Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, September 28, 2022
Official Report 541KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Additional Support Needs Schools (Closed-circuit Television) (PE1927)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions.
PE1927, which has been lodged by Claire Mooney, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to install CCTV into every additional support needs school in the country. Members—Mr Torrance, in particular—will be aware that the petition is similar to one that was considered by our predecessor committee and was also lodged by Ms Mooney. It was closed on the basis that, from written submissions that were received, it appeared that there was limited support for the action that was called for in the petition. Further information on the previous petition and written submissions are included in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper.
In the background information, Ms Mooney shares her experience of a family member being injured while being restrained and the challenges of ensuring that a full investigation was done and a full explanation of events provided, particularly when the child is unable to give an account of what happened. We have also received submissions in support of the petition from Patricia Hewitt and Elaine M, both of whom suggest that CCTV could be used as a tool to support and protect vulnerable children, as well as the staff who work with them.
The Scottish Government’s response states that it is for local authorities to determine whether use of CCTV cameras on their premises is appropriate, and that, in making such a decision, consideration must be given to balancing the privacy and protection of children, young people, and staff. The Government also notes that new guidance is being drafted on minimising use of physical intervention, physical restraint and seclusion in schools. That draft guidance on physical intervention in schools has been made available and the public consultation on it is due to close on 25 October.
A similar petition was considered by a predecessor committee and a lot of work was done on it. More important is that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has a similar petition before it and will work on it. We should highlight the new petition to that committee and we could then close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
At the same time, we could ensure that the petitioner is aware of the consultation that is under way. The fact that the Education, Children and Young People Committee is considering a similar petition allows us to close PE1927 at this stage. Are members comfortable with that?
Members indicated agreement.
I forgot to say to anybody who might be watching our proceedings from afar that, before we consider any new petition, we seek an opinion on its principles from the Scottish Government. When we consider the petition for the first time at the committee, it is on the basis of our having already undertaken a certain amount of advance preparation. I say that so that anybody who lodges a petition understands that the petition is not being dismissed summarily; we have considered the issues that have been raised. I thank Ms Mooney for bringing the matter to our attention.
Potholes (PE1936)
The next petition, which has been lodged by Lesley Roberts, is PE1936. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces by creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and providing ring-fenced funding to local councils to tackle potholes. The petitioner highlights the point that potholes cause accidents, which puts lives and property at risk, and raises a particular concern about partial road repairs putting drivers and cyclists at further risk.
The Scottish Government’s response provides details of its investment in trunk roads, as well as highlighting the obligation on operating companies to inspect the trunk road network at seven-day intervals to identify defects. In responding to the call for ring-fenced funding for local authorities, the Government states:
“It is ... the responsibility of each local authority to manage their own budget and to allocate the total financial resources available to them on the basis of local needs and priorities”.
Nonetheless, we know from our MSP postbags that potholes can have quite dramatic consequences for individuals. From a freedom of information request that was advanced to me by a constituent, I know that the number of people who successfully claim back costs that have been incurred as a consequence of potholes is not high, and it is usually the result of a very challenging process on the part of the local authority.
Sometimes, people make light of the issue of potholes, but the matter is important, particularly with roads on which people are wholly dependent for access to services.
Mr Stewart—you look as though you are keen to speak.
Thank you, convener. I am, because potholes are a major issue. As you have rightly identified, some councils seem to manage to deal with the issue reasonably well, but others do not. Some roads are a danger to individuals and vehicles, and I believe that there is scope for us to consider more information on the issue.
I suggest that we continue to seek clarity and that we write to the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association to seek their views, because their views are important. That has been raised by the petitioner, and the additional information that they will be able to share will give us an idea of what has been happening with maintenance standards across Scotland.
It is also important to talk to the RAC Foundation and the Road Haulage Association to seek information on the level of reported damage to vehicles and the number of other traffic incidents that are caused by potholes. By doing that, we will get a much better picture, As has been indicated, we might know how things are in our own regions or constituencies, but it appears to be the case that, across Scotland, there are some areas where potholes are a real concern and a real danger to road users and their vehicles.
I suggest that, when we write to the RAC Foundation and the Road Haulage Association, we ask them what information they have on the reimbursement or restitution that affected individuals actually get. That is a material consideration. Are members content to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Physical Education (Privacy) (PE1937)
PE1937, which has been lodged by Gillian Lamarra, is entitled “To give children the respect they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for P.E.” It is an important issue. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their PE kit to school on the days they have PE.
The petitioner considers that these protections are necessary to ensure children’s privacy and tells us that, while Covid-19 restrictions were in place, some schools brought in the option of children wearing their PE kit to school. However, since the pandemic restrictions have been lifted, schools have allegedly taken that option away, which means that primary school pupils have to get changed for PE in front of their teacher and their classmates in mixed-gender classes.
The Scottish Government’s response indicates that
“policy decisions on school clothing ... are best taken by schools and education authorities”.
It also highlights the
“statutory responsibility on all local authorities to manage and maintain their school estate”
and the expectation that local authorities will
“provide appropriate changing facilities”.
We have received a submission from the petitioner in response to the Scottish Government, which highlights the fact that some schools do not have appropriate facilities for pupils to get changed in. It also raises concerns about the onus being put on parents to contact the teachers to resolve the issue, rather than the relevant authorities ensuring that appropriate changing facilities or alternative options are provided. Do members have any comments?
Can we write to the petitioner, asking her to share her views in response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on school uniform, which is open until 14 October?
There is certainly an opportunity to do that.
The committee could also write to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, asking for his views on the petition. However, most important for the committee, we could write to COSLA, asking for information on guidance and best practice in schools on the issue.
I am content to do all of that. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
Does anyone have any other thoughts? I wonder whether we might, in seeking advice, try to establish whether COSLA is aware of any widespread public concern about the issue. I am not clear about how widespread any concern might be.
