public petitions committee agenda 1. the committee will … · 2020-05-27 · ppc/s4/12/11/a public...
TRANSCRIPT
PPC/S4/12/11/A
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
AGENDA
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4)
Tuesday 26 June 2012 The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 2. 1. Consideration of new petitions: The Committee will consider—
PE1434 by Nairn McDonald on additional funding for sport facilities and a minimum level of sport facilities
and take evidence from— Nairn McDonald MSYP, Marie Gallagher, Participation and Education Co-ordinator and Katherine Vezza, Youth Engagement Worker, Scottish Youth Parliament
and will then consider— PE1435 by Wajahat Nassar on a Scottish-Pakistan Youth Council.
2. Consideration of current petitions: The Committee will consider—
PE1124 by Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, on banning the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares; PE1179 by Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, on acquired brain injury services; PE1319 by William Smith and Scott Robertson on improving youth football in Scotland; PE1351 by Chris Daly and Helen Holland on time for all to be heard; PE1395 by Jan Culik on targeted funding for lesser taught languages and cultures at universities; PE1396 by Ian Robb, on behalf of Help for Abandoned Animals (Arbroath), on the overbreeding and abandonment of Staffordshire bull terriers; PE1400 by Libby Anderson, on behalf of OneKind, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses;
PPC/S4/12/11/A
PE1404 by Stephen Fyfe, on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland, on access to insulin pump therapy; PE1421 by Gail Robertson, on behalf of the Outer Hebrides Transport Group, on fair ferry fares; PE1422 by Wendy Barr on the inequality of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003; PE1423 by Gordon Hall, on behalf of The Unreasonable Learners, on harnessing the undoubted talent of public sector staff; PE1424 by Joyce Harkness, on behalf of the "Road to Health" CPP3 team, on improving transport provision for older people in remote and rural areas.
Anne Peat
Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee Room T3.40
The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh
Tel: 0131 348 5186 Email: [email protected]
PPC/S4/12/11/A
The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 1 PE1434 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/1 PE1435 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/2 Agenda item 2 PE1124 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/3 Scottish SCPA Letter of 16 May 2012 PE1124/DD Scottish Government Letter of 22 May 2012 PE1124/EE Petitioner Letter of 14 June 2012 PE1124/FF PE1179 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/4 Glasgow City Council Letter of 9 May 2012 PE1179/CC East Dunbartonshire Council Letter of 15 May 2012 PE1179/DD Aberdeenshire Council Letter of 16 May 2012 PE1179/EE Dumfries and Galloway Council Letter of 16 May 2012 PE1179/FF South Ayrshire Council Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/GG Midlothian Council Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/HH Stirling and Clackmannanshire Councils Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/II North Lanarkshire Council Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/JJ Scottish Government Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/KK South Lanarkshire Council Letter of 15 May 2012 PE1179/LL Fife Council Letter of 28 May 2012 PE1179/MM Petitioner Letter of 18 June 2012 PE1179/NN PE1319 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/5 Scottish Football Association Letter of 18 May 2012 PE1319/II Petitioner Letter of 11 June 2012 PE1319/JJ PE1351 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/6 Scottish Government Letter of 6 June 2012 PE1351/X FBGA Letter of 7 June 2012 PE1351/Y Petitioner Letter of 20 June 2012 PE1351/Z FBGA Letter of 21 June 2012 PE1351/AA PE1395 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/7 Petitioner Letter of 8 June 2012 PE1395/K PE1396 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/8
PPC/S4/12/11/A
PE1400 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/9 Scottish Government Letter of 12 June 2012 PE1400/H PE1404 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/10 Scottish Government Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1404/K PE1421 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/11 Transport Scotland Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1421/B PE1422 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/12 Scottish Human Rights Commission Letter of 24 April 2012 PE1422/A Scottish Natural Heritage Letter of 11 May 2012 PE1422/B ScotWays Letter of 15 May 2012 PE1422/C Ramblers Scotland Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1422/D Scottish Government Letter of 21 May 2012 PE1422/E Petitioner Letter of 14 June 2012 PE1422/F PE1423 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/13 NHS Lanarkshire Letter of 9 May 2012 PE1423/A Petitioner Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1423/B Improvement Service Letter of 19 May 2012 PE1423/C Glasgow City Council Letter of 21 May 2012 PE1423/D Scottish Government Letter of 21 May 2012 PE1423/E NHS Tayside Letter of 22 May 2012 PE1423/F NHS Ayrshire and Arran Letter of 24 May 2012 PE1423/G Fife Council Letter of 28 May 2012 PE1423/H Dr Cathy Sharp Letter of 1 May 2012 PE1423/I Petitioner Letter of 18 June 2012 PE1423/J PE1424 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/11/14 Buchan Dial-a-Community Bus Letter of 26 April 2012 PE1424/A Petitioner Letter of 14 June 2012 PE1424/B Note of Committee fact-finding visit to Barnardo’s of 12 June 2012 Paper for information
PPC/S4/12/11/1
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1434 on additional funding for sport facilities and a minimum level of sports facilities
Note by the Clerk
PE1434 – Lodged 30 May 2012 Petition by Nairn McDonald calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make sure every school can provide adequate sports facilities and resources for their students and to create a minimum level of facilities available. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition which the Committee is asked to consider and decide what
action it wishes to take. The Committee has invited the petitioner to speak to the petition.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. School funding is a matter for local authorities, which includes the funding of the
PE curriculum. Sportscotland run a sports facilities fund for facilities that will benefit the community generally. Since 2007, over £21 million has been invested through this fund in facilities throughout Scotland (S3W-36240).
3. A national audit of sports facilities in 2006 found an ageing stock of sports
facilities, although there were many good examples of high quality facilities. In relation to schools it found that: ―Facilities in local authority schools account for £20m of required expenditure. However, significant improvements have already been made under the Scottish Executive‘s school rebuilding programme, whilst further improvements will be secured from other school projects currently underway. The further education sector is also investing substantial sums in new and upgraded sports facilities.‖
4. Building Better Schools, the school estate strategy issued jointly by the Scottish
Government and COSLA in 2009, sets out the aim of making school facilities more available to the local community. In addition, the Scottish Government‘s Commonwealth Games 2014 Legacy Plan, includes the creation of Community Sport Hubs across all local authority areas. The Scottish Government has set a target that 50% of these hubs must be based in schools. The initiative is being led by Sportscotland, which has set aside £1.5m per annum to 2015 for the programme. The most up-to-date list of hubs details and locations is available here.
5. Further, the Active Schools network aims to increase the number of opportunities for all children to get engaged in sport and also try to build bridges with sports
PPC/S4/12/11/1
2
clubs and other community organisations to give pupils a ‗pathway‘ to continue their participation in sport outside school.
Scottish Government Action
6. Reaching Higher – the 2007 national strategy for sport recognised the importance of quality facilities and recommended opening up school sports facilities to the community.
7. The Government has a target that by 2014, every pupil in S1 to S4 has at least two hours or two periods of PE a week.
“Sportscotland has identified an additional £3.4 million to be distributed to authorities over the next two years to help deliver the pledge. This will be supplemented with a further £2.4 million package of national developments led by Education Scotland to increase the support available to local authorities and teachers. Each local authority will work in partnership with sportscotland and Education Scotland to agree an action plan which will help support delivery of their commitment.” (News release 29th March 2012)
Scottish Parliament Action
8. Physical activity was the subject of a debate in the chamber on 17th May 2012. This included discussion of physical education in schools. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7031
9. In the last Parliamentary session, the then Health & Sport Committee undertook a wide-ranging inquiry into sport. Its final report focussed on physical education (PE) in schools as a way to encourage better physical literacy and greater participation rates in sport and other physical activity. Amongst its recommendations, it wished to see greater leadership from the Scottish Government to ensure better PE provision and the meeting of the PE target. It also considered the Active Schools programme. Whilst acknowledging the good work that was taking place, particularly with primary schools, it considered little progress had been made in the early years of secondary school. It wished to see better coordination between partners at a local level and agreement nationally on how to take the programme forward. As regards facilities it wished to see: greater use of sports hubs to facilitate sporting opportunities and to provide a
base for sports clubs the unlocking of the potential for school facilities to be used by the wider
community 10. The Committee received a response from the Scottish Government to the report
on 21 August 2009, and a response from Sportscotland on 2 September 2009. The Parliament held a debate on the Committee's report on 16 September 2009.
PPC/S4/12/11/1
3
Public Petitions Committee consideration 11. The Committee will wish to note the Health and Sport Committee is about to
embark on an inquiry into community sport and in particular community sports facilities such as community sports hubs and the use of school sports halls. The Committee is due to launch its inquiry on Monday 25 June 2012 and has sought time for a Chamber debate on the issue.
Action 12. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To seek any information. For example, the Committee may wish to ask:
Scottish Government— Education Scotland— Sportscotland— Association for Physical Education – Scotland— Scottish Sports Association—
What are your views on what the petition seeks?
(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Health and Sport Committee to consider as part of its forthcoming inquiry into community sport. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/2
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1435 on Scottish-Pakistan Youth Council
Note by the Clerk PE1435 – Lodged 7 June 2012 Petition by Wajahat Nassar calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to endorse and be a stakeholder in the establishment of a Scottish-Pakistan Youth Council, to bring Scotland and Pakistan closer in the international environment. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition which the Committee is asked to consider and decide what
action it wishes to take. The Committee has not invited the petitioner to speak to the petition.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. Pakistan has a population of 172 million and is the world’s 15th largest
economy1. The 2001 census data show that the Pakistani community is the largest visible minority ethnic group in Scotland, representing 0.63% of the population (around one third of Scotland’s visible minority ethnic population)2. 47% of the Scottish Pakistani community were born in Scotland3.
3. The Scottish Youth Parliament (SYP) is the “democratically elected voice of Scotland’s young people4.” Young people aged 14-25 in Scotland can stand for election to the SYP to become a Member of the SYP (MSYP). The SYP vision is for a “stronger, more inclusive Scotland that empowers young people by truly involving them in the decision making process5” and represents young people at national level. MSYP’s represent either a Scottish parliamentary constituency or a specialist organisation. Many local authorities in Scotland facilitate Youth Councils that represent young people at local authority level.
Scottish Government Action
4. The Scottish Government’s South Asia Development Programme which covers international development in Pakistan, aims to build upon existing links by working with communities in Scotland to support sustainable economic development and address poverty alleviation across South Asia.
1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/09/PakistanPlan 2 http://www.scotlandagainstracism.com/onescotland/25.1.8.html 3 http://www.scotlandagainstracism.com/onescotland/25.1.8.html 4 http://www.syp.org.uk/ 5 http://www.syp.org.uk/about-syp-W21page-94-
PPC/S4/12/11/2
2
5. In 2010, the Scottish Government published its Pakistan Plan. The Plan states that its objective is “to focus on the areas of culture, business, trade and investment and tourism, identifying existing activity and links, building on those and exploring new opportunities. To do that, the Scottish Government recognises the important role that many stakeholders can play, especially the Pakistan community and Scots with links to Pakistan. Being able to draw from such a wealth of knowledge will be a key resource for building up a clear picture of past, current and planned links.”
6. According to the Scottish Government’s Pakistan Plan, “business links between Scotland and Pakistan are currently strongest in the chemical and mineral products, rubber and plastics sectors, with exports in 2008 estimated to account for around £20m of trade. Other areas such as wholesale and retail hotels and other services are estimated to have accounted for a further £10m.” Furthermore, the Pakistan Plan states that in 2008/09, there were around 640 students from Pakistan studying at Scottish colleges and universities.
The United Kingdom Context 7. In May 2012, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Raza Gillani met with David Cameron in
London to develop UK-Pakistan relations6. They set out a Trade and Investment Roadmap which states the steps that both Governments will take to promote investment, support business and achieve the target of increasing bilateral trade to £2.5bn by 2015.
8. The British Council brings school children in the UK and Pakistan together
through its Connecting Classrooms Project. Currently, 150 schools in Pakistan are linked with 90 schools in the UK. This project aims to support international and cultural awareness whilst promoting global citizenship.
9. The British Council has also worked with 128 of Pakistan’s 132 universities and
initiated research and educational links between Pakistani and UK universities7. In 2010-11, there were around 11,000 Pakistani students studying at UK colleges and universities with a further 35,000 studying in Pakistan for degrees or professional awards with UK higher education providers8.
British Pakistani Youth Council (BPYC) 10. The BPYC was set up in 2009 and aims to “provide a platform for British
Pakistani young people to voice their issues, concerns and to engage in the mainstream life of the society in the UK9.” The BPYC website states that it works with national and devolved Governments on issues relating to British Pakistani young people, with particular emphasis on anti-radicalisation and community cohesion. The BPYC undertakes campaigns both alone and in partnership with others to “promote the lawful interests of British Pakistani young people both in the UK and abroad10.”
6 http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/cultural-roadmap-uk-pakistan/ 7 http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/cultural-roadmap-uk-pakistan/ 8 http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/cultural-roadmap-uk-pakistan/ 9 http://www.bpycouncil.org/Main.html 10 http://www.bpycouncil.org/Main.html
PPC/S4/12/11/2
3
Scottish Parliament Action
11. The Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group on Pakistan was established in April 2012 and aims to—
“Promote and enhance understanding between Scotland and Pakistan at
cultural, social, academic, political and economic levels; Develop contact with the Pakistan Parliament and other institutions for
advancing mutual interests of Scotland and Pakistan; and Represent the interest of people/organisations with Pakistani background
living and working in Scotland and act as a forum for the Community living in Scotland11.”
