Chamber and committees

If there no other suggestions, are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1967, on protecting Loch Lomond’s Atlantic oakwood shoreline by implementing the high road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbet and Inverarnan, was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

When we last considered this petition at our meeting on 17 May 2023, we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, and we also looked at the suggestion made by Jackie Baillie, who joined us at that time, with regard to options for a site visit. We have received a response from the then minister and now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, which refers to previous submissions setting out the development and assessment of the A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan scheme, and the Scottish Government’s view that the STAG-compliant assessment has already been completed. The minister states that the Government is not willing to carry out a reappraisal of its preferred route option, as that would repeat work already carried out and would likely lead to considerable delay and additional costs. The minister also notes that Transport Scotland has considered the alternative option put forward by the petitioner, with the Government not considering it as a viable alternative to its preferred option.

The petitioner has commented that the minister’s response does not add anything new to the evidence that we have gathered so far, and notes that both route options pose considerable engineering and environmental issues, with the Scottish Government’s preferred option requiring the extension of viaducts affecting the tree line and wildlife along the banks of Loch Lomond. However, the petitioner does welcome the minister’s assurance that stakeholders will have an opportunity to make formal comment or objection during the statutory consultation period and offers once again to facilitate a visit to the site. The committee has also received a submission from Stuart Cordner in support of the petition, which shares concerns about the likely impact of the low road option on local tourist businesses.

I am not certain that a site visit would assist us, given the fairly strong direction that we have received from the Scottish Government. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

PE1979, on the establishment of an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies, has been lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. I think that I see at least some of the petitioners in the gallery this morning.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding, and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council Scotland as well as concerns about gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries in the future.

We last considered the petition a month ago on 7 February, when we held a round-table discussion with the petitioners—Bill Cook, Alison Dickie and Neil McLennan—and the whistleblower, Brendan Barnett. Three were present, and one was online. During that round table, we heard about a need to robustly investigate and resolve safeguarding allegations before undertaking policy reviews, and about the failure of public bodies to follow national guidance due to its non-statutory status and an inconsistent approach to information gathering and sharing between relevant agencies.

We also heard about concerns that allegations are not fully investigated at the time, with inquiries taking place many years after the event; the impact of that on confidence in local authorities and public bodies; how the role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner in Scotland could be strengthened; and how the creation of a national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services could provide a route for individuals to access guidance, support and a structured procedure when raising concerns. Following the evidence session, we have received a new submission from the petitioners, requesting a private evidence session to further explore issues that they felt constrained from detailing more fully in a public setting.

There are two key asks of this petition, the first of which is the call for an independent investigation of unresolved allegations about child protection. The petitioners have given us a flavour of those outstanding allegations and the challenges experienced in resolving them through the existing process. However, it might well be that the committee does not offer the appropriate forum for taking forward detailed consideration of that particular ask. The petition also calls for the creation of an independent whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services, with the petitioners indicating in their most recent submission that they will provide further follow-up information on the accountability and resourcing issues that we discussed.

Having had the opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we heard last month from the petitioners, do members have any comments or suggestions for immediate action that we might consider taking? Members might be aware that there was also a late submission, which you will have received with your papers for today’s meeting.

Mr Ewing, I recall that you drew particular attention to the issue in our questioning. Indeed, I think that you cited the Edinburgh academy case, suggesting that it would be useful to incorporate that, too.

If there are no other suggestions from members, do we agree to keep the petition open and pursue with the minister and the ombudsman these particular issues?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2009, on ensuring fair access to Scottish universities for all residents in Scotland and the United Kingdom, which was lodged by Caroline Gordon. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure fair access to Scottish universities for residents in Scotland and the UK by reviewing university business models and Scottish Government funding arrangements. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 May last year, when we agreed to write to Universities Scotland, the Scottish Government, the Commissioner for Fair Access and individual universities in Scotland.

While Glasgow Caledonian University states that its aim is to be allocated more funded places, it notes that growth would be focused on increasing and widening participation in Scotland. Edinburgh Napier University accepts that the funding arrangements mean that the approach could be described as an upper cap on the overall number of places. However, it states that it does not recognise the scenario that is presented in the petition, in which all places for Scottish-domiciled students on a degree programme are filled by students from a widening participation background.

The response from the Commissioner for Fair Access notes that he intends to review funding arrangements but has not found evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s concerns that funding arrangements block access for Scottish-domiciled students or that such arrangements lead to students pursuing higher education elsewhere in the UK. Universities Scotland’s submission recognises that, for some courses, demand will be so high that suitable applicants are unable to achieve their first choice. However, the submission also notes that the data indicates that applicants are not missing out on accessing Scottish universities on funding. It highlights that public investment in each Scottish undergraduate has fallen by 27 per cent in real terms since 2014 and that spending per student should be the focus rather than increased places.

Robert Gordon University, Universities Scotland and Edinburgh Napier University state that there is not an issue of too few funded places, with some highlighting the need for increased funding allocation per student. On that point, Robert Gordon University’s submission points out that the Scottish Funding Council reduced the number of non-controlled funding places by 1,000 in the 2023-24 academic year in response to underrecruitment of students across the sector.