I thank the petitioner. We will keep the petition open and will revert when we have that information.
Fire and Smoke Alarms (Nest Protect) (PE1940)
PE1940, which has been lodged by Campbell Wild, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permit Nest Protect as a valid system under the new fire and smoke alarm law, which came into force in February 2022.
In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states its view that allowing the system would be inappropriate because it does not meet the necessary British standard required under the interlinked fire alarms legislation.? The Scottish Government highlights its joint statement with COSLA, which confirms that there are no penalties for non-compliance.
We have also received a submission from an individual, Michael Clark, who has indicated his support for the petition. He shares his positive experience of using the Nest Protect system and notes its additional features, which provide further safety benefits.
Do members have any comments or suggestions? Is anyone familiar with Nest Protect?
Considering that the product does not meet British standards—which I think is really important—that there is no penalty for non-compliance regarding heat alarm systems and that local authorities will be taking a lenient and measured approach to installation, I think that the petition could be closed under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
Does anyone else have any thoughts?
I concur, if the product does not meet British standards. It would be difficult for us to support any apparatus that does not meet the expected level of efficiency. It is a difficult situation when you are dealing with a smoke alarm. It must meet the right standard or it could jeopardise individuals.
I do not see anything in the briefing that we have received that would change the fact that the product is not approved. We might have asked to see the system in practice, but that would not have changed the fact that it has not been approved as meeting the standard.
I do not see that we can take this any further, so I am inclined to agree, in view of the evidence that we have received, that we must close the petition. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
Cemeteries (Local Authority Actions) (PE1941)
PE1941, which has been lodged by Councillor Andrew Stuart Wood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within our cemeteries.
The SPICe briefing on the petition explains that local authorities have general duties to address hazards in burial grounds but that the maintenance of headstones and other memorials is the responsibility of the owners of the burial grounds.
The Scottish Government indicates that it is unable to intervene in operational matters affecting burial grounds because that is the responsibility of the relevant burial authority. The response highlights the work of the burial regulations working group and the plans to prepare a statutory code of practice and associated guidance for burial authorities.
I have heard expressions of interest and concern in relation to the petition. Do members have any views?
10:15
There is no question that the issue has been raised by a number of individuals and that such destruction now seems to be practice in some local authority areas. I appreciate that individuals might no longer be able to maintain, or be part of the process of looking after, a headstone because their family is no longer there or those individuals are deceased. However, we need to seek clarity on the issue.
COSLA is one of the first places that we should go to ask whether local authorities routinely liaise with lair owners on maintenance and how they do so, because it is important to find that out. I appreciate that councils are concerned with health and safety, but it can have a massive impact on a family if they turn up to see a headstone and find that it has been destroyed. People have written to me on that topic and I have then liaised with the local council.
There is also an opportunity for us to write to the Scottish Government’s burial regulations working group, which has a role to play. We should ask what consideration it will give to the need for and value of a national approach to the monitoring and regulation of local authority actions. Will it also consider having a funded maintenance and repair policy, with a timescale, and how that timescale would be planned for? Those are the recommendations that I suggest.
Do members have any other thoughts?
I agree totally with my colleague Alexander Stewart, but could the committee also write to the chair of the burial regulations working group to request that it engage with the petitioner?
Indeed. I would quite like to hear from the petitioner, too. I would like to adopt those suggested actions but also have a discussion with the petitioner when we have received those responses. He is an elected councillor, so it would be quite interesting to hear his view. I invite the clerk to consider whether it might be useful for us to speak to anyone else in the light of the responses that we receive.
I have had representations—I do not know whether they are hearsay, which is why I think that they are worth exploring—that, in some cases, a general decision has been taken just to go in and flatten a lot of headstones, whether they are at risk or not, as a pre-emptive measure and without reference. A lot of relatives have become quite distressed to find that such action has been taken.
It seems to me that, in the drafting of guidelines, there is currently something of an open environment whereby there is an opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the petition, to which we might make a useful contribution. I would be grateful if we could do that.
Are members content that we do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Engine Idling Ban (Enforcement) (PE1944)
PE1944, which has been lodged by Alan Ross, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enforce the engine idling ban and take action to introduce instant £80 fines for offences; reclassify idling as a high traffic offence; legally oblige local authorities to enforce the engine idling ban; create contact points for public reporting; and increase anti-idling signage in public spaces.
The SPICe briefing explains that statistics on engine idling enforcement action are not routinely published but that FOI requests indicate that fixed-penalty notices are rarely, if ever, issued.
In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the current approach to enforcement is fit for purpose and proportionate, with penalties being viewed primarily as a deterrent. The response states that local authorities undertake educational and awareness-raising campaigns to prevent idling and target enforcement in areas of known concern.
The petitioner believes that the response is inadequate and does not address the petition’s proposals or reflect the gravity of the issue. He points to the rise in the number of vehicles on the roads since the legislation was updated, in 2003, and to the health risks associated with inhaling car fumes. He also raises enforcement issues and stresses the climate impacts.
In my experience, since 2003, a lot of cars now cut out automatically to prevent engine idling. The manufacturers have incorporated into the mechanics of more recently produced vehicles an engine idling cut-out facility.
Do members have any views on the petition or on what we might do next?
Could the committee keep the petition open for now, to give us a chance to write to COSLA, the RAC Foundation and Professor Adrian Davis of Edinburgh Napier University, seeking their views on the action called for in the petition?
Are members content to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write as Mr Torrance has suggested, keep the petition open and consider it afresh when we hear from those bodies.
That concludes the public section of our meeting. We will next meet on 26 October.
We now move into private session for consideration of item 4.
10:20 Meeting continued in private until 10:27.Previous
Continued Petitions