Action 12. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To seek any information. For example, the Committee may wish to ask:
The Scottish Government— Scottish Youth Parliament— The Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group on Pakistan— The British Council— Scotland Pakistan Network— Scottish Asian Pakistan Foundation—
What are your views on what the petition seeks? (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the European and External Relations Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
11 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/51140.aspx
PPC/S4/12/11/3
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1124 on the manufacture, sale and possession and use of snares
Note by the Clerk
PE1124 – lodged 13 February 2008 Petition by Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to introduce provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. This petition was last considered by the Committee on 17 April 2012. Following the publication of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) research on the use of snares, the Committee agreed to ask the Scottish Government what it intended to do in relation to the findings of the report and the issues highlighted and also seek the views of the SSPCA. Responses have been received and the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in relation to this petition.
Background (taken from 2008 SPICe briefing)
2. The use of certain devices, including self-locking snares, to kill or take wild animals is prohibited under s11 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. However, free-running snares are a legal means of capturing a number of animals, such as foxes and rabbits. Snares are not intended for, and should not intentionally be used, to kill animals. They are required to be checked every 24 hours so that target species can be despatched humanely and any non-target species can be released. Further measures to improve the safeguards against potential malpractice and misuse of snares were put in place by The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 3. During Stage 3 of the Parliamentary consideration of the Nature Conservation Act Ministers indicated that they would bring forward proposals for additional provisions on the use of snares. A consultation seeking views on options for further regulating the technical specifications of permitted snares and whether all use of snares should be banned was carried out between November 2006 and February 2007. A total of 247 responses were received. Of these, 71 were against a ban and 172 were for the outright banning of snares. The remaining 4 were in favour of limited snaring within a licensing system.
4. On 20 February 2008, in a ministerial statement to Parliament, the then Minister for the Environment announced a package of regulations under s11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. These were:
PPC/S4/12/11/3
• the compulsory fitting of crimped safety stops to prevent the noose closing too far and inflicting damage • the compulsory fitting of ID tags on snares which will allow identification of their owner by the authorities • specification that the action of a snare must be checked before it is set • clarification that any snare which is not staked in place must be fixed with an anchor that cannot be dragged away • prohibition of the setting of snares on posts, over water courses, on planks or on fences • specification that areas where snaring is taking place are clearly marked with signs
5. The Minister also announced, when possible, primary legislation to create a new offence of tampering with a lawfully set snare, and to give legal status to a new land management industry accreditation scheme. During the passage of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 the Environment and Rural Development Committee examined the issue of snaring, and took evidence from both the League Against Cruel Sports and game management interests. In its Stage 1 Report, the Committee acknowledged that a number of groups had very strongly held views on this matter. Public Petitions Committee Consideration
6. During Session 3, this petition came before the previous Committee on eleven occasions over the course of three years. Evidence was taken from the petitioner and written submissions were received from a number of bodies and organisations including ACPOS, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish SCPA, Scottish Countryside Alliance, National Farmers Union and the RSPB.
7. In January 2010 Roseanna Cunningham, the then Minister for the Environment, gave evidence to the Committee. The Minister advised that the use of snares was always being monitored but the Scottish Government’s view was that “snaring remains essential for countryside management”. The Minister reiterated that some measures would be introduced in forthcoming Regulations (January 2010) and others would be held back for the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill.
8. In February 2010, the Committee noted that the Food and Environment Research Agency was carrying out research on snaring on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Committee agreed to suspend consideration of the petition pending the results of the research becoming available with the intention of then inviting the Scottish Government to outline what actions it would be taking. The report of the research was published on March 2012.
PPC/S4/12/11/3
9. At its meeting on 17 April the Committee agreed to ask the Scottish Government what action it proposes to take in light of the report and the issues highlighted. Additionally, the Committee agreed to seek the views of the SSPCA. The following have been received since the last meeting:
PE1124/DD: SSCAP letter of 16 May 2012 PE1124/EE: Scottish Government letter 22 May 2012 PE1124/FF: Petitioner letter of 14 June 2012
10. The SSPCA is opposed to the use of snares and its experience is similar to that of the DEFRA commissioned research. The SSPCA states that there is clear evidence that in Scotland there are “high numbers of non-target species caught and that welfare is a serious concern.”
11. The Scottish Government responds that many of the issues identified in the DEFRA report have been addressed and that it has gone further than other parts of the UK in addressing welfare concerns. The Scottish Government’s intention is for the changes in the Regulations to take effect. The impact will be assessed when the Regulations are reviewed in 2016 as required by the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act 2011.
12. The petitioner is disappointed with the Scottish Government’s response.
Action 12. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are
a number of possible options:
(1) To seek any further information; or
(2) To refer the petition to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, although it should be noted that the new snares Orders have already been considered.
(3) To take any other action that the Committee considers appropriate,
(2) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, it is suggested that the Committee might feel that a reason for closing the petition now is that:
A ban was proposed during the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, it was not agreed to but the Scottish Government has undertaken to keep the use of snares under review. New Orders related to snares have recently been considered by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee.
PPC/S4/12/11/4
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1179 on acquired brain injury
Note by the Clerk
PE1179 – lodged August 2008 Petition by Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of ‗acquired brain injury‘ to ensure that people with acquired brain injury and their carers get the services and support they need and agencies can plan and deliver services more effectively. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration Purpose 1. This is a current petition last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 20 March 2012. At that time, the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and all local authorities. Responses have been received and the Committee is invited to consider how it wishes to take the petition forward.
Background (taken from 2008 SPICe briefing)
Introduction 2. The petitioner makes reference to a number of issues in the background information provided with the petition. These include definitions of acquired brain injury (ABI) and services for those with ABI. Much of this information can be found on the Scottish Acquired Brain Injury Managed Clinical Network (MCN) website, which is discussed further below.
3. As can be seen from the additional information and the MCN website, ABI can refer to a number of conditions. Currently, the Managed Clinical Network refers to a number of situations or conditions that may result in an ABI: • Trauma due to head injury or post-surgical damage eg following tumour removal • Vascular accident eg stroke • Cerebral anoxia (ie loss of oxygen to the brain) eg through asphyxiation, near
drowning, anaesthetic incidents, severe blood loss or cardiorespiratory arrest is a relatively common cause
• Other toxic or metabolic insult eg hypoglycaemia • Infection eg meningitis and other inflammation eg vasculitis 4. The MCN website notes that it is also recognised that brain tumours and progressive neurological disease (e.g. multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease) may result in complex disabilities similar to those found in ABI, as can some forms of alcohol related brain damage. This makes it difficult to ascertain the exact number of people with an ABI, hence the use of approximate figures in the background information provided by the petitioner.
PPC/S4/12/11/4
2
Community Care/Health Categories 5. It appears there is no specific reason why different categories of community care/health client groups have developed. Some may have been created through legislation, others because specific policies or strategies have been developed, others because of a tradition in reporting in a particular way. 6. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, as amended, still forms the basis of community care legislation in Scotland. This provides for welfare services for ―persons in need‖, which section 94 defines through two main groupings - those who: a) are in need of care and attention arising out of infirmity, youth or age; and, b) suffer from illness or mental disorder or are substantially handicapped by any deformity or disability. These are wide groupings, which can each include, in turn, a number of different groups of people. For example, ―disability‖ in Scotland is defined in section 16 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 as: a) in the case of a person aged eighteen or over, one chronically sick or disabled or one suffering from mental disorder; or, b) in any other case, a disabled child. 7. Data and strategies do not always reflect these wide groupings. For instance, the Scottish Government‘s Community Care statistics web page1 provides statistics for a number of groups: older people, people with learning disabilities, people with mental health problems, people with physical disabilities, people who are blind or partially sighted, and, people with autistic spectrum disorders. 8. It has been suggested that one possible reason for the development of some of these categories is through the way local authority community care accounts are reported. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) is responsible for setting accounting standards for local government. Local authorities provide accounts in a number of categories which allows for service expenditure analyses. One of these is ‗social work‘, where, since 2001-02, data is broken down by a number of key client group categories, including: children and families, older people, people with physical or sensory disabilities, people with learning disabilities, people with mental health needs, and people with addictions/substance misuse. 9. CIPFA undertook a consultation exercise reviewing the current service expenditure analyses. CIPFA has advised2 that one respondent to the consultation discussed the location of some groups in the current subcategories outlined above, including people with head injuries. However, whether any change will be made to any of these is not known at present. 10. The Scottish Government has advised3 that those with an ABI are usually counted within statistics on physical disability, possibly as a result of the need that individuals with an ABI require equipment and adaptations. Though, as discussed below, there are a number of strategies that would include people with ABI.
1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/Data
2 Personal communication 22 August 2008
3 Personal communication 22 August 2008
PPC/S4/12/11/4
3
Action by the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland 11. In 2000, the Public Health Institute for Scotland (now part of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland) published a Scottish Needs Assessment Programme (SNAP) report into Huntington's Disease, ABI and Early onset Dementia, which found that, nationally, services were patchy and inadequate. 12. A review of the situation was commissioned by the then Scottish Executive in 20034. This found that progress had been made in several local NHS board areas, but that problems remained. One of its recommendations was for the development of a Managed Clinical Network (MCN). The aims of MCNs are to bring groups of health professionals, organisations and patients together to develop high quality, effective services for a condition across the country. The Scottish Acquired Brain Injury Managed Clinical Network first met in February 2007. One of its tasks has been to develop national standards for adults with traumatic brain injury. It launched a consultation5 on these standards, which was due to end on 31 October 2008. 13. There are, then, are a variety of situations and conditions that may result in ABI. Thus, people with an ABI may be covered by a variety of strategies or programmes. For example, there are MCNs for stroke, brain tumour and multiple sclerosis. The following table lists several other strategies or programmes:
Strategy or Programme
Date Description
Scottish Trauma Audit Group
Set up in 1991 Originally, STAG was set up to audit the management of seriously injured patients in Scotland. It achieved its aims and stopped collecting data in 2002. Since then, the team has worked on a range of national audit projects, most recently completing a national audit of alcohol problems. It is part of the National Audit Team, which conducts a range of audits within clinical priority areas, including Emergency Medicine and Stroke
‗Co-ordinated, integrated and fit for purpose: A Delivery Framework for Adult Rehabilitation in Scotland‘
February 2007 This framework followed work undertaken by a steering group. It built upon work of previous reports, and discusses the need to improve rehabilitation services. It identified three target groups: older people, people with long-term conditions and people returning from work absence and/or aiming to stay in employment. The framework seeks to access to services, availability of services, and, transitions between services provided in hospital and community settings.
4 Please see the following for an executive summary of this report:
http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/DC20030724SNAP.pdf 5 http://www.sabin.scot.nhs.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
PPC/S4/12/11/4
4
Strategy or Programme Date Description ‗Mental Health in Scotland: Closing the Gaps – Making a Difference: Commitment 13‘
December 2007
In 2006, an Advisory Group was set up by the then Scottish Executive to review and update available guidance on care and support for people with co-occurring substance misuse and mental health problems. This report followed on from previous reports and includes a section on alcohol related brain damage/acquired brain injury.
‗Better Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke Care: A Consultation Document‘
July 2008 Followed a commitment in the Scottish Government‘s health strategy ‗Better Health, Better Care‘ to refresh the Government‘s CHD and stroke strategy, in line with the general principles around long-term conditions outlined in the report. The consultation ends in October 2008. It seeks to build on the previous strategy, launched in 2002, and other developments such as the work of the stroke Managed Clinical Networks across the country.
Action by the Scottish Parliament 14. Although there has been no consideration of the exact issues addressed in the petition, the Health and Sport Committee did carry out an inquiry into rehabilitation services in terms of shifting the balance of care between secondary and primary health care in 2008.
Session 3 Public Petitions Committee Consideration
15. This petition came before the previous Committee on seven occasions. At the first consideration in September 2008, the Committee heard from the petitioner about the way services for people with brain injuries and their carers are resourced and planned and the shortcomings that, in the petitioner‘s view, exist. The Committee wrote to a wide range of bodies including the Scottish Government, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, NHS Quality Improvement, Headway and ADSW) seeking their views on the issues raised in the petition. In its response of November 2008, the Scottish Government stated that it had ―no plans to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client group category of acquired brain injury.‖
16. In October 2009 the Committee invited the Scottish Government to meet with the petitioner to discuss how her concerns could be taken forward. Thereafter, correspondence between the petitioner, the Scottish Government and other interested parties continued. In August 2010 the petitioner advised the Committee that she felt an impasse had been reached and suggested that consideration be suspended for a year to enable the Scottish Government‘s Healthcare Policy and Strategy Directorate and the Association of Directors of Social Work to make some progress.
