reduce the number of night time journeys.”

It goes on to say:

“Sixty eight (68) properties neighbouring the new SAK infrastructure have been identified as being eligible for acoustic barriers, and it is expected that installation of the barriers will reduce noise disturbance”.

The petitioners have made a number of points about some of the measures. The trains are now slightly quieter, but some things have not been done. It might be worth our while following up on some of the practical suggestions by asking what progress has been made, given that the letter from Transport Scotland is dated 4 August.

The problem is clearly affecting the quality of life of people who live near the lines, and it is a huge issue for the local community, although I know that there are practical constraints on what rail authorities can do.

I put on record once again that I know about some of the problems that exist for the residents who live by the line—I do not live next to this line, but near a line that is also used by heavy freight trains such as those to which the petitioners refer.

I note from one of the petitioners’ responses that DB Schenker Rail (UK) now operates coal freight trains on Sundays. The committee was advised on a number of occasions by DB Schenker and Network Rail that they would not be able to operate freight trains on Sundays. One of the questions that the petitioners raised when we considered the petition previously was why the companies could not move overnight running of freight—between midnight and 6 o’clock in the morning—to Sundays. We were told constantly by Network Rail and DB Schenker that it was not practical to operate the freight trains on a Sunday because of the maintenance work that would be required on the lines.

15:15

If the petitioners are correct that rail freight of that nature is now running on Sundays, why are the companies still running overnight freight? I assure the committee that I hear the same sort of trains regularly trundling past my door at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning. It would be interesting to find out from Network Rail and DB Schenker whether they are running the trains during the night and on Sundays.

The petitioners have raised the issue of stockpiling coal. A Scottish Power plant is being supplied by the coal, which travels from the west coast to the east coast of Scotland. It would be interesting to find out from Scottish Power whether it still needs the same volume of freight to be transported during the night to supply the power station, and if so, whether it can justify that. That ties into the earlier question of whether the companies are running trains on Sundays. It would be helpful for many residents if they could understand why the trains are continuing to operate.

The other issue, as Neil Bibby indicated, concerns the mitigation measures that we have been promised. It would be interesting to find out whether the mitigation measures have been surveyed, and whether—and when—they will be carried out. We should also ask the local authorities that are involved—Clackmannanshire Council in particular—whether they have discussed the mitigation measures with Network Rail. It was pointed out previously that, along with Network Rail, the local authority would, as sponsor of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill, be responsible for some of the measures. It would be useful to find out whether Clackmannanshire Council has had discussions with residents and planned what mitigation measures will be introduced and when.

Those points are helpful.

The Alloa-Kincardine part of the railway line runs through my constituency to the power station. I am also a councillor for that area until next May, so I have some knowledge of the issue. I was aware of the petition, but it is the first time it has come before me in committee.

I have great sympathy with the petitioners’ situation, which raises several issues. Any sensible company will, for the good of its reputation and its good name, try to mitigate or reduce noise, and try to limit the antisocial hours during which the trains run, but there are two difficulties. The rail line itself was never—I do not know the technical term—fully decommissioned, although it was unused for years.

Many of the people, especially in the Kincardine area, bought houses near what they viewed as being a disused line but—hey, presto!—the line was reinstated, and is now being used regularly right next to their houses, where they thought that trains would never run. I have spoken to several owners, and when they go back to the documents that relate to when they bought their houses, they see that there is no guarantee that trains would not run on the line again.

When the appropriate rules, laws, regulations and statutes were drawn up, no limitation was placed on when the trains could run. In considering the situation, we are doing our best after the event, but there is a lesson for the future: when the contracts, deals and negotiations take place, such things should be taken into account up front.

I am sure that the operator would want to do his or her best, as would Scottish Power, but the power station has a particular demand for coal that must be managed in a reasonably economic fashion by running trains at different hours of the day, and even—as we have heard—on different days.

The two petitions are clearly important, because there is a real issue here about noise and quality of life. Given the whole series of questions that members have raised, I propose that we continue the petitions in line with comments that members have made and the suggestions in the clerk’s paper about the organisations to which we should write. Is it the committee’s unanimous decision that we continue the petitions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gypsy Travellers (Council Tax) (PE1333)

PE1333 concerns disadvantaged Scottish Gypsy Travellers and members of the settled community. Members will have read the clerk’s paper on this petition. Does anyone have any comments?

