Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Official Report 597KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Hospital Education (PE1381)

Item 2 is consideration of eight new petitions. As this will be the last meeting at which new petitions will be considered, the committee has agreed not to take oral evidence in order to get as many new petitions as possible on to the agenda.

PE1381, by Gwen Garner on behalf of Action for Sick Children (Scotland), is on education provision for children and young people absent from school because of illness. Do members have any suggestions on how to proceed with this petition?

We should continue our consideration of the petition and write to the Scottish Government, asking for its response to the petitioner’s points and whether it will act on her request. We could also ask the Government about variations in the practices of education authorities in delivering education to sick children after five days, or sooner when it is known in advance that the length of their absence is likely to be longer than five days; whether it is concerned about those variations; about the measures that it will take, the recommendations that it will make and with whom it will address these issues; and about its response to the seven questions set out in section 5 of the petition. That would be a good start.

Does the committee agree?

I wonder whether we can break the cycle of sending and receiving letter after letter by saying in our initial letter to the Government that we simply want to sort this matter out and that, if we have not asked a question about something that needs to be sorted out, it should just sort it out instead of simply continuing the cycle of letters because we did not ask the right question.

Taking a bit of a liberty as committee convener, I should say that, having had a daughter who many years ago had many hospital stays, I am well aware that the issue has needed to be sorted out for a long time now.

Given that, depending on when the calculations are made, school absences can lead to problems in teaching time and school rolls, I suggest that we seek the Educational Institute of Scotland’s views on how we might move things forward.

So we agree to continue the petition. Thank you.

---

Schools Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 (PE1382)

PE1382 by Laurence Slavin seeks to review and strengthen the Schools Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 and accompanying guidance. We have been joined by Jackie Baillie and Trish Godman and I ask them both to say a few words before we consider how to take the petition forward.

I do not think that Trish Godman is here for this petition, convener.

Sorry, Trish—you are here for the petition on deep vein thrombosis. You can join in, though, if you like.

I think that she will be mightily relieved that she does not need to do so.

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak to this petition. I realise that you have already had a long meeting, so I will attempt the impossible and try to be brief. The petition has been submitted by a constituent of mine, Laurence Slavin, and the context is, of course, the proposal for school closures in Argyll and Bute. I know that the committee is not able to interfere in the actions of a particular local authority, but the case serves as a useful illustration of the need to strengthen the 2010 act.

At the heart of the petition is the need to provide local people with safeguards to make the process open and transparent and—surprisingly—to ensure that the legislation, which already places statutory requirements on local authorities, is followed. Let me give you a flavour of the concerns that have been raised, so that you understand why the petitioner is asking for these changes in principle.

For a start, the population projections for the pupil community looked ahead only one year, which does not strike me as showing much foresight, and covered all children from four to 18, even though the closure proposals affected only primary schools. Why teenage pupils were included in the calculations was beyond us. Moreover, despite our having told them several times, in the press and elsewhere, the council missed the huge population increase that will happen at Her Majesty’s naval base Clyde at Faslane. Although we know that at least 1,000 new employees, many with families with school-age children, are about to move into the area, it has chosen to ignore that.

16:30

In the capacity calculations, school corridors are included as teaching space. As the convener was formerly a teacher she will appreciate the challenge of teaching in a corridor and will know that they should not be included in capacity calculations. Travel routes were not timed and specified. The fourth error, absurd though it may seem, is that it will cost the council more to close one school than it would to keep it open. Finally, the two most significant errors are that the council completely failed to deal with the requirements of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, because there was no community impact assessment and there was no consideration of alternative options.

The petition sensibly asks for an independent verification process so that councils should not be able to submit flawed proposals based on assertions rather than fact, for a strengthened right of appeal and for a legislative requirement to provide information, because, although Argyll and Bute Council has withdrawn its proposals, it will come back with more and it has refused all freedom of information requests, which means that the community is blindfolded and unable to challenge the proposals with detailed information. I do not want to put words in the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning’s mouth, but it would appear from a debate held a few weeks ago that he might be willing to consider some of the suggestions in the petition.

Whatever the case may be, I am clear, given the experience in Argyll and Bute, that across Scotland we need a clear, robust framework with clear standards that local authorities require to meet for the provision of information if they are going legitimately to consider school closure proposals. I am grateful for the committee’s consideration.

Thank you. If no one has any questions, what do members propose that we do?