PPC/S4/12/11/4
5
Public Petitions Committee Consideration
17. This Committee considered the petition at its meetings on 29 November 2011 and 20 March 2012.
18. In relation to the ABI MCN, work is underway to evolve the MCN from a ‗clinical‘ network to a ‗care‘ network and a sub group is taking this work forward. The Scottish Government expects this work will help address the point made by John Wilson MSP on 29 November 2011 that while these services should be in place the reality is that they are not. The Scottish Government has also committed to introducing legislation to improve the integration of health and social care for people living with all long term conditions including ABI. The public consultation runs from 8 May to 11 September 2012, Integration of Adult Health and Social Care in Scotland: Consultation on Proposals.
19. ADSW has advised that most Social Work Services continue to operate on the basis of service delivery following an assessment of needs rather than be directed towards people with specific conditions. ADSW did provide details of one area where a dedicated ABI service exists (West Dunbartonshire).
20. The petitioner recognises that good progress has been made for ABI in the area of clinical services and hopes that similar progress can be made in the area of social care.
21. At its meeting on 20 March 2012 the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government asking it to demonstrate what it was doing to ensure the social care side of treatment and support did not continue to lag behind the clinical side. The Committee also agreed that as the response from ADSW only provided information on one local authority- dedicated ABI service, it would write to all local authorities seeking information on how they each provide social care and support for people with ABI.
22. The following written submissions have been received since the last meeting—
PE1179/CC: Glasgow City Council Letter of 9 May 2012 PE1179/DD: East Dunbartonshire Council Letter of 15 May 2012 PE1179/EE: Aberdeenshire Council Letter of 16 May 2012 PE1179/FF: Dumfries and Galloway Council Letter of 16 May 2012 PE1179/GG: South Ayrshire Council Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/HH: Midlothian Council Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/II: Stirling and Clackmannanshire Councils' Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/JJ: North Lanarkshire Council Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/KK: Scottish Government Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1179/LL: South Lanarkshire Council Letter of 15 May 2012 PE1179/MM: Fife Council Letter of 28 May 2012 PE1179/NN: Petitioner Letter of 18 June 2012
PPC/S4/12/11/4
6
23. The Scottish Government reminds the Committee that the ABI MCN sub- group is looking at how the MCN can evolve from a ‗clinical‘ network to a ‗care‘ network. It points out that this transition is complex and will take time.
24. The Scottish Government also provides further detail on its proposals to integrate health and social care via the consultation which runs until September 2012, Integration of Adult Health and Social Care in Scotland: Consultation on Proposals. The Scottish Government has previously confirmed that this legislation will seek to improve the integration of health and social care for people living with all long term conditions including ABI. The Scottish Government encourages the Petitioner to take part in the consultation process.
25. The Petitioner is concerned that only 12 of the 32 local authorities responded to the Committee. She is also concerned that in the responses received many local authorities made reference to matters out with their control. The Petitioner proposed actions that she would like to see taken forward at a local level by health boards and local authorities.
Action 26. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a number of possible options, including:
(1) To keep the petition open and seek any further information it considers necessary.
(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6 to the Health and Sport Committee, however it should be noted that this is not an issue that forms part of the Health and Sport Committee‘s work programme.
(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate,
(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that:
The Scottish Government has committed to bring forward legislation on the integration of adult health and social care services and is currently consulting on its proposals. In this regard, the Committee may wish to suggest to the Scottish Government that it directly invites the petitioner to participate in the consultation and takes account of the information gathered during the consideration of the petition.
The Scottish Government has confirmed that an ABI sub-group is taking forward work which will help move from a ‗clinical‘ network to a ‗care‘ network over the next 2 years.
PPC/S4/12/11/5
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1319 on improving youth football
Note by the Clerk
PE1319 – lodged March 2010 Petition by William Smith and Scott Robertson calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate the (1) legal status and appropriateness of professional SFA clubs entering into contracts with children under 16 years; (2) audit process and accountability of all public funds distributed by the Scottish Football Association to its member clubs; (3) social, educational and psychological affects and legality of SFA member clubs prohibiting such children from participating in extracurricular activity; and (4) appropriateness of ‗compensation‘ payments between SFA member clubs for the transfer of young players under the age of 16 years; and to (5) increase the educational target from 2 hours curricular physical activity to four hours per week; and (6) develop a long-term plan to provide quality artificial surfaces for training and playing football at all ages across all regions. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. This petition was last considered by the Committee on 17 April 2012. At that
meeting the Committee agreed that it still had some concerns around the issues of ―contracts with children under 16 years‖ and return for investment of public funds. The Committee agreed to write to the SFA and sportscotland. Responses have been received and the Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take on this petition.
Background
2. The 2010 SPICe petition briefing provides some background. During Session 3, this petition was considered by the previous Committee on five occasions between March 2010 and January 2011 and nineteen written submissions were received. The previous Committee heard evidence from the petitioner and wrote to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Football League, the Scottish Premier League, the Scottish Amateur Football Association, Scottish Youth Football Association, STUC, Scottish Child Law Centre, Scotland‘s Commissioner for Children and Young People, KNVB (the Royal Dutch Football Association), a range of Local Authorities and the DWP seeking their views on the issues raised in the petition.
3. In its response of May 2010 (PE1319/F) the SPL suggested that many of the concerns in the petition and raised during the Committee‘s discussion arose from misunderstandings. The SPL response was supported by the SFL. In general terms, the SPL did not think any action was necessary as ―SPL regulations did
PPC/S4/12/11/5
not permit a club to have any onerous hold over a young player.‖ In June 2010 (PE1319/G) the SFA said—
―Registration forms for age groups 10 to 14 are for a maximum of one season and lapse automatically at the end of each season. The registration form at age group 15 can be carried forward by the club into age group 16 and age group 16 can also be taken forward in age 17 by the club‖
4. However in a letter to the Committee of May 2010 the then Scotland‘s Commissioner for Children and Young People (PE1319/E) said—
―Registration agreements as they stand appear to offer very little flexibility and few opportunities for the child or young person to be released of their own accord. In addition, it appears that both parents and children have a very limited understanding of the scope of these agreements at the point of registration. In particular they lack an awareness of the penalties that may be involved in trying to free themselves from such an agreement at a later date.‖
5. The view of the STUC (PE1319/L) was that—
―While the SFA does not seem to regard registration as contracts, the fact that a 28 day opt out is in place suggests that there is some formal relationship between the parties. This relationship appears, on the face of it, to favour the club rather than the freedoms of the individual.‖
6. The petition came back before the previous Committee in June 2010 at which time Trish Godman MSP raised further issues regarding registration, commitment / training forms and the lack of opportunities for children to be released from such ―arrangements‖. At the meeting on 5 October 2010 Henry McLeish, Chairman of the Scottish Football Review Committee, gave evidence. He drew attention to his report and advised that work was already underway in the SFA, although the review group had not yet been formed—
"A ... review group should be set up to look in detail at a number of related issues facing children and young people in youth and talent development—the duty of care for children—their rights and proper protection; the role of families; the rights and responsibilities of the Professional Clubs; more transparency and proper oversight of the process; acknowledging there is a competitive market but with adequate safeguards and appropriate procedures."
And that review group
"should also meet the need for a further and more in-depth look at the policies and procedures of regulating, compensating, nurturing, developing and financing children and young people in the youth development process, in particular the role of professional clubs and contact ages."
7. The previous Committee then wrote to the SFA asking for details of the review group, its membership and when it might begin its work. In January 2011, the previous Committee met to consider this petition for the final time before dissolution. Shona Robison MSP, Minister for Public Health and Sport; Stewart Regan, Chief Executive, Scottish Football Association, Neil Doncaster, Chief Executive, Scottish Premier League; Tam Baillie, Scotland‘s Commissioner for Children and Young People; Jim Sinclair, Director of Youth Development, Rangers Football Club; and Chris McCart, Head of Academy and Youth, Celtic Football Club all attended and gave evidence. Issues discussed included the
PPC/S4/12/11/5
legal status and appropriateness of ―contracts‖ with children who were under 16, value for money in terms of public monies and whether young people should be prevented from playing school football if they were involved with a club. Mr Regan acknowledged the recommendation in Henry McLeish‘s report to set up a Review Group.
8. In responding to points raised, the Minister said—
―The Scottish Government is keen to work with the SFA and others to consider the issues, but within the context of the review of the youth action plan, which is underway.‖
―My worry is about young people putting all their eggs in one basket. Some of the 96% who do not go on to play professional football might find that basket to be not all that they thought and hoped it would be. We must think about how to ensure that something is available for those young people, so that they do not lose interest in football entirely.‖
9. The previous Committee agreed to include the petition in its legacy paper and suggest that all concerned should discuss the results of the review and the developed strategy.
Session 4 consideration
10. Following the Committee meeting on 4 October 2011, submissions were received on the issue of contracts and compensation payments from the Scottish Schools Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Youth Football Association, Ayr United Football Academy, IFK Gothenburg, the Scottish Government and the petitioners. Although many of those contacted did not respond (7 football clubs, the Highland Football Academy and the Scottish Professional Footballers‘ Association), it should be noted that the issues raised in the petition are, in the main, for the SFA and other football governing bodies. The Scottish Youth Parliament has not responded to date but has indicated that it is interested in looking at the issue.
11. It is worth re-capping what the petition is seeking. The petition calls for the Scottish Government to investigate 6 areas in relation to youth football:
(1) The legal status and appropriateness of professional SFA clubs entering into contracts with children under 16 years of age, (2) Accountability in respect of public funds distributed by the SFA to its member clubs, (3)The social, educational, psychological effects and legality of SFA member clubs prohibiting children from participating in extra-curricular activity, (4)The appropriateness of ―compensation‖ payments between SFA member clubs for the transfer of young players under the age of 16 years, (5)An increase in the target of 2 hrs curricular physical activity to 4 hrs / week, and (6)Development of a long-term plan to provide quality artificial surfaces for training and playing football at all aged across all regions
12. These issues are not all the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Points (1), (3) and (4) are primarily matters for the SFA.
PPC/S4/12/11/5
Point 1 – “contracts” with children under 16
13. The issues of contracts and compensation payments were discussed with the SFA at the previous Committee‘s evidence session on 11 January 2011. There had been an expectation that they would be considered in the context of an SFA-led review group. However in a letter of 20 March 2012, the SFA advised that a new declaration form had been created with the aim of players and parents being able to make an informed choice and being ―fully aware of the implications if signing the form, including the ability of a club to obtain reimbursement of training costs…‖
Point 2 – accountability of public funds
14. The SFA has access to two main sources of public funding. The first is funding from sportscotland, received by the SFA in its role as a Sporting Governing Body, for a variety of programmes that meet sportscotland‘s objectives. The second source of funding is the Scottish Government‘s Cashback for Communities Programme. sportscotland and the Scottish Government are responsible for ensuring any grants they pay are spent appropriately.
15. In a letter to the committee of 28 February 2012, sportscotland advised that public funds are invested in governing bodies according to clear investment principles and on the basis of robust plans with specific outcomes. Public funds are not invested in member clubs.
Point 3 – prohibitions on children participating in extra-curricular activity
16. In its letter of 11 November 2011 the SFA advised that it ―has agreed a policy for young elite players to still play for their school, even if signed for a professional club‖, although those children who train several times a week and play matches at weekends would be excluded.
Point 4 – “compensation payments”
17. The new declaration form as detailed in paragraph (15) above refers.
Point 5 – Increase target to 4 hrs curricular physical activity / week
18. In a letter to the Committee of 28 February 2012, the Scottish Government re-states its commitment to ensuring the provision of at least 2hrs / week of PE in primary schools and at least 2 periods of PE in secondary schools for S1-S4 for 2014. The Scottish Government advises that its new curriculum framework provides ―opportunities for children and young people to participate in a wide range of sport and physical activities in and around the school day but is not proposing to increase its target to 4 hrs curricular physical activity / week.
Point 6 – provision of quality artificial playing surfaces
19. The sportscotland response of 28 February 2012 advises that it works with the SFA and all local authorities to assess provision and maintenance of artificial playing surfaces and that its investment is meeting the needs of local communities across Scotland. A Scottish FA Facilities Forum was established in
PPC/S4/12/11/5
December 2011. The Forum aims to bring together the professional and non-professional game to develop a national pitches and facilities strategy. sportscotland is a member of the Forum.
20. At the last meeting the Committee agreed that it still had some concerns around the issues of ―contracts with children under 16 years‖ and would like some further information from sportscotland on the return for investment of public funds in football. The Committee wrote to the SFA and sportscotland and the following responses have been received:
PE1319/II: SFA letter 18 May 2012 PE1319/JJ: Petitioner letter 11 June 2012 PE1319/KK: Sportscotland letter to follow
21. The SFA notes that in relation to the reimbursement and compensation
arrangements, it remains comfortable that it complies with FIFA regulations. Nevertheless, the SFA advises that a formal working party involving it, the SPL and the SFL has been established ―to review the existing system of training compensation for youth players that is currently applied with senior Scottish football.‖
22. The petitioners are not convinced that the SFA is operating within the regulations of FIFA in respect of compensation payments for young players moving between professional clubs.