The petition is interesting because there are clearly a number of anomalies in legislation with regard to substandard housing and caravans being classed as dwellings under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. I also note that as recently as 7 July, Drew Smith MSP asked the Scottish Government about reviewing its Gypsy Traveller site management guidance. The Government responded that, although it was reviewing the guidance,

“An exact date of publication cannot be confirmed”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 August 2011; S4W-1567.]

I am betwixt and between. Should we continue the petition until we find the date of publication or should we close it, given that the Government review that we are waiting for does not actually cover council tax, which is a matter for local authorities? I seek guidance from other members on whether we should wait for the review to be published, or whether the fact that the review does not consider council tax means that it is not worth continuing the petition.

We will hear from other members, but I am interested to hear the committee’s views on the option to refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee. I note that it has closed a petition that we referred to it, so it might well have some space in that respect. Do members have any other views?

I understand why referring the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee might be an option, given its reference to the Scottish Gypsy Travellers; however, as it also mentions members of the settled community, it might fall slightly outwith the Equal Opportunities Committee’s remit. I am also unsure whether the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which is also mentioned as an option, could do anything constructive with it. It might be worth keeping a watching brief until the Government publishes its review, but I acknowledge Sandra White’s point about keeping open the petition, only to close it later on, or just closing it now given the Government’s guarantee that the review is taking place. It is a balancing act, so I am interested to hear the committee’s general view.

The area is very complex. At the moment, Fife is dealing with stopover sites, which have a habit of becoming long-stay sites.

However, I believe that, as Sandra White suggested, we should hold fire. I find the matter to be all very complex. I support the view that Gypsy Travellers should be free to lead their lives, but that doing so should be their responsibility and should come at their own cost—not at a cost to any other community. They should, like everyone else in the country, pay their taxes. I cannot form a judgment just yet on such a tricky issue, so I think that we should wait a bit.

Do you think that we should continue the petition until the Scottish Government publishes the review.

I beg your pardon. Yes, I do.

As well as continuing the petition, could we ask the Government whether it now has an exact date for publication? After all, Drew Smith asked the question on 7 July.

That would be possible.

We do not want to keep the petition open for months and months and give people false hope.

The Scottish Government has indicated that council tax, water service charges and sewerage charges are a matter for other bodies, particularly local authorities. However, given the issues around the council tax and water charges, and given that Scottish Water is effectively a body of the Scottish Government, I find it difficult to understand why the Scottish Government would not take a view, particularly on water charges. That seems to be contradictory. The Government is saying that Gypsy Travellers using caravans on sites will be charged council tax, water charges and so on, but at the same time, caravans are classified as below tolerable standard. If that is the case, why are those charges being imposed on Gypsy Travellers?

As Bill Walker has indicated, some stopover sites become longer term. Such sites do not have services on them, yet charges are made for services. The Government seems to be saying that it is trying to regulate the situation and make it applicable on sites but, on the other hand, it is making charges that seem to bear no relation to the services that are being provided, either by local authorities or by Scottish Water. I seek further clarification from the Government on those issues. We need a clear understanding of what local authorities and Scottish Water are charging for.

Do members agree that we continue the petition and seek further information from the Scottish Government, including Scottish Water?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Saltire (Edinburgh Castle) (PE1352)

PE1352 is on flying a saltire on Edinburgh castle. Members have the note from the clerk, which is paper 5. I invite contributions from members.

I have read the petition and note what Historic Scotland has said about the danger to the castle and tower and so on, and about the flying of the saltire and not the union flag. I absolutely agree that the saltire should fly higher than the union flag. However, I note in paragraph 10 of the clerk’s note that

“The Scottish Government and Historic Scotland both agree that the Castle is a flag flying station”

and that they have

“demonstrated a willingness to search for another suitable location within the Castle”.

I would like to write again to the Scottish Government to ask it where that “suitable location” is within the premises of Edinburgh castle.

