Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Convener
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (PE1105)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of eight continued petitions, the first of which is PE1105, by Marjorie McCance, on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. Members have a note from the clerks, which is paper 5, and the submissions that have been received.
I welcome to the meeting Gil Paterson, who has a constituency interest in the petition and has been involved with it for a considerable time. Before I open up the discussion on the petition to the committee, I think it worth asking Gil Paterson to make a few points.
I would certainly be grateful for that, convener.
I will start at the end, by making my appeal to the committee to keep the petition open. I note that the committee has received a letter from the Government. I should highlight the fact that I am not in the Government; I just happen to be a member of the party of government, which is an entirely different thing. Like every member, I have to look after the interests of my constituents and I do not believe that it would be in the interests of my constituents for the petition to be closed at this time.
For anyone who does not know, St Margaret of Scotland Hospice is the oldest hospice in Scotland. It has just celebrated its 65th anniversary. Sister Rita Dawson, the lady—or, I should say, nun, although she is also a lady—who runs the establishment, has just received an honour from the Queen, and she will also be given the freedom of West Dunbartonshire. We should think about that before any consideration is made. We owe it to the hospice to go the extra mile. The committee has been patient and supportive over a long period, and now would be the wrong time to close the petition.
The committee has received a letter from Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board. I have had a meeting with the health board, along with the former provost of West Dunbartonshire, Denis Agnew. From looking at the contents of the letter and from the discussions that have been had, I feel that there is clearly a willingness on the part of the health board to get this issue off the table. The health board has moved, as has been acknowledged by the hospice and me, and we are certainly grateful for that. The meeting and the letter suggest that we have a willing partner, and of course the hospice itself is very willing.
Where do we go from here? Clearly, we need a person of some stature to oversee the process. There is a problem relating to the number of chartered accountants that have done business with either the health board or the hospice but I believe that someone of public stature could oversee the process, although a chartered accountant would still be needed to do the evaluation. Finding such a person would make an enormous difference.
I do not think that the health board will be difficult at all. I believe that the thought is that something has been missed and actually, if that is the case, the health board will, in a way, be relieved and offer no opposition at all. I believe that simply because, as the hospice has acknowledged, the health board has moved. For the issue to be concluded satisfactorily, the position vis-à-vis other hospices has to evaluated. There was a promise to evaluate that to find out the exact position, but that work has never been completed. Until that happens, there is a prospect that the issue will never be sorted. We need an evaluation to see exactly where we are and then, based on that, a determination can be made. For those reasons, the committee should keep the petition open.
Members have been keeping an eye on the issue as it has moved forward. I open up the discussion to suggestions from members.
I have to say that I am slightly uncomfortable that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport has almost tried to direct the committee in its decision making. I do not know whether that sets a precedent, but it is not a regular thing.
This petition goes back to 2007, and it is difficult to remember what a contentiously hot issue it has been over many years. In that period, chief executives of the health board have come and gone, as have MSPs who have been associated with the petition. The reason why the petition has stayed open all this time is that, notwithstanding what seemed to be a commonsense route through, the various parties concerned found it extraordinarily difficult. At one stage, there was a definite lack of trust because of the way in which the health board was approaching the issue. From what Mr Paterson says, that seems to have been alleviated.
My view is that, if we are not closing the petition now, we are very close to the point when the committee should close it. However, given the on-going lack of conviction about good will prevailing, I would like the arbiter and auditor to be appointed so that we know that we have taken it to that stage. I would then be comfortable about closing the petition. We would not necessarily need to await the outcome of the process. At that point, it would be reasonable for us to say that we had achieved the objective that arose out of all the difficulties that have presented themselves at the various stages in the long time in which the petition has been rumbling along.
I note the Scottish Government’s suggestion that we close the petition, which I have to say is an unusual response—we do not get many of those from the Government. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that the health board has moved on the issue. Although I acknowledge the health secretary’s suggestion, I think that there is merit in keeping the petition open to allow the committee to monitor progress in the short term. I am therefore happy to keep the petition open.
I am one of those members who have been involved with the petition all the way through, as I was a substitute committee member in November 2007, when the petition was originally presented.
My colleagues have commented on the final paragraph in the cabinet secretary’s letter. That warrants some comment, particularly the point that Mr Carlaw and Mr MacDonald have referred to. The cabinet secretary suggests that we close the petition, which is perhaps a hint that we should not close it.
The serious point in that final paragraph is the issue about the Government being
“unsuccessful in progressing the expert accountancy review.”