Action
22. The Committee is invited to review the most recent information received and consider what action it wishes to take, there are a number of possible options:
(1) To continue the petition and await the outcome of the formal working party‘s review and draw the attention of the working party to the evidence received by this and the predecessor Committee on the issues of ―contracts‖ and compensations payments, (2) To refer the petition on to the Health and Sport Committee, under Rule 15.6.2 for further consideration as part of that Committee‘s subject remit, (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate, or
(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/6
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1351 on Time for all to be heard
Note by the Clerk
PE1351 – lodged August 2010 Petition by Chris Daly and Helen Holland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish for all victims of institutional child abuse, a Time for All to be Heard forum incorporating a compensation scheme. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. At the meeting on 13 December 2011 the Committee heard evidence from
Duncan Wilson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Michael Matheson, Minister for Public Health and Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs.
2. The Committee then sought confirmation from the Scottish Government that it would be taking the lead on the necessary work, asked what timetable was being worked to, what scoping work would be carried out with regard to a possible reparations scheme and legislation to facilitate apologies and what discussions it had had with the UK Government regarding compensation and victims‘ rights. At the meeting on 17 April 2012 the Committee noted that a number of different strands of work were being taken forward. The Committee agreed to seek an update from the Scottish Government before summer recess. The Scottish Government‘s update has been received and the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.
Background
3. In August 2002 Chris Daly (one of the current petitioners) lodged petition PE535 seeking ―an inquiry into past institutional child abuse (focussing on children who were in the care of the state under the supervision of religious orders); and apologies for the role of the state and relevant religious orders in such abuse‖. In September 2005 he lodged petition PE888 raising concerns about the handling of personal injury cases arising from institutional child abuse and seeking ―changes to Court of Session rules to allow for the prioritisation of such cases; and a review of how rules on the limitation of actions impact on such cases together with changes to those rules‖.
4. Following consideration of these petitions at a number of meetings between 2002 and 2008, the Session 3 Committee agreed in April 2008 to close both petitions on the grounds that the petitioner had achieved a considerable amount: an apology in Parliament by the then First Minister; the publication of an independent expert review report recommending changes to legislation; and
PPC/S4/12/11/6
2
continuing consideration by and announcements from the Scottish Government on action that would be taken.
5. This petition (in joint names of Chris Daly and Helen Holland) seeks the establishment of a forum to give all victims of institutional child abuse the opportunity to relate their experiences and apply for compensation. The petition makes reference to the approach taken in Ireland where a number of reports have looked at child abuse in Irish institutions – e.g. the reports of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (May 2009) and the Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin (July 2009). Compensation has been made available there through the Residential Institutions Redress Board (its website states that it ―was set up under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to make fair and reasonable awards to persons who, as children, were abused while resident in industrial schools, reformatories and other institutions subject to state regulation or inspection‖).
Time to be Heard: – A Pilot Forum
6. In Scotland in 2010, Time to Be Heard: A Pilot Forum was established. Its purpose was to ―to test the appropriateness and effectiveness of a confidential forum in giving former residents of residential schools and children‘s homes the opportunity to recount their experiences in care, especially abusive experiences, to an independent and non-judgemental panel‖1. The pilot was modelled on the Confidential Committee of the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA).
7. When setting up this Pilot Forum, a number of issues were recognised. One issue (as identified in the human rights framework commissioned by the Scottish Government from the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC)) was that Time to be Heard should be independent of Government. As a consequence, the arrangements for the project were re-designed. Another issue for some was the ―lack of an accountability strand‖; the Pilot Forum had no powers to investigate allegations and no role in recommending participants for compensation. A further issue was the Scottish Government‘s decision to restrict participation in the Pilot Forum hearings to former Quarriers residents.
8. The Pilot Forum provided an opportunity for 98 former Quarriers residents to recount their experiences as children in residential care. In February 2011 Tom Shaw, the Chair of the Pilot Forum, published his report on the findings. His report made a number of recommendations, amongst them that—
An independent national confidential forum should be established in Scotland for all adults who, as children, were cared for in any of the following types of provision: residential schools and children's homes, residential educational provision for children with special needs, long-stay hospital provision for children with acute medical and/or mental health needs, residential youth justice provision, boarding departments of schools and private homes through boarding-out and foster care arrangements.
1 Time To Be Heard: A Pilot Forum – An Independent Report by Tom Show Commissioned by the
Scottish Government
PPC/S4/12/11/6
3
Appropriate legislation should be introduced to give the necessary protection for the effective operation of a national confidential forum.
The arrangements for and administration and operation of the national confidential forum should be based on the model and informed by the experience of Time to be Heard. Applications from any person who spent time in care as a child should be accepted. Those who do not consider themselves to have experienced abuse in care can be given the opportunity to provide written testimony initially.
9. In March 2011 the Scottish Government published its response to Tom Shaw‘s report. The Scottish Government was supportive of all but one of the fifteen recommendations; it did not support the recommendation to it to ―commission research to explore the impact of a history of residential child care on attitudes to care of older people. The results should inform professional training, assessment of older people and the choices made available to them‖.
10. In its letter to this Committee of 15 August 2011 (PE1351/K) the Scottish Government confirmed its support for the establishment of a national confidential forum (NCF) based on the model and informed by the experience of Time to be Heard. The Scottish Government accepted that legislation would be required, that survivors and other stakeholders should be consulted and their interests kept at the centre.
11. In that letter of August 2011, the Scottish Government also advised—
―Current Ministers are keen that the NCF be taken forward without delay and therefore the following steps are being taken:
The key issues to be included in legislation to establish such a body
are being considered so that stakeholders can be presented with clear, viable proposals;
Discussions are being held with stakeholders about these proposals and their views canvassed, including how best we can ensure that survivors‘ interests are kept at the centre of future developments;
The new centre for excellence for looked after children2 is doing some scoping work to help with planning for the NCF.‖
Scottish Human Rights Commission – Acknowledgement and Accountability Framework
12. In 2009 the Scottish Government invited the Scottish Human Right Commission (SHRC) to develop recommendations for a human rights framework for the design and implementation of an Acknowledgement and Accountability Framework for the survivors of historic abuse. This work was published by SHRC
2Announcement of the new centre to be based at the University of Strathclyde was made in February 2011: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/02/23094433
PPC/S4/12/11/6
4
in February 2010. In her evidence to the previous Committee on 21 December 2010, Shona Robinson, Minister for Public Health and Sport noted—
―On where we go from here, it is important that we consider all the recommendations in the SHRC framework alongside Tom Shaw's report because it would not be sensible to consider them separately‖
13. The Scottish Government‘s response to the SHRC‘s framework was published in February 2011 and can be found on the Survivor Scotland Website: Survivor Scotland. In that response the Scottish Government indicated:
It intended to conduct a scoping exercise to consider the issues surrounding a possible reparations scheme (recommendation 5)
It would consider and respond at a later date to the recommendation to consider the development of legislation to facilitate apologies by institutions (recommendation 6)
It wished to meet with the SHRC to discuss how it could take account of the recommendations in the Framework in the development of its plans for a future rollout of Time to be Heard.
14. In their letter of 5 September 2011, the Petitioners repeated their view that Time to be Heard had failed to meet the needs of survivors. The petitioners view was that the SHRC framework addressed their concerns.
Prescriptions and limitations
15. At the meeting on 21 December 2010, the previous Committee heard evidence on the ‗time bar‘ concerning civil claims for damages and personal injury. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing advised that the Scottish Government was in the process of preparing a consultation on the issue. The consultation would consider the Scottish Law Commission‘s recommendations to extend the standard limitation period from 3 to 5 years and clarify the circumstances in which the courts may exercise their discretionary power to allow cases to proceed out with the standard limitation period. The Minister added—
―We are minded to look at additional options, including considering the merits of the approach that has been adopted in Ireland involving the time-bar clock and the stopping of the periods of limitation. In Ireland, those periods are excluded in which a person is said to be under a disability, which includes their being under 21 years of age. That plays an important part, as the courts in Ireland have the power to disregard childhood or a proportion of childhood. We can all see the sense of that as a proposition.‖
16. The Minister set out other routes for obtaining compensation, for example through a compensation order following a successful criminal prosecution or through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Minister did concede that he understood that many victims would view these routes as more ―theoretical than real‖.
PPC/S4/12/11/6
5
Session 3 Committee consideration
17. In the last session of the Parliament, this petition was considered on four occasions taking oral evidence firstly from the petitioners, then from Ministers (Shona Robison, Minister for Public Health and Sport; Adam Ingram, Minister for Children and Early Years and Fergus Ewing, Minister for Community Safety) and officials and subsequently from Tom Shaw, Chair, and Anne Carpenter, Commissioner, Time to be Heard.
Session 4 consideration
18. In September 2011, the petitioners voiced concern that the Scottish
Government‘s consultation (on possible changes to law of damages for personal injury) had not been published. At its meeting on 29 November 2011 the Committee took evidence from Duncan Wilson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and then from Michael Matheson, Minister for Public Health and Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs.
Evidence session 29 November 2011 - Scottish Human Rights Commission
19. Mr Wilson said that the SHRC was encouraging everyone ―to commit to a renewed impetus to securing remedies and justice for survivors of historical abuse.‖ He advised that the SHRC had worked independently and impartially on the human rights framework based on international law, best practice, survivors‘ views and the views of experts with experience of similar processes elsewhere, for example Ireland, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland. The SHRC framework had five elements; participation of everyone involved in all decisions that affect them, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality. The view of the SHRC was that any confidential committee would only be part of the broad range of remedies that should be provided in order to uphold survivors‘ rights.
20. In relation to compensation, Mr Wilson noted that it was challenging and that there were a number of other measures that could be more quickly achieved and which would be cost-free.
21. The SHRC has proposed to host a human rights interaction which would enable all stakeholders to get together to discuss the way forward and with the aim of developing an action plans that identified the facts and the wishes of victims; the range of institutional provisions; an analysis of the human rights involved, who is responsible and how each party would contribute to remedying the wrong. The SHRC drew attention to its recommendation about apology and the real or imagined legal impediment to effective apologies and suggested that there was an opportunity for the Parliament to pass legislation.
Evidence session 29 November 2011 - Scottish Government ministers
22. Michael Matheson, Minister for Public Health, advised that the Scottish Government was continuing to consider how the commitment to establish a national forum in Scotland could be developed, noting that it would require primary legislation. Ministers had agreed to attend the SHRC-hosted interaction
PPC/S4/12/11/6
6
and he hoped that it would take place before the end of the year. The intention would be to discuss drafting an action plan ―to look at what we need in order to frame the terms of the national confidential forum, and that work will allow us to look at conducting a consultation exercise to allow people to give their views on the forum‘s final form. We can then consider how we take forward legislation.‖ The Minister said that he hoped to be in position to carry out a public consultation on draft legislation sometime during 2012.
23. Given that the pilot forum was not set up to hold abusers to account or to provide compensation for victims of abuse, the Minister was asked what plans the Government had to deal with these issues and whether they would be addressed as part of the national forum or separately. Michael Matheson stated that if any national forum was to have a more investigative role, the nature of the process would change. He said ―The model that we piloted last year allowed us to avoid that unnecessary legal process, but allowed people to give testimony in a confidential setting and allowed restorative justice issues to be considered if that was appropriate in certain circumstances‖.
24. Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs noted that the UK Government was considering the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the Scottish Government was awaiting the outcome of that before deciding whether changes should be made in Scotland. The Minister undertook to copy the Committee in to any Scottish Government response.
25. In relation to reparation, Mr Matheson said that it was worth exploring the issue further ―and progressing it with any national confidential forums‖ and that some additional work had been commissioned from the centre for excellence for looked after children. Ms Cunningham confirmed that the Scottish Government was still committed to consulting on issues of time-bar (this had been expected to take place during January and February 2012). Careful consideration of the Scottish Law Commission recommendations would be required. The Scottish Government was receptive to changing some of the time-bar rules but noted that any change could have a wide impact. In relation to the petition, the Minister added ―the issue is not just about time-bar; it is also about proving the case in court. That is probably an even bigger hurdle, given the timescales that we are talking about.‖
26. The following have been received since the last meeting:
PE1351/X: Scottish Government letter of 6 June 2012 PE1351/Y: FBGA letter of 7 June 2012 PE1351/Z: Petitioner letter of 20 June 2012 PE1351/AA: FGBA letter of 21 June 2012
27. The update from the Scottish Government details the work being progressed and the submission from the petitioner and the FBGA recognise that work is underway but also raise some concerns.
PPC/S4/12/11/6
7
Action
21. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a number of possible options including
(1) In light of the various strands of work taking place to schedule this petition for a review of progress in the autumn and seek an update report from the Scottish Government in time for that meeting.
(2)To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate.
PPC/S4/12/11/7
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1395 on targeted funding for lesser taught languages and cultures at universities.
Note by the Clerk
PE1395 – Lodged 31 July 2011 (3368 signatures) Petition by Jan Culik calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct the Scottish Funding Council to provide targeted funding for lesser taught languages and cultures at Scottish universities. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions, SPICe briefing and previous consideration Purpose 1. This is a current petition last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 1
May 2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Funding Council seeking further details of its assessments and investigation. The petitioner has since written to the Convener requesting that he, on behalf of the Committee, write to the SFC regarding the forthcoming outcomes agreement between the SFC and Glasgow University. The Committee is asked to consider this request and decide what action it wishes to take.