I do not know a great deal about this matter because, first, Argyll and Bute is some distance from my normal haunts and, secondly, although the legislation is very recent, it did not specifically cross my desk. Nevertheless, there is a general principle in the petition that, if you are required to consult, you are required to consult the right people at the right time and you must give people the right information. If you fail to do that, I do not think that any member of this Parliament would defend you. It is one of those petitions where there is not really anything to argue about. It would be interesting to know how we managed to pass legislation that did not have those checks and balances in it, but that is a question for other people, who are nearer the scene of the crime.

We must take the matter back to the Government and possibly to one or two local councils. I do not know what kind of answer we will get from local councils, but perhaps we should try to ask the relevant local councils, which would no doubt include Argyll and Bute Council, what they think of the petition. We also need the Government’s response.

The suggestion seems to be that we continue the petition.

I agree with Nigel Don; he is right. I also agree with Jackie Baillie.

The committee must ensure as best it can that it presses for consultation to refer to all relevant matters and not to seek irrelevant information. Local authorities obviously need to follow what the statute sets out. We should ask the Government about the five separate points laid out by the petitioner in the petition—I think that the legislative requirement is covered in section 3 of the petition.

We could perhaps extend our inquiries beyond Argyll and Bute Council and also write to the Western Isles Council and to East Ayrshire Council to get a flavour across the country of the impact that the act is having. As my colleague Nigel Don said, it is recent legislation.

I was going to suggest that we contact other education authorities. The three authorities that my colleague Bill Butler mentioned: Western Isles Council, Argyll and Bute Council and East Ayrshire Council, are relatively small local authorities. Another authority that I would like us to contact is North Lanarkshire Council, because it had issues with school closures in its area before the 2010 act came into place and it has identified further school closures. It would be interesting to get a response from North Lanarkshire Council, given the public criticism that it has received regarding school closures.

I also suggest that we write to the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, because it is important that bodies that are supposed to represent the interests of parents and pupils say how they expect the legislation to work in relation to guidance from local authorities on school closures.

More important, we should consult the EIS—I have proposed that before in relation to a petition. The EIS has challenged some figures that local authorities have produced on school closures. It would be useful to have a response from the EIS on how its members are dealing with the issues. As for classroom sizes and the use of corridors, to which Jackie Baillie referred, it is more appropriate for the EIS to respond on teaching practice in amalgamated schools or in schools in the future. That should be reflected in our consultation.

Does the committee agree to continue the petition and to write in the proposed terms?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Jackie Baillie for her attendance.

---

Wild Land (Protection) (PE1383)

PE1383, by Helen McDade on the John Muir Trust’s behalf, seeks better protection for wild land. What are members’ views on how to proceed?

I am a member of the John Muir Trust, so I should not contribute.

You are free to contribute if you wish, as long as you have declared your interest.

The petition is important, because our wild heritage is important to everyone in the country and it appears to be diminishing. We should contact the Government for its views on the petition.

The petitioner has expressed concern that Scottish Natural Heritage’s natural heritage indicators show that

“the extent of Scotland unaffected by any form of visual influence”

from the built environment or land use change

“declined from 41% in 2002 to”

only

“31% by 2008”.

That is a significant change in that time. The Government should be asked for its comments on that point.

I would also like to know the Government’s views on the conclusions and recommendations of the report that it commissioned from the wildland research institute.

I declare an interest, as in my entry in the register of interests, as a member of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and the RSPB. It is important and would be useful to write to obtain the views of several voluntary and statutory bodies on the petition—particularly Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, VisitScotland and the RSPB, which many people forget or do not realise is a large landowner in Scotland.

I am happy to say that I support the suggestions that have been made.

Do we agree to continue the petition and take the suggested actions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)

PE1384, by Kim Hartley on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, is entitled, “Giving Voice—speech and language therapy transforms lives”. I ask for members’ views on how to progress the petition.

This is another important petition, because communication is vital to everyone. Many people are deprived of communication in various guises and not everything is necessarily being done to help them. We should contact the Government to find out whether its policies and guidelines ensure that local authorities and health boards protect the provision of quality speech and language therapy services for everyone who has communication support needs and swallowing difficulties, which are another major issue. Does the Government have evidence that councils and health boards are doing what they can for such people? I do not think that they are doing that; we should find out about that.

Convener, I have some knowledge of the work that speech and language therapists do. When she was at primary school, my daughter benefited greatly from the intervention of speech and language therapy classes. The petitioners rightly identify the failure of co-ordination between the education services and the speech and language therapy services in the area that I lived in at the time. It would be worth writing to a selection of local authorities, including Edinburgh, Fife and probably Glasgow, and a selection of national health service boards. If we could, we should tie the NHS boards in to the local authorities that we write to so that we can get some idea of what is happening and whether there is co-ordination between the local authority education departments and the health boards on delivery of those services.

