Current Petitions
Gaelic Education (PE385)
The first current petition with which we have to deal is PE385, from Fiona Henderson, on the recognition of Gaelic and the accessibility of Gaelic-medium education. We dealt with PE385 at our meeting on 11 September and agreed to raise with the Scottish Executive the general policy issues and to raise with the City of Edinburgh Council issues relating directly to it.
We have received detailed replies. The Scottish Executive informs us that it has spent just under £3 million this year on the provision of Gaelic-medium education and that £300,000 has been set aside for Gaelic-medium pre-school education. Under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, local authorities are required to lay out their plans for Gaelic-medium education in their annual statement. The Executive's position is that Gaelic-medium education is the responsibility of education authorities under the education legislation and is demand led, but that that has to be balanced by the educational and economic viability of each educational unit.
The City of Edinburgh Council has responded with details of the Gaelic-medium service that it provides, particularly in the Gaelic unit in Tollcross Primary School, which has 63 pupils in four classes. A recent report by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools said that pupils in the Gaelic-medium classes have a high standard of attainment.
To summarise, the Scottish Executive's view is that education authorities should make arrangements for Gaelic-medium education where demand exists and that the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 requires local authorities to state how they will provide for Gaelic-medium education. The Executive points out that two similar petitions were considered as part of the discussion that led to the passage of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. The City of Edinburgh Council has stated that its provision of Gaelic-medium education at Tollcross Primary School is open to any pupil in the authority's area and that it is therefore socially inclusive.
The petitioner does not accept either of those views. She feels strongly that Gaelic-medium education should be provided on a different basis and that the provision of the service should be regulated centrally, presumably by the Executive, and that it should not be left to each education authority to determine the level of provision. She is of the view that the service that is provided in Edinburgh at Tollcross Primary School is unsatisfactory.
We have two options. Either we can pass the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee if it agrees that further consideration should be given to the issues in the petition, although it has already considered two similar petitions, or we can take no further action in view of the fact that similar issues have already been raised and the Executive has taken forward a positive policy initiative in supporting the provision of Gaelic-medium education where suitable demand exists.
I am open to suggestions on which of those two lines we should take. In my view, the Executive and City of Edinburgh Council have responded fairly positively. I do not see that much more can be asked.
I agree with much of what you have said. The responses have been well researched. Improvements have taken place in the provision of Gaelic-medium education. There seems to be quite a development. As you say, considerable effort and research has been done on the issue in the past few months. For my part, I think that we should be satisfied with the responses that have been presented to us.
Does the committee agree to take no further action other than to write to the petitioner enclosing the replies from City of Edinburgh Council and the Executive and saying that the committee is satisfied with those responses?
Members indicated agreement.
Wildlife Legislation (PE387)
Petition PE387 comes from Mr Stuart Housden on behalf of RSPB Scotland. At our meeting on 11 September, we agreed to copy the petition to the Scottish Executive. After the Executive replied, we agreed to request further clarification of the types of policies, measures and incentives that the Executive had in mind for implementation of the proposals set out in "The Nature of Scotland".
We have now received the response from the Scottish Executive, which states:
"increased resources have been made available to improve the management of SSSIs … The Executive has also established an Expert Working Group, involving land managers, conservationists and representatives of NDPBs to work up the details of the proposals contained in ‘The Nature of Scotland'."
Most important, the letter states:
"the Executive now intends to come forward with legislative proposals at an early opportunity and a draft Bill will be published as soon as possible."
As the Executive's move to introduce appropriate legislation appears to meet the petitioner's objectives, it is suggested that the committee agree that a copy of the response be sent to the petitioner and, for information only, to the Transport and the Environment Committee, and that we should take no further action. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition is a success, in fact.
Employment of Teachers (Religious Discrimination) (PE269)
At the beginning of today's meeting, two further current petitions were handed out to members. At our previous meeting, on 6 November, we highlighted the Executive's failure to respond to petition PE269, which requests the repeal of sections of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 that deal with religious beliefs and the employment of teachers. We agreed that I would write to the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs to highlight our concern about the unacceptable delay in the Executive's response. We have now received the response, copies of which have been attached. The minister will write to me separately about the delay in issuing the response.
As the petition raises important issues, I am reluctant to deal with it today. I suggest that we perhaps take the petition away for consideration and bring it back to the next meeting. I know that members who are not present may have views on it and I do not want to rush into any precipitate decision. Also, the petitioner will be interested in our response to the Executive's response. Is it agreed that we consider the petition at our next meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Water Authority (PE411)
We have also received a response to PE411, which was considered at our meeting of 6 November. The petition calls on the Parliament to examine the case for the establishment of a mutually owned and managed Scottish water authority. The Executive has responded very quickly. The response makes clear:
"The Executive has rejected the option of mutualising Scottish Water in the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill."
An annexe from the bill's policy memorandum, which explains the Executive's position, is also contained.
Although we may or may not agree with the Executive's position, the important point is that the bill will shortly be considered by the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is suggested that the petition and the Executive's response be referred to that committee with the recommendation that they be taken into account at stage 2 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill.
I declare an interest: I am a member of, and am sponsored by, the Co-operative party. I am disappointed that the Scottish Executive has responded in this way, but I agree with your proposed course of action.
Is that agreed then?
Members indicated agreement.
Post-mortem Organ Removal (PE406)
At our previous meeting, we received a petition from Margaret Doig in Dundee about the issue of post mortem without the consent of the deceased. Ms Doig has written to us saying that the Official Report does not represent her true position, which the committee had misinterpreted, and that she would like the record to be set straight. She points out that her petition is primarily about post mortem without the consent of the deceased; that she is not aware that individuals have no rights on post mortem and organ removal and that she has not expressed that as a concern of hers; and that she has not said that nobody can represent the wishes of the deceased. Her contention is that executors can represent their wishes; her concern is that executors will not be consulted. That is why she asked the Parliament to amend the necessary legislation.
We will copy Mrs Doig's letter to the Executive, to be taken into account as part of its response to the petition. That will ensure that it is clear about her position. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.