Background - the following information is taken from the Spice Briefing 2. Universities in Scotland receive funding from the government, via the Scottish
Funding Council, for teaching, research, capital and other miscellaneous strategic issues. Each year the Scottish Government sets out broad priorities for how public resources should be spent and the SFC then allocate resources to individual institutions taking into account the government priorities.
3. Overall, SFC funding accounts for around 40% of universities income, although
this proportion will vary between institutions. How the funding is allocated to each university is a fairly complex process (see SPICe Briefing Higher Education Institutions: Finance for further detail). In allocating funding for teaching SFC allocates each HEI a full-time equivalent number of funded student places in each of 12 funding subject groups.
4. A formula is then used to derive SFC allocations for teaching. Institutions have
some flexibility in how they use their funded places and do not have to fill the specific funded place to each funding subject group, apart from funded places allocated to “controlled” subjects e.g. dentistry and medicine, which institutions are expected to fill. Institutions can transfer some of their “non-controlled” funded places between subject groups to obtain a better fit between their own priorities and patterns of recruitment.
PPC/S4/12/11/7
2
5. Under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 the SFC has a duty to secure coherent provision by the fundable bodies and it and keeps the matter under review.
England 6. The petitioner argues that targeted support should be given to lesser taught
languages in the way that exists in England. In England, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides support for strategically important and vulnerable subjects (SIVS). An advisory group informs the scope and direction of this programme.
7. In May 2011, an evaluation of HEFCE's programme of support for SIVS was published. The evaluation found (amongst a range of findings) that the SIVS has had an important symbolic role and contributed strongly to sustained provision in SIVS. This achieved a lasting difference in areas such as partnership working and approach to interventions. While demand for SIVS subjects has risen, the extent to which the programme interventions were responsible could not be ascertained.
8. The evaluation concluded that interventions undertaken through the SIVS programme had: been successful in avoiding heavy-handed market interference; enabled the programme to show leadership while remaining responsive to developments and initiatives by the sector and sustained provision.
Public Petition Committee consideration 9. The Committee previously considered this petition at its meetings on 20
September 2011, 29 November 2011, 21 February 2012 and 1 May 2012. The Committee heard evidence from the petitioner and Sir Tom Stoppard.
10. The Committee asked the Scottish Government about giving controlled funding status for lesser taught languages and cultures. The Scottish Government advised that this was a matter for the SFC. There is currently no mechanism for controlling funded student places for lesser taught languages and cultures and the “SCF does not consider that there is any need to change this.” The Cabinet Secretary wrote to the SFC asking that it keep under review the provision of Russian, Polish, Czech and Slavonic studies. The Scottish Government advised that the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism was satisfied that the SFC has taken account of the economic, social and cultural needs of Scotland and he advised there are “no plans to make funding available from the Enterprise or Tourism budgets for this purpose.”
11. The petitioner pointed out that the concern is specifically about Central and East
European languages and cultures (Russian, Czech, Polish), not modern languages in general. He queried why the SFC had no mechanism for controlled funding for student places. The petitioner noted that the review referred to was carried out at least five years previously and believes that the Scottish Government and SFC are “not facing up to the seriousness of the situation” for strategic and vulnerable languages and to modern language provision.
PPC/S4/12/11/7
3
12. The Scottish Government advised that the freeing up of £27.8m due the de-
regulation of tuition fees is being “reallocated to restore cuts to the Main Teaching Grant in academic year 2011-12 and to support higher cost subjects and expensive controlled clinical subjects.” The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning set out the priorities for investment in his letter of guidance to the SFC on 21 September 2011. This was later supplemented by his letter to SFC requesting that “the provision of Slavonic languages be kept under review. The Cabinet Secretary is satisfied that the Council has taken into account Scotland’s economic, social and cultural needs in making its funding allocations”.
13. SFC has provided a briefing to the Cabinet Secretary on the current provision of languages and confirms that the sector continues to support a range of languages and cultures, including Russian. The Cabinet Secretary is supportive of SFC’s view that it “does not consider there is a need for targeted funding for languages at this time” but it should continue to monitor modern language provision.
14. At the meeting on 1 May 2012 the Committee agreed to write to the SFC seeking
further details of its case assessments and investigation into the provision of Czech, Polish and Slavonic Studies. The SFC response is not due until the end of July 2012. Since that meeting the petitioner has recently written to the Convener. The following written submission is attached—
PE1395/K: Petitioner Letter of 8 June 2012 15. The petitioner asks whether the Committee would write to the SFC “requesting
that the 2012-13 "outcomes agreement" between Glasgow University and SFC secures full Honours language-based culture provision in Czech, Polish, Russian and Slavonic Studies, due to the uniqueness and strategic importance of these subjects in Glasgow?” The petitioner advises that the first outcomes agreement between the SFC and Glasgow University is due to be signed by the end of July 2012.
Action 16. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options including—
(1) To continue the petition and support the petitioner’s request regarding the forthcoming outcomes agreement. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Education and Culture Committee, for further consideration of the issues. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate, or
(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/8
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1396 on the over breeding and abandonment of Staffordshire bull terriers
Note by the Clerk PE1396 – Lodged 16 August (519 signatures) Petition by Ian Robb on behalf of Help for Abandoned Animals (Arbroath) calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate and prevent the overbreeding of Staffordshire bull terrier dogs. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. This petition was last considered at the Committee meeting on 17 April 2012. At
that meeting the Committee agreed to ask the Scottish Government to write to COSLA asking it to take the lead in establishing a working group to consider the issues raised by and related to the petition. The Scottish Government has confirmed that if has written to COSLA and the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. Staffordshire bull terriers (SBTs or Staffies) were first recognised as a breed by
the Kennel Club in 1935. The breed standard describes them as smooth coated, muscular, agile dogs of great strength for their size. They are described as courageous, tenacious and reliable, “highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children”. Since there is no requirement to register dog ownership in Scotland, it is not possible to compare the number of SBTs with other breeds. However, registration figures with the Kennel Club show that SBTs are the sixth most registered breed in the UK.
UK Legislation 3. There are four UK Acts relating to dangerous dogs. These are the Dogs Act
1871, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 which amends the 1871 Act, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 which amends the 1991 Act. None of which specifically mention SBTs.
4. Sections 1 and 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Act deal with breeds considered dangerous. The breeding, selling, giving and possession of the following breed types is prohibited: Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Filo Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino. Section 3 of the Act deals with threatening behaviour and dog attacks, by any type of dog: anyone allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place is guilty of an offence.
5. A House of Lords Bill the Dog Control Bill is currently under consideration in the UK Parliament. The intention of the bill is to repeal previous Dangerous Dogs
PPC/S4/12/11/8
2
Acts and move the emphasis away from problem breeds to focus on owner responsibility. The Bill if passed would apply to England and Wales only. Scottish Legislation
6. The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 which came into force on 26 February 2011 follows on from a Bill introduced by Christine Grahame MSP in 2009 which sought to move towards a focus on “deed not breed” and extend the liability of dog owners where a dog is dangerously out of control to private as well as public places. The Bill as introduced is covered by a SPICe briefing.
7. The Act introduces Dog Control Notices (DCN) which can be issued to dog owners who allow their pets to become out of control in a public or private place. A DCN will require a dog to be microchipped. It may also include the following actions: muzzling or keeping a dog on a lead; neutering male dogs; keeping the dog away from specific places; attending training courses.
8. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 includes requirements for
dog owners. The Act clarifies who should be held responsible for an animal. Causing or allowing others to cause an animal unnecessary suffering is made an offence as is the abandonment of an animal. Owners are also required to ensure animal welfare through considering its needs (e.g. environment, diet). The Scottish Government’s Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs, builds on each of the identified needs to give more detailed advice for dog owners.
9. The Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Young Dogs) (Scotland)
Regulations 2009 requires animal dealers to hold a licence though it does not apply to those selling their own pet’s offspring nor the selling of small numbers of kittens or puppies (2 cats or 2 dogs in a 12 month period).
Public Petitions Committee consideration 10. The Committee has considered this petition at its meetings on 6 September
2011, 15 November 2011 , 24 January 2012 and 17 April 2012 . Following the 15 November meeting, the Committee wrote to Angus Council and Clackmannanshire Council seeking information on their pilot schemes. The Committee also wrote to the Scottish Government for its views on the suggestion of a scheme to provide free or reduced cost neutering / spaying of dogs.
11. The responses from Angus Council and Clackmannanshire Council highlighted instances of good practice and at the last consideration, the Committee wrote to the Scottish Government asking it to take the lead in establishing a working group with relevant stakeholders, to discuss examples of best practice in tacking these issues and identify how local authorities and other professional and voluntary organisations could work together to improve the current situation.
12. The Scottish Government has indicated that while it would be willing to take part in a number of strands of discussion, it believes it would be more appropriate for COSLA, as the representative of local authorities, to take this forward. At its meeting on 17 April 2012 the Committee agreed to ask the Scottish Government
PPC/S4/12/11/8
3
to take a strategic lead in ensuring that the working group is set up by making a formal request to COSLA to take this work forward.
13. The Scottish Government confirmed it wrote to COSLA on 17 May, as requested, and has not yet received a response.
14. The Committee may wish to consider the petition again after the summer recess by which time it is expected that COSLA will have responded to the Scottish Government. In the interim the Clerks will maintain contact with Scottish Government officials.
Action 15. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a
number of possible options including—
(1) To continue the petition and consider it further when COSLA has provided its response to the Scottish Government. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, whose remit includes animal welfare, for further consideration of the issues. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate; or (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7 If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/9
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1400 on wild animals in circuses
Note by the Clerk PE1400– Lodged 2 September 2011 (1671 signatures) Libby Anderson on behalf of OneKind calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses immediately. Link to petition webpage, for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration Purpose 1. The Committee last considered this petition at its meeting on 1 May 2012. At
that time, the Committee noted that the Scottish Government intended to consult on the use of wild animals in circuses and had expected to be clearer on the issues by January 2012. The Scottish Government has now provided a further update and the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.
Background - the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. Wild animals are used to a limited extent in circuses in the UK. The RSPCA
estimates that 150-200 animals are currently used and 37 of these are wild animals including zebras, lions, snakes, tigers, camels, a kangaroo and crocodiles. No Scottish circuses use wild animals but circuses with wild animals perform in Scotland.
3. Research into the effects of circus life on animals is limited. In 2007, the Radford
Report, an academic review commissioned by the UK Government to look into a ban, concluded that the present knowledge about the welfare of animals in circuses is such that scientific evidence could not steer what was essentially a policy decision. In 2009, Iossa et al. found that the wild animals suitable for circus life, should exhibit “low space requirements, simple social structures, low cognitive function, non-specialist ecological requirements and an ability to be transported without adverse welfare effects”.
Current Legislation 4. Animal welfare is a devolved matter. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland)
Act 2006 introduced new protections for animals, the main one being for animal keepers to ensure an animal’s basic welfare needs are met. There are no specific provisions for circus animals under the Act, but Section 24 provides a statutory basis for licensing activities involving animals. Circuses that currently use animals throughout the UK must register with a local authority under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 (as amended). The registering authority will be where the exhibitor resides and not necessarily where the circus is performing.
PPC/S4/12/11/9
2
5. The movement of performing animals between EU Member States is also controlled under EU Commission Regulation 1739/2005 and the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (Scotland) Regulations 2007. Registration must be made with Competent Authorities in the country of residence and country of destination, and relevant passports and Animal Health Certificates are required. In the UK, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency is the responsible Competent Authority.
UK Government 6. The UK Government consulted on a ban in early 2010. The summary of
responses to a defra consultation on the use of wild animals in circuses suggests the majority of the public are against their use. 95.5% of respondents thought that there are no species of wild animal which it is acceptable to use in travelling circuses. The main reason given was that the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses is compromised by the travelling circus environment.
7. Respondents from the circus industry were unanimously opposed to a ban but
supported compulsory statutory regulation. They argued that there was no evidence that the circus environment was detrimental to an animal’s welfare. An argument was also made that removing animals used to a circus environment from the circus and could be detrimental to their welfare.
8. In May 2011, the UK Government announced a decision to introduce a licensing
system, rather than a ban on wild animals in circuses. In a written statement accompanying the announcement, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated “The Austrian Government have recently been taken to court for their attempt to ban wild animals in circuses. This Government want to take action as soon as possible to protect wild animals in circuses without waiting for the outcome of that judgment. For this reason we propose to introduce a strict licensing regime using powers provided under the 2006 Act.”
9. The details of the licensing system are under development but are likely to
include rules for transport, types of quarters provided for the animals and treatment of the animals by trainers and keepers.
Austrian Case 10. The Austrian Animal Protection Law which entered into force 1 January 2005
prohibits the keeping of wild animals in circuses. A complaint was made to the European Commission by the General Manager of a circus association. On 12 October 2005, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Austria by sending a letter of formal notice to the Austrian authorities. Since then, the Commission changed its mind about the necessity of action at the European level and in September 2009 set out its final opinion that Austria could justify the ban on welfare grounds.