I am happy for the committee to write that letter so that we can seek clarification on that point. If there is an agreement to look for an alternative site within the grounds of the castle it would be good if we could find out where that alternative site will be before we decide to close the petition.

I agree with that.

So, does the committee agree that we will continue the petition to seek further information from the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gypsy Traveller Encampments (Guidance) (PE1364)

PE1364 seeks to clarify guidelines on Gypsy Traveller encampments. Members have the note from the clerk, which is paper 6. I invite contributions from members. I understand that Nigel Don, Alex Johnstone and Ken Macintosh wish to contribute.

I am prepared to defer to the petitioners’ constituency member.

15:30

Thank you, convener. Good afternoon, committee members. It is interesting to be here in support of a petition, having spent several years on the other side of the committee table.

The petition derives from a horrifying experience that the petitioner went through on her mother’s property, from which many things have flowed. I am conscious of the fact that you do not want me to rehearse it all—it is in the committee papers. Via a working party that was set up in the previous session of Parliament, the Scottish Government has looked at the way in which local authorities and the police should respond to such situations. The good news is that, although there were plenty of warm words, that has sharpened the pencils and minds of those who are involved. I think that, if similar circumstances were to recur, the public authorities would respond a wee bit better.

The situation has also clarified in the Government’s mind and, therefore, the local authorities’ minds, the fact that we need permanent sites for Gypsy Travellers. I am conscious that the committee dealt with a petition on that issue two petitions back in the agenda. The Government is now absolutely clear that we will not solve the problems that arise from friction between the travelling community and the settled community unless there are adequate sites for Travellers. That is the good news.

As the petitioner points out, however, we still have to get from where we are—which is unsatisfactory—to a satisfactory position. The petitioner feels that two issues need to be addressed. The first is how we deal with and set up sites that, when they are first set up, may not be legal and authorised but which are necessary to get through the current situation. The second issue—which is much higher on Ms McBain’s agenda—is what public authorities should be required to do to help private landowners who find themselves with an encampment that they do not want.

In the first situation, there is a tacit agreement that people can use a field—the landowner allows them to use it and the local authority can cope with it for the time being. The issue still needs to be addressed, but the site is needed. In the second situation, which is the one that I want to emphasise, a private landowner who does not want an encampment and has given no permission for one—fences or whatever may have been removed—finds himself or herself with a group of people simply squatting on their land. It seems to me that, if there is a general duty on local authorities to provide sites, we might ask the Government whether there is a general duty on local authorities to help those who find themselves in that position because the local authorities have not provided sites. That is the help that the petitioner is looking for, for those who find themselves in similar circumstances in the future.

I back everything that Nigel Don has said. The circumstance that led to the petition was quite horrifying and involved property in the Stonehaven area being under siege for a considerable period. At different times, there were encampments on public land in the town and on private land around the town. We are lucky because, at the moment and in recent months, there is not and has not been a further issue to be drawn to the committee’s attention. However, as Nigel Don suggested, that is perhaps due to more vociferous pursuit of local authorities and police, in some cases, taking responsibility, and by action that has been taken by local authorities and private landowners to introduce physical measures that make it more difficult for the sites to be accessed.

When the problem occurred, there was a failure to recognise the appropriate action that should have been taken, other than the council’s action in having court orders placed on its own land to have Travellers removed from sites in the town. Beyond that—in the eyes of the public, at least—there was confusion over rights and responsibilities in respect of whose duty it was to take relevant action and what relevant action could be taken. That is a significant part of what prompted Phyllis McBain to lodge her petition asking for the guidelines relating to trespass and encampments for Gypsy Travellers to be clarified to ensure that their intent is clear and that they are applied.

The fact that conflict, which originally motivated the petition, is not currently taking place in the area is a matter of luck as much as judgment. Should it happen again, we will require clear guidelines as much as we ever did.

I want clarification on one of the issues that has been raised. Nigel Don or others can respond. We talk about seeking more robust guidance from the Scottish Government. The papers mention that guidance will be updated, but that this will be done on a website. Will that be enough? Should there be more guidance about meeting people and promoting the law on the matter?