The petitioner’s written submission requests that the committee seek data from each university on a number of points relating to the number of applicants from different backgrounds who are being accepted into specific courses across Scotland.

We were joined at the previous hearing of the petition by our colleague Michael Marra, who is with us again this morning. Before the committee considers what action we might further take, I would be interested to hear again from Mr Marra.

PE2012, on removing the need for follicle stimulating hormone blood tests before prescribing hormone replacement therapy, was lodged by Angela Hamilton. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to remove the need for FSH blood tests in women aged 40 to 45 who are experiencing menopause symptoms before HRT can be prescribed to relieve their symptoms and replenish hormone levels. It was last considered on 31 May last year, when we agreed to write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and NHS Education for Scotland.

The Royal College for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists refers to expert advice from the British Menopause Society that, in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, follicle stimulating hormone blood tests should be considered but not required to diagnose perimenopause and menopause in women aged 40 to 45. NHS Education for Scotland has confirmed that the online learning package on menopause and mental welfare is being researched and written, and it expects the resource to be available to general practitioners and primary care practitioners by the end of this month.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which shares the experience of a patient seeking menopause treatment and support who felt forced to seek private medical care and faced further difficulties with follow-up care when their treatment was passed to their GP.

A number of organisations have responded, advancing some of the issues that are raised in the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments for action?

PE2014, on reverting to the appeals system that was used in 2022 for Scottish Qualifications Authority exams, was lodged by Elliott Hepburn on behalf of Moffat academy students. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement a revised SQA appeals process that takes into account evidence of the pupil’s academic performance throughout the year, particularly prelim results. We last considered the petition on 31 May last year. The SQA’s written response explains that, from 2014 to 2021, the appeals system mirrored the 2023 system in that it did not consider alternative evidence. It highlights that the appeals system in 2023 was developed following an extensive evaluation of the approach that was taken in 2022.

Separate from that, an examination of exceptional circumstances consideration service is available to pupils who are unable to sit exams or whose performance is affected by personal circumstance. Evidence suggested that the 2022 appeals service, which considered alternative evidence as part of the appeals process, was not fair to all learners and increased the assessment burden. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has indicated that the SQA has evaluated the 2023 arrangements and was expected to confirm the arrangements for 2024 before the end of last month.

Obviously, matters have moved on and I imagine that people are more concerned now with the appeals process that will apply in the year in which we are now considering exams. I do not know whether that was confirmed at the end of February. I am unaware of that fact, but I wonder whether colleagues have any suggestions in relation to the petition that is before us.

That has been my experience with constituents, as well, although the parking ban has not yet been enforced in my constituency, despite the excited interventions of Mr Greer, who is continually invoking the local authority to proceed. There are a number of streets where the application of the law means that emergency service vehicles are not able to access the street, which is a clear issue that could have been foreseen.

The other issue that makes this all the more difficult is the continual increase in the size of motor vehicles. I think, Mr Ewing, of the cars with wing mirrors in which you and I passed our driving test, and I think back, as a Ford dealer in those days, to the Ford Capri, the Ford Cortina, the Ford Escort and the Ford Fiesta—they would occupy half the space of a modern vehicle, both in length and width. It is not a surprise that, when vehicles park in the streets, there is no road left in the middle for anybody to drive through. Vehicles have certainly got a lot bigger—unnecessarily so, in my view—with a consequent impact on the road network and infrastructure that has to support them.

Having got that out of my system, we will proceed. Mr Choudhury, were you trying to come in? Do you drive a particularly big vehicle?

I suspect that there is no data yet, because it is very early. However, Mr Ewing is probably correct to suggest that we might anticipate a petition at some point in relation to the unintended—or, in some cases, intended—consequences of the legislation that has been imposed.

PE2069 is the final new petition today. The petition, which was lodged by Nicole MacDonald, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the accuracy of evidence gathered by child welfare reporters by introducing a requirement that statements that are provided as part of their report are signed as a true account.

Ms MacDonald raises concerns that, where child welfare reports contain inaccurate or misleading information, individuals rely on their solicitor to challenge inaccuracies and, if the solicitor does not, there is the potential for the court to be misled when making its decision. The SPICe briefing highlights the Scottish Government’s 2016 guide to the child welfare report, which notes that the reporter should only ask for information that is relevant to the remit that the court sets. However, as the briefing also notes, if someone does not agree with something in the report, their solicitor should raise that with the court. It notes that the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 provides for a system of statutory regulation of child welfare reporters, although the detail of the regulatory regime is still to be determined, having been delayed, in the minister’s words, “by budgetary pressure”.

The Minister for Victims and Community Safety tells us that a working group on child welfare reports will be set up to inform any changes to current practice and the long-term policy on child welfare reporters. Although a previous working group rejected the suggestion that interviews with child welfare reporters should be recorded, the minister will ask the new working group to consider that point and make recommendations.

It is an interesting series of issues with interesting comments in response. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?