Scottish Parliament 11. A ban on circus animals was called for in 2006 when the Animal Health and
Welfare (Scotland) Bill was debated. An amendment to ban circus animals was turned down. On 9th June 2011, the Scottish Parliament debated a motion lodged by Elaine Murray (MSP) on banning wild animals in circuses:
PPC/S4/12/11/9
3
“That the Parliament notes the decision by the UK Government not to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses; notes that in the recent past a travelling circus visiting locations including Dumfries included an elephant as one of its attractions; believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that life in a travelling circus does not allow for acceptable standards of welfare and quality of life for wild animals; notes the work done by animal rights activists and third sector organisations to argue for such a ban, and considers that action in this area is needed to prevent suffering to animals.”
12. The Minister for Environment and Climate Change concluded the debate stating
that the Scottish Government would continue to look at this issue, informed by information coming from Westminster.
Public Petitions Committee consideration 13. Following an initial evidence session with the petitioner, the Scottish
Government advised that its position on wild animals in traveling circuses was currently under review and agreed “the status quo is not a tenable option”. The Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment remain sympathetic to a ban. The Scottish Government has drawn attention to the existing protections provided by legislation, noted the intention to consult on the use of wild animals in circuses and had expected, by January 2012, to have a better understanding of all the issues that would feed in to the drafting of the consultation.
18. The Scottish Government has now advised that due to other higher priority work,
it is not likely to have any firm plans now in this area before winter 2012.
Action 19. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options including—
(1) To schedule the petition for consideration again at the end of the year.
(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, for further consideration of the issues. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate, or
(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/10
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1404 on access to insulin pump therapy
Note by the Clerk PE1404 – Lodged 27 September 2011 Petition by Stephen Fyfe on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an immediate review into the provision of insulin pump therapy (CSII) in Scotland in order to address the low and inequitable access across the country. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This petition was last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 17 April
2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to consider undertaking fact finding visits to certain health boards to discuss informally what their plans to meet the Scottish Government’s targets. Members met with Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board yesterday. The Committee is invited to decide what action it wishes to take in relation to this petition.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. Diabetes is a condition where too much glucose is present in the blood. Glucose
levels in the blood are usually controlled by a hormone called insulin and when a person has insufficient or poorly functioning insulin they develop diabetes. There are two types of diabetes:
Type I diabetes – this is where the body produces no insulin and the patient is dependent on treatment with insulin. It is also referred to as insulin-dependent diabetes or juvenile onset diabetes as it usually develops in children or young adults. Type I diabetes accounts for approximately 10% of diabetes in the UK1.
Type II diabetes – in this case the body either produces insufficient insulin or cells fail to react in the correct way (insulin resistance). Type II diabetes may be managed by lifestyle modifications such as a change in diet along with monitoring blood glucose levels. However, it is a progressive disease and patients may eventually depend on insulin. Type II diabetes is often associated with obesity and may be referred to as late onset diabetes. Type II diabetes accounts for approximately 90% of diabetes in the UK.
3. In addition to the main symptoms, which include extreme thirst, tiredness and
weight loss, diabetics are also at risk of developing very high blood glucose levels (hyperglycaemia) or very low blood glucose levels (hypoglycaemia).
1 NHS Choices
PPC/S4/12/11/10
2
Hyperglycaemia symptoms include extreme thirst, blurred vision, drowsiness and a frequent need to pass urine. Symptoms of hypoglycaemia include sweating, tingling lips, feeling shaky and irritable, feeling weak, hunger and nausea. Both hyper- and hypo- glycaemia, if left untreated, may result in unconsciousness and eventually death.
4. Insulin treatment is the only way to manage type I diabetes and this is generally
achieved by a regime of multiple dose injections (MDI). These are subcutaneous injections which are generally administered two to four times a day, with carefully managed doses that may need to be adjusted to account for extra physical activity or large meals. Insulin pumps are an alternative to the MDI regime and provide continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) which delivers a constant base supply of fast-acting insulin to the bloodstream and which can be adjusted to suit an individual patient’s needs in terms of dose.
5. In 2010 the Scottish Diabetes Survey, carried out by the Scottish Diabetes
Survey Monitoring Group, included the numbers of patients with type I diabetes and the percentage of those patients using insulin pumps. The Diabetes Action Plan 2010 estimated that up to 4000 people in Scotland may benefit from insulin pumps, but only 696 patients across the country were using this technology in 2010. NHS Fife had the highest percentage of type I patients using pumps (5.9%) while NHS Western Isles had the lowest percentage with only 0.6% of the type I population using insulin pumps. The complete figures for insulin pump usage by Health Board are provided on page 2 (Table 1) of the petitioner’s submission.
6. Insulin pump therapy has been appraised in National Institute of Clinical
Excellence (NICE) multiple technology appraisal (MTA) number 151, which was approved for use in NHS Scotland. This guidance recommends the use of insulin pump therapy as a ‘possible treatment for children under 12 … if treatment with daily injections is not practical or not considered appropriate’. These children would be expected to undergo a trial of MDI between the ages of 12 and 18. Additionally it recommends consideration of insulin pump therapy in adults and children aged 12 and over if:
Attempts to reach target haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels with multiple
daily injections result in the person having ‘disabling hypoglycaemia', or
HbA1c levels have remained high (8.5% or above) with multiple daily injections (including using long-acting insulin analogues if appropriate) despite the person and/or their carer carefully trying to manage their diabetes.
7. MTA 151 goes on to specify that treatments with insulin pumps need to be
initiated by trained specialists who can properly advise and train the patient in the correct use of the equipment. Additionally, it recommends that use of the insulin pump should only be continued if ‘there has been a sustained improvement in the control of their blood glucose levels’. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) is the department of Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) that develops clinical practice guidelines for NHS
PPC/S4/12/11/10
3
Scotland. These guidelines are developed for conditions where variations in treatments across Scotland have been observed, in an attempt to standardise care throughout the country.
8. SIGN Guidance 116 provides guidance on the management of diabetes,
including the possible use of insulin pump (CSII) therapies. It makes the following five recommendations:
CSII therapy is associated with modest improvements in glycaemic
control and should be considered for patients unable to achieve their glycaemic targets.
CSII therapy should be considered in patients who experience recurring
episodes of severe hypoglycaemia.
An insulin pump is recommended for those with very low basal insulin requirements (such as infants and very young children), for whom even small doses of basal insulin analogue may result in hypoglycaemia.
Pump therapy should be available from a local multidisciplinary pump
clinic for patients who have undertaken structured education.
Targets for improvement in HbA1c [haemoglobin glucose levels] and/or reduction in hypoglycaemia should be agreed by patients using CSII therapy and their multidisciplinary diabetes care team. Progress against targets should be monitored and, if appropriate, alternative treatment strategies should be offered.
9. In August 2010 the Scottish Government published the latest version of the
Diabetes Action Plan which included a commitment to future equitable provision of insulin pumps to those patients who may benefit from this therapy. It contained a number of actions to promote insulin pump therapy.
10. In the Diabetes Action Plan, each of the 14 area NHS Boards outlined their
planned investment in insulin pump therapy for the following three years, along with targets for the number of new patients allowed to access this technology. Boards are expected to ‘have made significant and sustained progress in increasing access to insulin pump therapy in line with the latest clinical guidance’ by the end of the three year period covered by the action plan (2010-2013). In response to Parliamentary Question (S4O-00120), regarding insulin pump provision in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde area, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy Nicola Sturgeon MSP stated that ‘later this month [September 2011] we [the Scottish Government] will write to those boards that have shown less progress, asking what further action they will take.’
11. Insulin pump therapy has been debated in the Scottish Parliament on a
number of occasions. In May 2008 and in September 2009, there were Members’ debates on the provision of insulin pumps throughout Scotland.
PPC/S4/12/11/10
4
Public Petitions Committee Consideration 12. Following initial consideration in November 2011 the Committee wrote to the
Scottish Government asking whether it would carry out the review as requested by the petitioner. The Committee also wrote to a number of health boards to establish what criteria were used when deciding whether to provide insulin pump therapy and how many insulin-pump trained clinicians there were. Responses from four of the six health boards contacted (NHS Tayside, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Fife) were received together with submissions from the Scottish Government and Diabetes UK Scotland.
13. The Scottish Government’s response advised that the Scottish Diabetes
Group monitors the provision of insulin pump therapy by way of the Scottish Diabetes Survey and that in future the survey would provide a breakdown by age group in addition to board-by-board. On 27 February 2012 the Scottish Government issued guidance to all health boards in the form of a Chief Executive Letter (CEL). All boards are expected to develop a local action plan to ensure that the targets set are met. The Scottish Diabetes Group will monitor performance against targets and report to Ministers quarterly. The CEL details the targets and the specific actions required by each NHS Board with reference to the minimum number of additional pumps each board is expected to provide.
16. Since the last consideration, the Scottish Government has provided an update
(letter of 17 May 2012). It confirms that that the action plans are the starting points and focus should be on delivering pumps to 25 per cent of young people with type 1 diabetes by 2013 and tripling the amount of pumps available to people of all ages with diabetes in the next three years.
17. At the time of writing the Committee intends to meet informally with Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board on Monday 25 June to discuss its plans for meeting the targets.
Action 17. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options, including—
(1) To await the availability of the Boards’ action plans and consider the matter again once the plans and the first of the quarterly reports by Diabetes Scotland are available.
(2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to the Health and Sport Committee for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4)To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/11
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1421 on Fair Ferry Fares
Note by the Clerk PE1421 – Lodged 7 March 2012 Petition by Gail Robertson, on behalf of the Outer Hebrides Transport Group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government not to remove Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) for freight vehicles that would lead to an increase in fares for commercial traffic to and from the Western Isles and to conduct a socio-economic impact study before any policy changes. Link to petition webpage Purpose
1. This petition was last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 17 April
2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government asking what its response was to the petition and to provide further details on some of its evidence. A response has been received and the Committee is asked to decide what action it wishes to take.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing
2. Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) is a method of calculating ferry fares. RET fares are normally calculated on a “pence per mile” basis plus a set fee. The aim is to ensure that ferry users pay broadly similar costs to those incurred by someone driving the same distance as the ferry route.
Scottish Government Action 3. The Scottish Government announced the details of a pilot RET fares scheme on
26 February 2008. Pilot RET fares applied to all CalMac routes linking the Scottish mainland with the Western Isles from 19 October 2008 until late 2011.
4. Fares on the RET pilot routes were initially calculated as follows:
Cars and small vehicles pay a flat fee of £5 plus 60p per mile Car drivers, vehicle passengers and foot passengers are charged at £2 plus
10p per mile Goods vehicles, including drivers, are charged at £20 plus 18p per lane metre
per mile 5. A final evaluation of the RET pilot was published during July 2011. The pilot
finally ended with a Scottish Government announcement on 29 November 2011, which indicated that the Scottish Government intended to:
PPC/S4/12/11/11
2
continue RET as a permanent feature on the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree for passengers and cars, including small commercial vehicles and coaches:
replace RET for larger commercial vehicles (over five metres in length) on the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree, with an enhanced pre-RET discount scheme;
provide greater inter-island connectivity by rolling out RET to services between islands including routes across the Sounds of Barra and Harris
roll out a further RET pilot for passenger and cars including small commercial vehicles and coaches to Colonsay, Islay and Gigha from October 2012;
roll out a further RET pilot for passenger and cars including small commercial vehicles and coaches to Arran from October 2014;
roll out RET to other West Coast and Clyde islands within the term of this Parliament.
6. The Scottish Government announced on 7 February 2012 that RET fares would
continue to apply to commercial vehicles of up to six metres in length, rather than the five meter limit originally announced.
7. The Scottish Government committed additional transitional relief for hauliers
affected by the removal of RET fares for commercial vehicles in an announcement on 13 February 2012, limiting any fares increase to a maximum of 50% in any one year.
Scottish Parliament Action 8. The issue of the withdrawal of RET fares for commercial vehicles was the
subject of a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 23 February 2012. 9. Keith Brown MSP (Minister for Housing and Transport) was asked about the
Scottish Government’s plans for RET and ferry fares for commercial vehicles at the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee meeting of 25 January 2012.
Public Petitions Committee consideration 10. At its meeting on 17 April 2012 the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish
Government asking for a response to the petition and seeking further details of the evidence about savings being passed on to customers. The following response is attached:
PE1421/B: Transport Scotland letter of 17 May 2012
11. The response recognises that “the removal of RET for commercial vehicles in
the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree would have an impact” but sets out the steps taken to reduce it, including extending RET for small commercial vehicles up to 6m and providing an extra £2.5m in 2012/12 for transitional arrangements. Transport Scotland advises that it will work with hauliers and stakeholders on a six month study on the impacts. The petitioner is represented on the working group overseeing the study. Transport Scotland advises that the evidence relating to 7 per cent of hauliers and businesses passing savings on to
PPC/S4/12/11/11
3
customers was taken from the findings in the Final Report: Assessment of the Impacts of the Road Equivalent Pilot and business survey.
Action
12. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of this petition. There are a number of possible options, including—
(1) To continue the petition until the work of the six month study has reported and to consider the petition again in light of that. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised.
(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate.
(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that:
Transport Scotland has detailed the steps taken to reduce the impact on
hauliers and businesses affected by the change. Transport Scotland has agreed to work with hauliers and stakeholders on a
six month study on the impact of the change. The petitioner is represented on the working group overseeing the study.