I agree with that entirely. We should also write to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People Scotland and the National Autistic Society Scotland in those terms.

It is appropriate to pay tribute to the work that Kim Hartley has done on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists during the three sessions of the Parliament from 1999 to date.

Bill Butler made the point that I was going to make. I fully support the suggestions that have been made so far. I have a particular interest in those individuals who have hearing difficulties and the support that speech and language therapists can give them.

It makes a huge difference. Most people do not realise that speech and language therapists are involved with people who have a swallowing problem. They think that speech and language therapists only help people who have a problem with speech. The briefing paper that accompanies the petition is excellent and it shows that if we invest at an early stage in speech and language support, public money—taxpayers’ money—can be saved as we go further down the road. Early intervention with young people can have life-changing outcomes. Any reduction in speech and language work in local authorities and health boards can set young people back for the rest of their lives and reduce their life chances.

I fully support what we are doing and I hope that we get some word back before the end of the parliamentary session. If not, we can leave this petition, which is on an important issue, for the next committee to complete.

So, we agree that we should continue the petition and make contact as suggested.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Asthma (Children) (PE1385)

PE1385, by Shona Haslam, on behalf of Asthma UK Scotland youth ambassadors, seeks to improve the lives of children across Scotland who have asthma. Does the committee have any suggestions?

I declare an interest in the petition because I am convener of the cross-party group on asthma. The petition was given to me at the end of the previous cross-party group meeting by the Asthma UK Scotland youth ambassadors. At that meeting, they made an excellent presentation about the difficulties that they face—not being allowed to do exercise when they are perfectly capable of doing it, being stigmatised, and not being allowed to use their inhalers when they need to. There are all sorts of problems that would not take an awful lot of sorting out and which would not cost a lot of money to sort out if teachers and other people in schools were properly trained in how to deal with some of the day-to-day issues. We should go on with the petition.

I had hoped that the young people might have been able to present their case today, but there are obvious reasons why we are not taking any evidence today.

I would like to take the petition forward and ask the Government to consider the points that it makes, particularly the call to ensure that teachers and other school staff are properly trained in what to look for in asthmatic children. School nurses are well placed to do some of that work, but we probably need more school nurses who deal with asthma. I would like to know the Government’s general response to the petition.

16:45

School nurses occupy a special place in schools and I know of many who do wonderful work. However, it might be worth drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that there are no mandatory qualifications to practise as a school nurse. I am sure that school nurses are all qualified in one way or another, but the fact that we do not have a mandatory minimum set of qualifications for the role comes as a complete surprise to me.

Convener, will you clarify who we are going to write to regarding the petition?

It has been suggested that we write to the Scottish Government. Do you have further suggestions?

Yes, what about NHS Education Scotland?

We should also write to the Royal College of Nursing, given that we are talking about nurses.

If there are no other suggestions, do we agree to continue with the petition and write in the terms outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Inshore Fisheries (Management) (PE1386)

PE1386, by Richard Munday, on behalf of the Torridon nephrops management group, seeks the establishment of further static gear only inshore fisheries.

Rhoda Grant is here to discuss the petition. I invite her to say a few words on it.

Thank you. I will try not to take too much of your time, because you have had a long meeting and still have a way to go. The petitioners are in the public gallery and have a long journey home, so I will try not to detain anyone.

In 2001, Loch Torridon and the Sound of Raasay were closed to trawling. The local static gear fishermen then introduced a voluntary code of management in the area, which enabled the local community to benefit from the added value of creel-caught nephrops. As the petitioners point out in the petition, the catch has a much greater value because that form of fishing is environmentally sustainable—it has little or no impact on the sea bed and there is a low bycatch.

The petitioners are keen that other communities should get control of their local fisheries in the same way. That would give them control of their resources and much greater access to the economic benefit that that approach brings. The petition ticks an awful lot of boxes in relation to the sustainability not only of fisheries but of fragile rural communities.

When the community in Torridon gained the closure of the area, it went on to gain Marine Stewardship Council certification for the fishery. It was the first fishery in Scotland to do that. However, the successful management of the fishery was soon apparent to others, and new entrants came into the area. Unfortunately, because the code of management was voluntary, not all signed up to it.

It then became very apparent that steps had to be taken to control the overall effort of the fishery in the area. The management group tried to persuade the Scottish Government to put in place controls. The Marine Stewardship Council also flagged up the issue to the group and said that the fishery’s certification may be in jeopardy because of it. The group went back to the Government—indeed, I wrote to the Government on its behalf—again with no success. Unfortunately, the certification has now been suspended because the Government has not put the necessary controls in place.