My instinct is that the people who need to know about the guidance will find the website and will know that it is there. The guidance is for public authorities, police and local authorities or others who deal with the Traveller community. These people know who they are and know where to look. That is not really a problem. I accept that the guidance may not be totally available to the general public, who might struggle to find it, but it is not really for the general public; it is for those who have a duty to do something.

I have expressed the view that I have a great deal of sympathy for those who work in local authorities and in the police force when faced with these difficult circumstances. I understand why, quite often, what would be the appropriate line according to the law is not taken because of fears of accusations that may be made. I wish to see clear guidelines—as much for the benefit of those on the front line of the local authority or the police force as for the communities that suffer this imposition—so that we know where the line lies and what action is appropriate. When this situation arose, a great many people were afraid to act because they did not know what the guidelines said.

I am familiar with the petition and the wider issue from a local authority perspective. My council ward is frequently visited by unauthorised encampments and the Clinterty site, the official halting site for travellers in Aberdeen, is on the border of my ward. Nigel Don raises the correct point that halting sites are required across Scotland: the difficulty is that everyone agrees that they are a great idea as long as they are put somewhere else. That is a difficulty with which local authorities must wrestle.

Regarding what the petitioner is looking for, one of the sites that is frequently visited in my area is one with a small access road dividing public authority land and privately owned land. Very often, the encampment is sprawled across both sites and it is not always clear who has the lead in dealing with the unauthorised encampment. Also, the judicial process moves at two different speeds for the different sides of the road, which can be confusing. Perhaps there can be clarification of guidance as it relates to private land ownership, so that if an eviction is required in circumstances such as I have described, it can be pursued on a joint basis rather than two different eviction approaches being made. That would be beneficial. Clearing up the guidance as it pertains to individual private landowners would be helpful and we should write to the Government on that.

I have some experience of this in Fife, as I mentioned during discussion of an earlier petition. We need more than guidelines. The problem is that guidelines are only guidelines—an idea that we hear a lot in local government. Local authorities think that because there are only guidelines they can do their own thing. To an extent that is probably right, so we need something stronger than guidelines. We had a workshop on the subject last year in Fife. The conclusion was that the police and the council did not know quite what to do at certain times and so it was decided to petition—or perhaps I should use the word “ask”—the Scottish Government for clearer law. We used the word “law” rather than guidelines.

To me, guidelines are not strong enough. We need guidelines for where Gypsy Travellers can legitimately stay, but we need laws to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination against them if they are obeying the law like every other citizen.

In my opinion, we have to get away from the sort of thing in paragraph 3 of the Government’s guidelines, which states:

“Policies should seek to manage unauthorised encampments”.

If they are unauthorised encampments, what authority do we have to manage them and how will we manage them? The situation is a mess. There should be a firm law, because the guidelines are just not strong enough.

We have seen examples south of the border of unauthorised encampments, and legal debates are taking place on that as we speak. I am aware that Nigel Don and—I think—Alex Johnstone were involved in a working group that discussed the issues that we are considering for this petition. Is that correct?

I was in such a group.

I directed that question to Nigel Don because there is clearly a need for more official sites in the Angus and Aberdeenshire areas. Six years ago, my local authority had an official Gypsy Traveller site less than a mile from my home. The council closed it down and put the land on the open market after spending lots of Government money preparing the site and making it ready for Gypsy Travellers to use.

What discussions took place with Gypsy Travellers in Angus and Aberdeenshire about the creation of official sites? I am well aware of the issues that have been raised by the petition previously, but the issue for us today is to discuss how the petition is being progressed and whether progress is being made to identify enough official sites that Gypsy Travellers can utilise in their travels around Scotland, or whether we have a continuing problem in that—as Alex Johnstone indicated—private landowners are imposed on because the regulations or guidelines are not strong enough to deal with the situation when Gypsy Travellers move on to private land, which means that the private owners do not have recourse to the appropriate statutory agencies to take the action that is required to remove the Gypsy Travellers from the land.

I am conscious of the time, so if no other member wishes to contribute, we will move on. I think that we have had a good discussion about the petition and it is clear that we wish to continue to seek answers from the Scottish Government. The clerk has given us some suggestions for the way forward, and we will pick up on helpful suggestions from committee members, and from Alex Johnstone and Nigel Don. Do we agree to continue the petition and to try to get some crucial answers to the questions?