PPC/S4/12/11/12
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1422 on the inequality of Land Reform (Scotland) Act
Note by the Clerk PE1422 – Lodged 8 March 2012 Petition by Wendy Barr calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need to change the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to ensure equality for all. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a current petition considered for the first time by the Committee at its
meeting on 26 April 2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, COSLA, Scottish Land and Estates, ScotWays, Ramblers Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Responses have been received and the Committee is now asked to consider them and decide what action it wishes to take.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. Part One of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 establishes statutory public
rights of access to land and inland water for recreational and other purposes. The emphasis of Part One of the Act is on the management of access at a local level and as such it provides local authorities and National Park authorities (known collectively as access authorities) with powers to manage access in their area. Duties placed on access authorities under the Act include: To uphold the exercise of access rights over any route, waterway or other
means by which access rights may be exercised To plan for a system of core paths To establish one or more local access forums for their area To publish the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) drawn up by Scottish
Natural Heritage, setting out guidance on the rights and responsibilities of access takers and owners of land.
3. Every access authority is required to draw up a plan for a system of core paths1 sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their area. Several access authorities have now adopted their plans and others are working towards adoption. In drawing up their core paths plans each access authority was required to consult on the plan with:
1 In most instances, these Core Paths Plans are informed by and have evolved from Countryside Access Strategies.
PPC/S4/12/11/12
2
The local access forum Persons representative of those living and working on the land that may be
affected by the plan Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Anyone else whom they considered appropriate
4. If no formal objections to the Plans are made, or an objection is withdrawn subsequently, then the access authority may adopt the plan. Where a valid objection is made and not withdrawn the core paths plan will go to Local Inquiry and will not be adopted unless directed to do so by Scottish Ministers.
5. Regardless of whether a path, route, or piece of land is included in a Core Path Plan, there is a presumed right of responsible access, subject to certain restrictions e.g. houses and gardens, or land in which crops are growing or have been sown. Guidance for Local Authorities and National Park Authorities on Part One of the Act can be found here.
6. The petitioner raises three main points, as follows: Inequality between the rights of landowners compared to those
exercising the right to access land
7. Those accessing land have the right to do so only if they behave responsibly (Section 2). Section 3 imposes „reciprocal obligations‟ on owners of land, requiring owners to act responsibly in using and managing the land or otherwise conducting their ownership of it.
8. Section 28 of the Act provides that a person may apply to the sheriff court for a determination of whether those taking access are doing so responsibility whether owners of land are acting responsibility in respect of access rights. Owners rights over who uses their property and how
9. There are no access rights for land adjacent to a house, a tent, a caravan or other similar domestic place as is sufficient to give people living there reasonable measures of privacy and undisturbed enjoyment (Section 6) and the location and characteristics of the place should be taken into account (Section 7(5)). However in the aforementioned Guidance it states that the area of land sufficient to achieve this objective will be matter to determine according to the specifics of each particular case (p 10).
10. The Guidance (p 10) states that this exclusion under section 6 exists to protect landowners‟ rights under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) (right to respect for private and family life and home) and under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). Access rights being granted through a property might decrease its value
and landowners are not given compensation
PPC/S4/12/11/12
3
11. Section 21 of the Act provides that local authorities may enter into an agreement with landowners on delineation of a path with access rights. The Guidance (p 7) states that the agreement may, amongst other things, include payments to the owner. Section 22 of the Act provides that, where a local authority considers it impractical to reach agreement with the owner, it may make a „path order‟ delineating the path. The Guidance (p 65) confirms that no compensation is payable in this situation.
12. Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) is relevant in the context of section 22. In the Policy Memorandum to the original Bill as introduced, the former Scottish Executive stated that it considered the provisions in the Bill relating to access to be ECHR compliant (para 39).
Scottish Government Action
13. Good practice guidance and advice for land managers was originally published in 2005. Included within this is guidance for dealing with irresponsible behaviour. In June 2008, the Scottish Government published Monitoring and Evaluating the Effects of Land Reform on Rural Scotland. This states:
There is currently little detailed knowledge of the impacts of the SOAC, […]. Published, peer-reviewed, evidence-based research is lacking, and stakeholders are generally uncertain as to the actual, attributable impacts of access reform. However, research has shown that recreational access has increased slightly; awareness of the 2003 Act and of the SOAC has grown; and positive behaviour changes have also been reported which may be attributed to the SOAC.
14. A monitoring regime is also in place to assess the progress and expenditure of access authorities in upholding and facilitating access rights. As at 31 March 2011 there were: 21,177 km of signposted or waymarked paths
20 access authorities had adopted their core paths plans which cover 8320 km of paths.
Of these, 4929 km were signposted or waymarked and 3770 km were maintained by the access authority.
Scottish Parliament Action
15. In September 2010 the former Rural Affairs and Environment Committee published externally commissioned research into the implementation of the Act. In relation to Core Path planning, the Executive Summary states:
There has been slippage in some Access Authorities progress in drawing up their Core Paths Plans as required in Part One of the Act. Access Authorities have made limited use of their enforcement powers under the Act and there is currently very little case law relating to statutory access rights.
Furthermore:
PPC/S4/12/11/12
4
There is a perception that the legislation has gradually improved relations between access-takers and land managers. Core paths planning is considered to have raised the profile of access issues within Local Authorities and encouraged community engagement and constructive dialogue between stakeholders. However, there are concerns that core paths planning will be a “missed opportunity” if Access Authorities have insufficient funding to maintain and manage core paths networks.
Current consideration by the Public Petitions Committee
16. The Committee considered the petition at its meeting on 26 April 2012 and agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, COSLA, Scottish Land and Estates, ScotWays, Ramblers Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The following responses have been received:
PE1422/A: Scottish Human Rights Commission Letter of 24 April 2012 PE1422'B: Scottish Natural Heritage Letter of 11 May 2012 PE1422/C: ScotWays Letter of 15 May 2012 PE1422.D: Ramblers Scotland Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1422/E: Scottish Government Letter of 21 May 2012 PE1422/F: Petitioner Letter of 14 June 2012
17. The Scottish Government believes that the Act provides for a “balanced
relationship between landowners and those exercising the right to access land”. In relation to the petitioner‟s request that an independent body be established to deal with access disputes, the Scottish Government point out that the Act requires all local authorities and national park authorities to establish a Local Access Forum for the purposes of considering and resolving problems and disputes. Beyond this, access matters under the Act may be referred to the Sheriff Court for judicial determination. In relation to Core Path Plans, Local Access Forums are involved in drawing up the plans and any objections that are not resolved are considered by a local Inquiry Reporter within the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA).
18. The Scottish Government confirms the Act does not make provision for
compensation for landowners in relation to access and core paths. It concludes its response by stating that it does not believe that there are any inequality issues to be addressed in the access provisions of the Act.
19. SNH and ScotWays both provide further information on the make-up of the Local Access Forums and set out that membership includes representatives of landowners, those with recreation and access interests and local authorities. SNH advises that in some instances the Forums have been chaired by landowner representatives and that the Forums are an effective part of the legislation.
20. SNH stresses the point that the Act is statutory law, arrived at through a full and democratic Parliamentary process and that as its title makes clear it is a „Land Reform‟ measure which re-defines by statute certain key aspects of what property ownership means in Scotland.
PPC/S4/12/11/12
5
21. Ramblers Scotland confirms it was heavily involved in the passage of the Act and supports SNH‟s views on the statutory rights of access. It does not believe the legislation is inequitable. This view is shared by the Scottish Human Rights Commission whose response concludes “the Commission considers that the Petition does not raise significant human rights concerns”.
22. The Petitioner states that with reference to landowners being represented in Local Access Forums, the legislation refers to landowners as people who work the land, employ people to work the land or who earn a living from the land. The petitioner believes that account has not been taken of people whose property and land is primarily their home that does not provide an income or that such people are individuals and not part of a body or union. The petitioner believes there is no equality in the legislation for those who do not earn a living from the land and that the legal expense of challenging the legislation is beyond the reach of many people.
Action 23. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To continue the petition in order to seek any information. For example, the Committee may wish to ask: The Scottish Government— The Petitioner states that the term „landowner / manager” refers to people
who work the land, employ people to work the land and who earn a living from the land. She believes that not enough consideration was given to people whose property is their home and who do not earn an income from the land. She contests that not enough thought was given to the practical impacts of the legislation on those who are rural dwellers. What consideration was given to this issue?
How is it ensured that „rural dwellers‟ are represented on Local Access Forums when they are not members of bodies or groups?
The Act requires local authorities to establish statutory public rights of access and as such they have Access Teams. Can you provide information to the Committee on what action, if any, a local authority can take if it is shown that irresponsible / unwelcome behaviour is occurring on a regular basis on one of the access routes or paths it has established?
(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Rural Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case the grounds for closing may be that the Committee agrees —
PPC/S4/12/11/12
6
That the Act is statutory law, arrived at through a full and democratic Parliamentary process and that as its title makes clear it is a „Land Reform‟ measure which re-defines by statute certain key aspects of what property ownership means in Scotland.
PPC/S4/12/11/13
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1423 on harnessing the undoubted talent of Public Sector Staff
Note by the Clerk PE1423 – Lodged 8 March 2012 Petition by Gordon Hall, on behalf of The Unreasonable Learners, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the considerable research into the thinking that underpins the approach to managing the contribution from staff that has been undertaken over the past decades and compare this with the assumptions that underpin existing management practice; and subsequently to use the findings to ensure that it harnesses the talent of its staff. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a current petition which the Committee first considered at its meeting on
17 April 2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, Fife Council, NHS Lanarkshire, NHS Tayside, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, SOLACE Scotland, Improvement Service. The responses have now been received and the Committee is asked to consider them and decide what action it wishes to take.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing
2. The Petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government “modernise the management culture of Scotland”. The name “unreasonable learners” comes from a quote from George Bernard Shaw—
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable one persists in trying to get the world to adapt to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
3. The Unreasonable Learners had a stand in the Parliament in November 2011 to explain the thinking behind their work. The booklet produced for MSPs contains a useful summary.
4. In short, the group believes that there is a “inordinate waste in our public sector”, caused by the “command and control” culture, i.e. “our society believes we need leaders to provide direction and they should then be supported by scrutiny methods to ensure we comply.” However, they state that there has been extensive research over the past decades that is “pushing us toward structures that are based on—
A belief in people;
PPC/S4/12/11/13
2
The need to understand and re-design the complex systems that characterise our society;
A recognition that the driving force for progress will not come from central direction but from innovative people at the workface.”
Scottish Government Action
5. The Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, which reported in June 2011, contains a series of priorities for the future of public services in Scotland, many of which are relevant to the Petition, i.e.— Recognising that effective services must be designed with and for people and
communities - not delivered 'top down' for administrative convenience
Maximising scarce resources by utilising all available resources from the public, private and third sectors, individuals, groups and communities
Working closely with individuals and communities to understand their needs, maximise talents and resources, support self reliance, and build resilience
Concentrating the efforts of all services on delivering integrated services that deliver results
Prioritising preventative measures to reduce demand and lessen inequalities
Identifying and targeting the underlying causes of inter-generational deprivation and low aspiration
Tightening oversight and accountability of public services, introducing consistent data-gathering and performance comparators, to improve services
Driving continuing reform across all public services based on outcomes, improved performance and cost reduction
Implementing better long-term strategic planning, including greater transparency around major budget decisions like universal entitlements
6. The Government formally responded to the Commission in Renewing Scotland‟s Public Services, setting out four key “pillars”— a decisive shift towards prevention;
greater integration of public services at a local level, driven by better partnership, collaboration and effective local delivery;
greater investment in the people who deliver services through enhanced workforce development and effective leadership; and
a sharp focus on improving performance, through greater transparency , innovation and use of digital technology.
PPC/S4/12/11/13
3
Scottish Parliament Action
7. The Session 3 Finance Committee considered “systems thinking” in its report on the Budget Strategy Phase in 2010. The Session 3 Committee‟s report stated—
Systems thinking
99. Systems thinking is advocated by Professor John Seddon who, in oral evidence to the Committee, was a vociferous critic of certain central government efforts to improve performance in the public sector. In summary, he said that centrally-imposed targets could make performance worse, by leading professionals to meet all their activity targets without actually achieving the purpose of the service, for example, better social care. Inspectors could compound the problem by evaluating the “success” of targets that were wrong in the first place. He argued instead for greater innovation in public services, to “shift the responsibility for making choices about methods and measures to those managers who deliver the services”80.
100. While Professor Seddon‟s oral evidence often focussed on English and Welsh examples, he considered that similar lessons would apply in Scotland. From the various mentions of systems thinking in the written and oral evidence, for example by Unison, it seems that there is a growing move towards this type of analysis in Scotland. Scott-Moncrieff said—
“A whole system approach to looking for savings is required. For example, the connection between policing resources, the number of prosecutions, court availability and prison capacity needs to be considered as a whole. Without a full understanding of these inter-dependencies driving savings in one spending area may just lead to more unavoidable demand for public spending in another area.”81
101. The Committee considers that the importance of longer-term approaches to public spending should not be forgotten even when faced with immediate challenges and invites the Scottish Government to explain how it will continue to direct its spend towards more preventative programmes.
