Chamber and committees

Our next petition is PE2000. I do not know whether that is statistically significant—two thousand what, I am not entirely sure. It was lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or creating a new body that is similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which could enable students to access redress without the need for court action.

We previously considered the petition on 19 April, at which point we agreed to seek the views of Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland. Universities Scotland has responded, stating its view that

“the SPSO offers an effective route for complaints-handling”

where cases have not been resolved at an institution level, and that it sees

“no basis for an expanded remit or new body”

to be established.

The response also notes new guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority, published earlier this year, which provides advice on how consumer protection law applies to the UK higher education sector and what enforcement action is available when higher education providers do not comply with the law.

The response also refers to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill that is currently being considered by the UK Parliament and is expected to significantly strengthen the Competition and Markets Authority’s enforcement powers.

NUS Scotland’s response states the organisation’s support for

“a review into the complaints processes for higher education institutions”,

and notes its view that

“extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman”

would be an

“effective way of”

empowering students to hold universities to account, although we note that the SPSO has no wish to take on that remit.

We also received a response from the petitioner expressing concerns about the SPSO’s remit and approach to complaints handling, and the impact on students of navigating complaints processes and having to seek redress through civil courts.

From NUS Scotland and from the petitioner, there is a desire to go further, but from the SPSO and Universities Scotland, there is less of a desire to do so. Do colleagues have any comments or observations in view of the responses that have been received???

That latter point in particular, on which the Scottish Government has given a clear direction, means that there is limited scope for the committee to advance the aims of the petition. Do colleagues therefore support Mr Torrance’s recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

I am quite happy for you to speak.

I understand how difficult that is, and the timing of when anything takes place is always a factor in such matters. Unfortunately, we are not immune when we are in this building in the way that members might be at Westminster.

We have to be careful about the discussion of cases that are actively alive in court procedures at the moment, as is the one to which you are referring. I would be grateful if you perhaps did not refer specifically to something that is sub judice.

I invite my colleague Fergus Ewing to lead the questioning.

PE2043, which has been lodged by Philipa Jackson, is on changing the way in which gender theory is presented in schools. As you will recall, we considered a similar—though not exactly the same—petition just a moment ago. The petition has been lodged to urge the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to redefine the relationship, sexual health and parenthood—or RSHP—lessons pertaining to transgender and not present the information as fact.

The SPICe briefing note that has been prepared states that Scotland does not have a statutory curriculum, as we know. It also notes that the Scottish Government was consulting on draft statutory guidance on the delivery of relationship, sexual health and parenthood education to replace the guidance currently in place.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it has accepted the recommendations made by the LGBTI inclusive education working group. Of the teaching resources available for RSHP, one resource contains a lesson on being transgender and is intended for primary 5 to primary 7. The resource asks young people to think about what transgender means and aims to challenge the stereotypes and prejudices that can lead to transphobic bullying. The response also notes that the content of the RSHP resource was informed by more than 1,000 primary and secondary teachers and was piloted in 38 schools.

The petitioner’s written submission expresses the view that children are being taught an ideology that she is deeply concerned about, as she finds the current teaching to be age inappropriate and extremely graphic. She believes that some of the people involved in creating the RSHP resource are very biased, and she states that adults should not be coercing children to think that they can be the opposite sex.

Those are the comments that we have received from SPICe and the petitioner. Do members wish to suggest any options for action that we might take forward?

Given the Scottish Government’s very clear guidance—and noting Mr Ewing’s comments, which I expect might be more widely shared—are colleagues content to close the petition, even though it is a new one, given the direction that we have received?

Members indicated agreement.

Our penultimate petition this morning is PE2048, on reviewing the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—stroke awareness campaign. The petition, which was lodged by James Anthony Bundy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST stroke campaign and ensuring that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke.

I should say that Mr Bundy is known to members of the Scottish Conservative Party as someone who has worked in our corridor and whose father died because of a stroke. I gather that his mother is with us in the room as we consider the petition.

We are also joined by our MSP colleagues Alexander Stewart and Jackie Baillie for consideration of the petition. Mr Stewart is back for his first visit to us since he withdrew his patronage of our committee, and Jackie Baillie is, of course, a very familiar and regular attendee and campaigner on behalf of constituents who have petitions before us. I should also note that we have received a written submission from Sandesh Gulhane MSP in support of the petition.

James Anthony Bundy lodged the petition after losing his father to a stroke that went undiagnosed, as his symptoms did not fall within the parameters of the FAST assessment. The family are now raising awareness of all the symptoms of stroke, which can also include an inability to stand, cold sweats, vision problems, nausea and vomiting.

The SPICe briefing that we have received refers to a 2021 systematic review of evidence that noted that the less commonly used BE FAST—balance, eyes, face, arms, speech, time—test identified more ischaemic strokes than the FAST test and that that test may play an important role in the diagnosis of strokes.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health noted that the Scottish Government published its refreshed stroke improvement plan in June and that, in priority 2 of that plan, the Scottish Government has committed to establishing the current degree of public understanding of the symptoms of stroke and whether certain at-risk groups require different messaging.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which provides further detail of his family’s experience and the difference that the use of the BE FAST test might have made. In doing so, he calls for an immediate and urgent review of the existing stroke awareness campaign to help to ensure that every individual who has experienced a stroke receives the timely care that they deserve.

The petition is an important one. Before we as a committee consider it further, would our two parliamentary colleagues wish to comment on it?

Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

For the benefit of colleagues, item 1 is to agree to take agenda items 4 and 5, which is consideration of revised guidance and written submissions, in private. Are members happy to do so?

Members indicated agreement.