Members indicated agreement.

Can I just try to answer John Wilson’s question briefly? We did not have particular discussions with the travelling community in the context of renewing the guidelines. That was partly because it is immensely difficult to communicate with those different communities, because they are actually families and not just a group of travellers.

I reiterate that getting enough sites is very difficult. As Mark McDonald rightly pointed out, everybody thinks that they are a good idea, but nobody wants them close by themselves. We are in a situation where there are going to be unauthorised encampments. On Bill Walker’s point in that regard, it would be nice not to have unauthorised encampments, but we must recognise that we will continue to have them because there are not enough authorised ones. We must work from where we are to get to where we want to go, but that will take time.

Thank you for that helpful contribution. I thank the earlier speakers, too.

---

Mosquito Devices (PE1367)

PE1367 seeks to ban Mosquito devices. Members have the note by the clerk, which is paper 7. I invite contributions from members. As members will have noted from the briefing, the petition came originally from Andrew Deans, from the Scottish Youth Parliament.

15:45

I took a great interest in this petition. There is an area in Glasgow where the Mosquito device is actually used. I find the use of the device ridiculous and discriminatory and I agree with what Fergus Ewing said—the device basically should not exist. Unfortunately, this is a UK-wide issue. I have read the letters of response from the Scottish Youth Parliament members. We should write again to the various organisations that did not reply to the first tranche of letters. We should also write to the manufacturer of the device, which did not write back either.

We should continue the petition until we get further evidence and we should perhaps write to the minister, too. I think that Scottish Government officials met Westminster officials on 2 August and we are waiting for an update on that. I would like to hear exactly what happened with that meeting.

I agree with the points that Sandra White made. The vast majority of our young people are a credit to their community. Such devices do not differentiate between the 90-odd per cent of well-behaved youngsters and the very small minority of badly behaved ones. We should continue the petition, because the use of Mosquito devices is discriminatory. I should declare an interest by saying that I am not that much older than 25 and I remember not so long ago not being able to access shops without hearing the noise from Mosquitos in certain areas. We should certainly make representations.

The devices are designed to be heard only by those under 25, but I am 31 and I still hear them when they are being used on private houses.

You must be a late developer.

Absolutely. It makes me feel young.

It would be worth keeping the petition open and seeking the further information that was referred to earlier. I have long had a concern about these devices. Neil Bibby quite rightly pointed out their indiscriminate nature. They are available for private householders to purchase with no form of regulation whatever. There is a real question about their impact on very young children who might be exposed to them daily. We need to continue to probe all those concerns.

I agree with much of what has been said. With respect, it has nothing to do with discrimination—the devices are just dangerous, depending on the age of development of the human being. I would not follow the discrimination angle. I just do not like them at all.

John Brownlie of the community safety unit has identified agencies that have not yet responded. It would make sense for us to get in touch with them, particularly Compound Security Systems Ltd, which manufactures the devices. It would be quite useful to hear from it. It is unfortunate that it has not been in touch.

If the manufacturer does not give us a written response, can we call it to come to give evidence to the committee, rather than wait for a written reply that might never come?

The clerk advises me that we are of course within our rights to invite the manufacturer to give evidence to the committee. If members agree, we will undertake that.

I suggest that we invite the manufacturer to give us a written response but make the point in our letter that the committee is considering calling it if we do not receive a response.

We are seeking a written response from the manufacturer. If it is unable to come up with that, we will ask it to attend a future committee meeting.

It is not always the manufacturers that distribute the device. If we are writing to the manufacturers, we might also write to the distributors. As we know from the evidence that is before us, the devices are made in several countries, probably under a different licence in each country, and they will be purchased and brought into the UK and Scotland through some kind of trading agreement. It might therefore be worth while extending our inquiries to ask distributors of the device in the UK for their views.

We will ask the clerks to explore that and get that information.

As there are no further comments, we will continue the petition and seek further information, particularly from the groups that have not responded so far. We particularly want to get a report from the manufacturers and distributors, and if they cannot provide that material, we will ask them to come before the committee.