102. It is likely that the Committee will look to build on the work begun during this inquiry by undertaking a more significant piece of work examining some of the proposed longer-term solutions such as preventative spending. The Committee expects to be able to formally launch its new inquiry before summer recess with its findings contributing to a legacy paper to be published before the end of the parliamentary session. The inquiry will also assist the Committee in its on-going work to understand more clearly the links between spending and outcomes.
103. Given the evidence provided by Professor Seddon and others, the Committee invites the Scottish Government to provide an assessment of how systems thinking can help to address the budget deficit.
PPC/S4/12/11/13
4
8. The Government responded to these conclusions, stating—
“The Scottish Government welcomes the announcement of the Committee's inquiry into preventative spending. The Scottish Government has for some time been leading a considerable body of work across a range of public services looking at what are often referred to as early or preventative interventions, including in health, social care and education. Systems thinking is an established part of the policy development process undertaken by the Scottish Government. This is reflected in the budget decisions that are taken, for example in support of continuous improvements to patients' experience of treatment within the NHS, in ongoing reform of the criminal justice system, and in the consolidation within the Government Economic Strategy of measures and programmes that combine to provide optimal support to economic growth in Scotland.”
9. The Session 4 Finance Committee is not currently undertaking any specific
work on the issue. Public Petitions Committee consideration 10. The Committee considered this petition for the first time on 17 April 2012 and
heard evidence from the Petitioners. The Committee decided to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, Fife Council, NHS Lanarkshire, NHS Tayside, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, SOLACE Scotland, Improvement Service. The following responses have now been received:
PE1423/A: NHS Lanarkshire Letter of 9 May 2012 PE1423/B: Petitioner Letter of 17 May 2012 PE1423/C: Improvement Service Letter of 19 May 2012 PE1423/D: Glasgow City Council Letter of 21 May 2012 PE1423/E: Scottish Government Letter of 21 May 2012 PE1423/F: NHS Tayside Letter of 22 May 2012 PE1423/G: NHS Ayrshire and Arran Letter of 24 May 2012 PE1423/H: Fife Council Letter of 28 May 2012 PE1423/I: Dr Cathy Sharp Letter of 1 May 2012 PE1423/J: Petitioner letter of 18 June 2012
11. During consideration of the petition on 17 April 2012 it was suggested that a
roundtable discussion may be a „productive and informative‟ way to pursue the issues raised in the petition. The Committee also asked the Petitioner to provide some case studies; this information can be found in PE1423/B.
12. Overall the responses received from local authorities and health boards are positive about what the petition seeks. Ayrshire and Arran Health Board in particular states that it “strongly supports the view that staff are our most important resource” and it goes on to provide detail of the strategies they have in place to support and develop their staff.
PPC/S4/12/11/13
5
13. The Petitioner noted that the responses reflect a „laudable energy being invested in the challenge of moving forward‟ but makes the point that none of the organisations that have responded have been able to address the fundamental request of the petition which was to identify the underlying assumptions of the organisation.
14. The Scottish Government also agrees with the importance of the “effective engagement of employees in creating effective services” however it has not directly answered the question asked of it in the petition which is whether it will: “review the considerable research into the thinking that underpins the approach to managing the contribution from staff that has been undertaken over the past decades and compare this with the assumptions that underpin existing management practice; and subsequently to use the findings to ensure that it harnesses the talent of its staff.”
15. The Petitioner has suggested some options for taking the petition forward such
as the round table discussion, as suggested by the Committee, and proposes that the aims of such a meeting could be to consider research into:
the actual theories currently used in the public sector, which data could be usefully collected by organisations in the future, and how best social media and modern technology could be used in national
debates on the issue Action 16. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To continue the petition in order to seek any information.
(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Finance Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. In this instance the Committee may wish to consider taking forward the suggestion of a round table discussion made during its meeting of 17 April 2012. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
PPC/S4/12/11/14
1
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 26 June 2012
PE1424 on Improving transport provision for older people in remote and rural areas
Note by the Clerk
PE1424 – Lodged 8 March 2012 Petition by Joyce Harkness on behalf of the “Road to Health” CPP3 team, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to (a) work with local authorities, NHS boards, Regional Transport Partnerships and the ambulance service to improve provision of transport for older people in remote and rural areas in order to improve their access to health, social care and wellbeing facilities, and (b) to take forward the key recommendations of the Transport for health and social care report by Audit Scotland. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a current petition which the Committee first considered at its meeting on
17 April 2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to Buchan Dial-a-Community Bus and await the publication of the Scottish Government report on healthcare transport. A response has been received and the Committee is asked to consider what action it wishes to take.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing
2. Dumfries and Galloway Third Sector Forum is a partner of the Scottish Parliament’s Community Partnership Project. In January 2012 it published a report into rural transport for older people in Dumfries and Galloway. This focused on transport to health care appointments and transport related to wellbeing.
3. Health related transport in Scotland is provided by a range of different providers, including voluntary drivers, the Patient Transport Service of the Scottish Ambulance Service and neonatal transport and paediatric retrieval services1. The Patient Transport Service is currently undergoing a three year (2012-2015) programme of change2.
4. The Audit Scotland report Transport for Health and Social Care, published in August 2011, assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of transport for health and social care in Scotland. It found that services are fragmented and that there is a lack of leadership, ownership and monitoring of services. It affirms that joint
1 Scottish Government. (2007) Delivering for Remote and Rural Healthcare: The Final Report of the Remote and Rural Workstream. 2 Scottish Ambulance Service
PPC/S4/12/11/14
2
working across the public sector with voluntary and private providers is crucial and that reducing or removing funding can have a significant impact on people on low incomes, older people and people with on-going health or social care needs. The report made recommendations for the Scottish Government’s short-life working group on healthcare transport, the Scottish Government and partners including local government, NHS boards, Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs) and the Scottish Ambulance Service.
Scottish Government Action 5. To help develop a national approach to travel management the Scottish
Government issued the Healthcare Transport Framework to NHS Board Chief Executives in November 2009. This included a Transport Action Plan checklist to help NHS boards identify local need and improve access. Audit Scotland noted that by 2011 eight of the fourteen NHS Boards had completed transport action plans and that these plans varied in terms of detail and approach3.
6. Following the publication of the Healthcare Transport Framework, Chairs of the
Regional Transport Partnerships recommended that the Scottish Government establish a short-life working group on healthcare transport. This group was set up in January 2011 and met quarterly between January 2011 and February 2012. The remit of the group was to make recommendations for improving approaches to transport to healthcare services and to provide appropriate advice to NHS Boards, local authorities and other relevant bodies and placing particular emphasis on collaboration to tackle inequities in access to health care4.
7. The group’s report is being finalised and will be brought before ministers shortly.
The report will focus on developing a patient-centred service to alleviate barriers in access to health and healthcare. It will set out the steps that could be taken for improving the provision of healthcare transport across NHS Scotland and encourage stakeholders to work together more effectively. In addition, work is being undertaken on the possibility of the Scottish Government commissioning and partly funding pilot projects in two NHS Board areas around an integrated 'hub' model of provision i.e. co-ordinating the transport resources of various providers such as the Scottish Ambulance Service, local authorities, NHS Boards and the third sector etc5.
Scottish Parliament Action 8. On the 14 December 2011 time for reflection was led by Dumfries and Galloway
Third Sector Forum and focused on its report. A motion S4M-01763 A Road to Health was lodged by Alex Fergusson on 19 January 2012. This motion achieved cross party support. There have also been a number of parliamentary questions on the subject of the Patient Transport Service (S3W-38680, S3O-09931).
3 Audit Scotland. (2011) Transport for Health and Social Care. 4 Scottish Government. (2011) Short Life Working Group – Review of Transport to Healthcare Services: Discussion Paper – Purpose of Group and Terms of Reference. 5 Scottish Government personal communication 22 March 2012.
PPC/S4/12/11/14
3
9. On the 13 December 2011 the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence on Access to Transport from the Mobility and Access Committee Scotland and Community Transport from the Rural Development Trust and Buchan Dial-a-Community Bus. On the 16 May 2011 a member’s business debate took place on motion S4M-01763 A Road to Health in the name of Alex Fergusson. Reference was made to the rural transport solutions pilot scheme in Wigtownshire and the Minister for Public Health assured members that he would consider the findings of the working group’s report carefully and that the Scottish Ambulance Service is considering what progress it can make to address the concerns highlighted by Audit Scotland.
Public Petitions Committee consideration
10. The Committee considered this petition for the first time on 17 April 2012 and
heard evidence from the petitioners. The Committee agreed to write to Buchan Dial-a-Community Bus as an example of good practice and await the publication of the Scottish Government report on healthcare transport. The following responses have been received:
PE1424/A: Buchan Dial-a-Community Bus Letter of 26 April 2012 PE1424/B: Petitioner Letter of 14 June 2012
11. DACB advises that until recent funding cuts it worked closely with a variety of
agencies in providing health transport including mental health, social work, local health clinics and the Scottish Ambulance Service. DACB agrees with the issues raised in the petition and is of the view that the NHS does not share the petitioner’s wish to work closely with others on improving transport provision for older people. The petitioners urge the Committee to acknowledge that best practice must be rolled out across Scotland and that the Scottish Ambulance Service and its partners be given renewed impetus to implement the Audit Scotland Report recommendations.
Action 12. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of
this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To continue to keep the petition open pending the publication of the working group’s report on healthcare transport and seek an update on the work being undertaken on commissioning pilot projects in two NHS Board areas. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Health and Sport Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.
Public Petitions Committee
11th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4)
Tuesday 26 June 2012
Fact-Finding Visit – Paper for Information
1. The Committee undertook a fact-finding visit to Barnardo’s to inform its consideration of PE1393 on tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland. The visit to the service in Glasgow took place on 11 June 2012. 2. The clerks have prepared a note of the visit which provides a brief outline of the issues discussed. A copy of the note is included at Annexe A for information.
Anne Peat Clerk to the Committee
21 June 2012
Annexe A
NOTE OF FACT-FINDING VISIT TO BARNARDO’S Nature of visit 1. The Committee agreed to undertake a fact-finding visit to Barnardo’s to inform its consideration of PE1393 on tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland. The visit to Safer Choices service in Glasgow took place on Monday 11 June. The following individuals participated: David Stewart MSP, Convener Angus MacDonald MSP Anne Peat, Clerk Stuart Todd, Assistant Clerk Daljeet Dagon, Children’s Services Manager Brian Houston, Assistant Director Children's Services Terry Gallagher, Team Leader Carol Munro, Project Worker Mark Ballard, Assistant Director Policy and Influencing Richard Meade, Public Affairs Officer Discussion Overview 2. Safer Choices provides support to children and young people aged 18 years and under to identify risk and devise strategies to minimise harm, particularly in relation to sexual exploitation. Barnardo’s has provided services to help prevent and support children and young people out of exploitation since 1992. The team engages with children using a range of methods including direct 1:1 work, street work and a four-week prevention programme in schools. 94% of all the young people contacted by the service were from Glasgow City. The service also contributes to work on CSE grooming and aims to increase young people’s knowledge about the risks of social media networking. CSE model 3. Child Sexual Exploitation is distinctive to child abuse and neglect in that a different relationship exists between the child or young person and the perpetrator. A key distinction is that the child or young person does not recognise himself or herself as a victim of abuse. It is no longer necessary for the perpetrator to have proximity with the child or young person. The service uses a separate CSE model of practice and support for children and young people. Collaborative approach 4. The Safer Choices team works with a range of agencies and deals with referrals including from parents and schools. It adopts a collaborative approach by working with agencies and referrers in supporting children and young people in awareness raising and developing strategies.
5. The team believes that the sharing of information is necessary by multi-agencies to tackle sexual exploitation. A multi-agency preventative approach will help the most vulnerable children and young people. Legislation 6. Concern was expressed that current legislation including the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 were not having the desired effect. Police investigations or court cases have tended to fall. This makes it difficult to ascertain the level of the problem of CSE in Scotland. Partnerships / forums 7. Barnardo’s participates in multi-agency partnerships / forums for example the Strathclyde Police initiative which was set up to share information during a particular Operation set up by Strathclyde Police to investigate a range of issues including child sexual exploitation. The Operation led to around 45 suspects being arrested but there were no convictions due in part to some of the young people involved not recognising themselves as victims of abuse. National data 8. One of the drivers for the petition is the lack of information and research on CSE in Scotland; little is known outside of Glasgow and Dundee. There are currently no national figures for the prevalence of CSE so the size of the problem is unknown. Social media 9. The service team leader and project worker joined the meeting and outlined the work done with schools and as Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) ‘Ambassadors’. The growth in access to websites and social media as well as smart phone technology has put children and young people at greater risk and they are more likely to use social networking sites to build relationships. It was noted that Facebook has indicated that under-13s should be allowed to have accounts and that its age restriction may be removed. Current UK legislation does not preclude Facebook from being used by under-13s but the site’s own terms and conditions do. Service DVDs 10. Members viewed two DVDs, one designed for professionals to remind all that CSE is everyone’s responsibility. The other was targeted at young people and covered issues such as online privacy settings and the safe use of social media networking.