The petitioners are looking for two things. First, they seek support for the creation of further static gear only areas, which would allow other communities to benefit in the way that the petitioners have benefited. Secondly, and as part of that, they want to ensure that there is tight regulation and not only a code of conduct to which everyone who takes part must sign up but control of the total effort in the fishery.

Obviously, the petitioners need urgent intervention on their own behalf to try to safeguard their fishery’s certification, but it is clear to me from the areas that I cover that static gear fishing would bring huge economic benefit to fragile remote communities.

Thanks very much.

I am well aware of the case that Rhoda Grant has raised. The restrictions that have been in place to preserve fishing stocks in that fishery have produced great benefits for the local community. I know that and have seen the results, so I think that it would be a retrograde step if we were to let the benefits that have been accrued over the years disappear overnight.

Rhoda Grant makes a very good point. Over the years, the area has produced a sustainable fishery, which has attracted the eyes of other fishermen who do not have the same moral standards as the people in Torridon. We are at a critical stage because if the licence is lost, how on earth can we get it reinstated? I think that we should make contact with the Government as soon as we can to ensure that the licence is maintained on Loch Torridon and the inner sound, at least. Whether we can encourage the Government to extend static gear only fisheries to other areas is an argument for another day but, at this stage, we should at least preserve what we have. We should send an immediate letter to the Government to enforce that argument.

I indicate my enthusiastic support for the petition. Static gear only fisheries can have huge benefits for local communities and, even more important, for biodiversity, which the extension of such areas will increase. In the long term, they will result in a knock-on increase in the number of fish that are available to be caught by boats and trawlers that use mobile gear. The Government must be urged to act as quickly as possible and to review and pilot the establishment of further spatially separated static gear only inshore fisheries to improve fisheries management. That is part of a general policy of conservation, to which the Government has committed itself, so we should be pushing at an open door. We should also ask the Government to give a more general response to the petition and to deal with the three points in section 5 of our briefing.

Could we write to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation as well?

It would be useful to ask the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for its view, too.

May I suggest some people who might offer a view on the petition, in addition to the Scottish Government? SNH has been involved in the fishery, as has the Marine Stewardship Council. I know that WWF is supportive of it and that Marine Scotland has worked on it. There are academics to whom the committee could write, one on the fishing side and one on the socioeconomic side. Jim Atkinson at the Millport research station is an expert on prawn fisheries and Dr Andrea Nightingale at the University of Edinburgh has carried out work on the socioeconomic argument. It would be useful for the committee to have such information in front of it when it looks at the petition again.

Thanks for that helpful suggestion.

It is agreed that we will continue the petition and that we will write to the people who have been suggested in the terms agreed. Thank you very much for attending, Rhoda.

---

Battle of Prestonpans (Education Centre) (PE1387)

The second-last new petition is PE1387 by Herbert Coutts, Gareth Jones, Arran Johnston and Kristine Cunningham on behalf of the Battle of Prestonpans Heritage Trust. The petition seeks support for the interpretation of the Battle of Prestonpans. Do members have views on how to deal with it?

I think that we should continue it and that we should write to the Scottish Government. We must await the outcome of the consultation that the Government is undertaking, through Historic Scotland, on the creation of an inventory of nationally important battlefields in Scotland. Once the outcome of that is known, we can ask the Government whether it will provide financial support for the creation of a permanent interpretation and education centre close to the site of the battle of Prestonpans.

We should also ask VisitScotland and Historic Scotland whether they support the petition. I certainly think that taking it forward would be worth while.

Do members agree to continue the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (Repeal) (PE1388)

The final new petition today—indeed, the final new petition of this session—is PE1388, by William Burns, on behalf of the crusade for the protection of true democracy, seeking a repeal of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

I seek members’ views on how to take the petition forward.

We should continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government, asking whether it will repeal the 1980 act, end self-regulation and remove the legal profession’s independence. I realise that the proposals are radical, but they are worthy of a response at the very least. After all, the petitioner says that these measures will bring the profession on-side with true democracy, so we should ask the Government whether it will accede to the suggestions made in the petition and, if not, why not. To be fair, we should also ask the Law Society of Scotland and Consumer Focus Scotland for their response to the petition’s fairly radical proposals.

As well as writing to Consumer Focus Scotland, we should also seek Citizens Advice Scotland’s views.

Do members agree to continue the petition?

Members indicated agreement.