I think that they have already been asked for evidence and they have not provided it.

Yes. We also want the clerks to pursue the issue with the Scottish Government. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Leisure and Cultural Facilities (Young People) (PE1369)

PE1369 is about having regard to young people when considering changes to leisure and cultural facilities. Members have the paper from the clerk, which is paper 8. I invite contributions.

I would like to continue the petition. It is based in a particular area in Ayrshire, but it has an effect on all young people. Paragraph 13 of the clerk’s paper says that the Scottish Government

“expects to undertake further consultation later in the year before making Regulations”

to impose new public sector duties. We could write to the Government to ask exactly when those regulations are expected to be published.

Do members agree with that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

We will continue the petition and once we have the information about the Scottish Government’s further consultation, we can examine the issue again. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that I will have to go a little bit slower. There are a lot of petitions to get through and members might be struggling to keep up.

---

Free Methanol (Ban) (PE1376)

PE1376 seeks to ban free methanol from all manufactured products in our diet. Members have the clerk’s note, which is paper 9. I invite contributions.

I refer members to the further submission that has come from the petitioners.

I note the petitioners’ desire for the petition to be referred to the Health and Sport Committee, but I wonder whether we should do that before the Food Standards Agency Scotland report comes back. I am not sure what the committee thinks of that, but perhaps we ought to await that report before we decide to pass the petition to the Health and Sport Committee. Following the FSAS report, we might not have any reason to pass on the petition. Equally, we might have reason to do so, but I would rather have that clarity before we take any decision. I do not think that it would hurt to wait for the FSAS response.

I understand from the clerk that we do not have a timescale for the research but we can certainly find that out for committee members, if they agree. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Hospital Education (PE1381)

PE1381 is on education provision for children and young people who are absent from school because of illness. Members have a note from the clerk, which is paper 10. I understand that Ken Macintosh has a particular interest in the petition—perhaps he can give us his views on it.

Thank you, convener, and thanks to members for allowing me to join them. The committee has a particularly busy and varied agenda.

I have some knowledge of the work of Action for Sick Children (Scotland), which lodged the petition. It is an excellent group of individuals who raise a number of issues about children’s welfare, not only their education. I have a particular constituency interest and constituency experience of a couple of cases in which children have perhaps not received the level of educational support on entering hospital that they might have expected and which we might have expected them to receive.

I thank the committee for the work that it has done on the petition. The response that the Government has given to the committee is summarised in paragraph 12 of the note from the clerk. It states:

“In conclusion, the Scottish Government stated that it was content that there was a clear framework of legislation, policy and guidance in place which protected the education of children and young people absent from school through ill-health.”

That legislation and statutory framework may be in place, but the reality is that that is not what children are experiencing. Across Scotland, the picture varies hugely from local authority to local authority and from hospital to hospital. Some hospitals employ their own tutors directly, while others have a commissioning arrangement. In some cases, as in my own authority, the situation has changed and it is up to the pupil’s school to meet their educational needs.

The best comparison for committee members is to think of these children as having additional support needs. The difficulties that they face are similar to those that I am sure many of you have come across in your constituency casework, where the needs of the children are not being met at all and where, in fact, the families end up in a battle with either the hospital or the local authority.

I remind members that these families and children are usually battling with a very serious illness—sometimes a chronic or long-term condition—so they are extremely worried and vulnerable. On top of that, for the child to fall behind in their school work and fall behind their peers adds to their ill-health and certainly does not improve their welfare.

I recommend option 1 in the note from the clerk, but I suggest that the committee also ask for some sort of assessment. The Government says that it does not monitor the situation, but perhaps the committee could ask the Government whether it is willing to assess the current state of provision. Unless we agree and accept that there is a problem, it is difficult to address it.

I refer members to an additional paper from Andrea Auld, who has already contacted me. She resides in the Highlands and Islands and I have spoken to her. I have yet to follow up that contact, but I am pleased that she has sent the e-mail to the committee. Members can read it, but I will quote the last couple of sentences. It states:

“Our whole family has also endured unnecessary levels of stress as a result. Clearly the current system needs to be revised as the framework of legislation and guidance, together with GIRFEC”—

getting it right for every child—

“is not working for children in the Highlands who are absent from school through ill-health.”

There is a longer story, which I unfortunately do not have time to inform the committee about, but I want to flag up the letter.

I have just read Andrea Auld’s letter. I did not realise that getting education in such circumstances is basically a lottery.

Ken Macintosh mentioned paragraph 12 of the clerk’s paper. Andrea Auld perhaps covers the matter in her letter. Paragraph 12 also states that individuals can make reference to Scottish ministers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 if an education authority is failing to discharge its duties. Is there any evidence of anyone doing that? I thought that Ken Macintosh might know the answer to that question.

16:00

We should ask the Government how often the provision has been used, although I know from our work on what became the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 in the previous parliamentary session and from work before then that it is never used. One case might have arisen, but I am not sure whether it was concluded. The power exists in theory but is never or very rarely used in practice.

We must find out how much of the lack of attention to sick children is just in the system—I do not want to say that it is because people do not care, but they are certainly not attending to their duties properly—and how much of it relates to local authorities saying that they do not have the money for some reason, which goes back to our old familiar phrase, “If we had the money.” I would like to continue the petition and ask about those issues, because such situations are a human tragedy.

Andrea Auld’s letter is enlightening and backs up Ken Macintosh’s point that no one can use the legislation if they are not aware of it. Do local authorities make individuals and families aware that they can use a legislative process to hold education authorities to account? It is clear from Andrea Auld’s submission that it took her nine months of perseverance to get to the root of how she could challenge her local authority. If many parents and children out there are not made aware that they can appeal a local authority’s decision, we will find little evidence that people have used the process.

I follow up Ken Macintosh’s comments by suggesting that we write to ask the Government what advice local authorities generally make available to parents and children who are in such a situation. Is any literature issued to parents or schools about local authorities’ duty to provide home education to children who are on long-term sick leave from their education provision? Unless people are aware of the duty on local authorities, they will not make a challenge. People need to be made aware of their right in the first place.

The petition highlights an important issue. The most worrying part of Andrea Auld’s letter is that the education manager said that

“interpretation of the legislation varies between authorities.”

I understand entirely that different authorities will always interpret various acts differently—that is the spice of life—but perhaps more cast-iron guidelines need to be in place on such a serious matter, so that local authorities cannot exploit interpretations or loopholes and leave children at a disadvantage as a result. We need to write to the Government and to consider whether stronger guidance for local authorities is needed to ensure that different interpretations are not used as an excuse.

That is a good point. It is easy for different local authorities to have different versions of provision. Sometimes, guidance provides greater clarity, but authorities always argue that guidance is not the law. My experience is that many such disputes go to court, when sheriffs rule on individual interpretations. However, Mark McDonald is right that we need further clarity.

Do other members wish to contribute? If not, do members agree—I am sorry; John Wilson wishes to speak.

I crave your indulgence, convener. Could we write to ask a sample of local authorities what guidance or literature they have on the issue and what advice they give parents about requests for home education of children who are off school on long-term sick leave?

A sample of one authority from each region with a variety of urban and rural authorities would help, as would information from an islands council—I will not forget that.

Do we agree to continue the petition in line with the clerk’s proposal, to pick up the points that members including Ken Macintosh have made and to follow John Wilson’s suggestion of a sample? That is a useful way of seeing the state of play in relation to legislation.

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Ken Macintosh again for coming to the meeting, although he is staying with us for the next petition.

---

Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)

PE1384 is on speech and language therapy provision. Members have paper 11 from the clerk, which is on the petition. With members’ indulgence, I will let Ken Macintosh in first.

I want to clarify who is most at risk if we allow speech and language therapy to decline or services not to be delivered, as we fear is currently happening. Speech and language therapy is needed by a range of people in our community, from adults who have had a stroke to children with multiple additional needs. It is predominantly a very vulnerable group of individuals, and the people in it predominantly come from socially deprived communities. We are talking about a particularly vulnerable group.

Kim Hartley of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, who is in the public gallery, lodged the petition because the services are being cut in a number of ways. Posts are being frozen and significantly downgraded, and services are often moved to be provided by non-qualified rather than qualified staff. It has emerged in the responses that the committee has received that the problem is hidden because the data collection is poor. Revealing the extent of the problem is therefore difficult. Where there is information, it often describes the level of service provision rather than the level of need, which is unmet in many cases.

On the legislative background, there are few targets and few statutory obligations; rather, we rely on guidance. The people concerned have communication difficulties and therefore have difficulties in accessing that guidance, never mind with asserting their rights.

I want to draw members’ attention to a particularly worrying paragraph in the Government’s response to the petition, to which the RCSLT has responded under the section in its submission entitled “B: Reference to ASL Act”. The Government said:

“Education authorities can request help from other agencies”.

It listed many circumstances in which that might be accepted, and concluded by saying:

“the system is realistic in its expectation of services.”

The Government implied that there should be services in many cases and there is guidance, but that guidance is pretty weak and there are many opt-outs. That is a worrying point for it to raise.

There are a number of options for the committee in the briefing paper. The second suggestion in the first option is that the Scottish Government could be asked to

“obtain information ... on the frequency of the use of ‘specific circumstances exceptions’”.

I draw members’ attention to that suggestion in particular, but recommend that the committee follow the first option.

I have personal experience of and interest in the issue. Ken Macintosh has rightly highlighted the fact that many groups have an interest in speech and language therapy. Obviously, the longer that people have to wait for a speech and language therapy appointment—whether they are stroke victims or children—the more hampered their recovery or development, depending on how we want to define it, will be.

I do not have an issue with pursuing the first option in the briefing paper, but that would mean writing to the Government to get it to write to national health service boards, and I wonder whether we should simply go directly to those boards. We could approach the Government on some of the points, but I wonder whether we should go directly to the boards for information from them.

The clerk advises me that that is purely a resource issue. Only a small number of staff service the committee, and it is obviously easier if they simply write directly to the Scottish Government, which has 5,000 or 6,000 civil servants, so that it can chase its own health boards. That is a practical point. It does not alter what you are saying, which is correct. We need to get information from the health boards; the issue is the mechanism by which we get it.

I would not seek to override the clerks, so I will row back from that suggestion.

You should not override the clerks, particularly in your first meeting. That would not be a good career move.

Doing that is probably ill advised.

I want to add to Mark McDonald’s point. The petition calls on the Government to demonstrate its policies. I think that we accept that boards’ approaches vary. The petitioner is specifically trying to see whether the Government rather than just the health boards can accept its part in that.

I am happy for the committee to write to the Government on the issues; I simply thought that we should go directly to the NHS boards for specific information. However, I take on board all the points that have been made.

Do members agree that we should continue the petition in line with the clerk’s first option in the briefing paper, which involves writing to the Scottish Government about a number of points, and that we should write to it about the other points that have been picked up in the debate? We can consider the petition again when we get information back. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Ken Macintosh again.

---

Asthma (Children) (PE1385)

PE1385 seeks to improve the lives of children with asthma. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 12.

I understand from the clerk that the petitioner is happy for us to close the petition. Paragraph 12 of our paper states:

“The Scottish Parliament has not undertaken any action on the specific topic of this petition.”

Do members agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the mutual benefit of working together has been recognised, that agreement has been reached on a way forward, and that the Scottish Government and Asthma UK Scotland should now work together to progress the issues?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Inshore Fisheries (Management) (PE1386)

Our final petition is PE1386, which seeks the establishment of further static-gear-only inshore fisheries. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 13.

I see from the note that Rhoda Grant and Nigel Don gave evidence to the previous committee, which John Wilson will recall. Both members were enthusiastic about the matter being referred to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee. I am not sure whether circumstances have changed much since then, so it appears to me that referring the petition to that committee’s successor committee might be a fairly reasonable way forward, if members agree to that. Do members agree that we should refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Under rule 15.6.2 of the standing orders, we will refer the petition to another committee of the Parliament. The subject committee is the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.

I formally close the meeting, but ask members to stay behind to sort out administrative issues that need to be sorted out before the next meeting.

Meeting closed at 16:13.