I would like to know why the Government has been unsuccessful in proceeding with that. I know that there were issues about who should be appointed to carry out the review, but I hope that we have come to a stage at which all sides can agree. As Gil Paterson has said, if we could get the right person to carry out the review, we could move forward substantially. I would like to find out why the Scottish Government has been unsuccessful in getting the issue resolved. After all, we received its response in July.
Things have moved on; the health board and the hospice have moved on; and we could reach an early resolution. However, as Gil Paterson has made clear, the review has to be carried out to the satisfaction of everyone concerned, so that we can move on and close this petition in a way that ensures that the petitioner feels that the issue has been dealt with in a way that accommodates the petition’s initial intent.
We could write to the Government to ask it not only to hold the review but to set a timetable for the review to be carried out, so that we are not sitting here considering the petition in eight or nine years’ time because the review has not been carried out. I think that the review could be carried out quickly, and that Government could give us a timescale for that.
The consensus appears to be that we do not want to put this to bed yet—pun intended. We will write to the Government in the terms that John Wilson has suggested and ask for an explanation of why the issue has not been resolved and, if nothing else, an indication of a timescale by which the review can be expected to have concluded. In the meantime, we will keep the petition open. That might disappoint the cabinet secretary, but we will make her aware of the fact that the committee was surprised by her suggestion.
It does not disappoint me, convener.
Do we agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Youth Football (PE1319)
Our next current petition is PE1319, by William Smith and Scott Robertson, on improving youth football in Scotland. Paper 6 refers to the petition, and members will have the submissions that have been received.
This issue has not gone away since it was raised the last time. I do not know whether we want to convene a round-table discussion—that might be difficult, timetable-wise; we are in the hands of the clerks on that matter—but we could certainly write to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League for an update. As things seem to be bubbling away under the surface—indeed, the issue has been raised in the newspapers—I think that it would be premature to close the petition. I am sceptical about whether we would want to take any direct, hands-on action, but it might do no harm for us to put pressure on the parties involved.
I think that that is sensible. Do members agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Private Schools (Charitable Status) (PE1531)
The next petition is PE1531, by Ashley Husband Powton, on removing charitable status from private schools. Paper 7 and the submissions have been provided by the clerks.
We have considered this at some length. The Government’s position is clear and, on that basis, I recommend that we close the petition. I do so in acknowledgement of the fact that it is for political parties that have views on these matters to progress these issues as they see fit. From the committee’s point of view, we have got to a point at which there is nothing further that we can do to take forward the petition.
We must recognise the fact that the petitioner has submitted a lengthy response to the submissions that we have received so far. That response contains a number of questions that it might be useful to try to pursue with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and others. Clearly, the petitioner is in some doubt about why charitable status should be afforded to the independent school sector on the basis of the criteria that OSCR uses. If the committee is so minded, I would like to get answers to some questions on behalf of the petitioner, so that we are clear about how OSCR makes its decisions in relation to the attainment of charitable status by various organisations.
11:45
I hear what John Wilson says, but I tend to disagree. I thought that OSCR was quite clear that it thought that this was more down to Government direction and the statutory basis. We are coming into the period in which we will wind down and look to the 2016 election. It seems to me that the petitioner has raised a fundamental issue regarding charitable status, and rather than trying to resolve it within the current constraints, it seems to me that politicians—it will not be me, as I am stepping down—should consider what direction they wish the Government to take.
I tend to think that, if we go to OSCR at present, we will just get a rehash of the evidence that we have had that will point to the Government and say, “This is what we have done and why. If you want to change it, you will need to legislate.”
I am happy for the petition to be closed. The committee has taken it as far as it can, given the evidence and the way we have gone about considering it.
I tend to agree with Mr Carlaw, Mr MacAskill and Mr Torrance. It may be time to hand the matter over to the political parties for them to take it forward after the next election. I put on the record my thanks to the petitioner, who has put forward a strong case from day 1. Her determination on the matter is to be admired. I am in favour of closing the petition, but with a view to the issue becoming a political one in the future.
I do not think that we would necessarily want to go to a vote. It is clear that a majority of the committee want to close the petition. John, do you want to say anything?
I hope that, as Angus MacDonald and others said, the political parties will take the issue on board. I look forward to their manifesto commitments in the coming months in relation to the independent school sector, the use of charitable status by organisations in Scotland and the role of OSCR.
Do you want to push it to a vote or are you happy with the decision?
I am happy that my views are on the record.
Okay. We will close the petition.
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (National Guidance) (PE1548)
The next petition is PE1548, by Beth Morrison, on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. Paper 8 refers, and members have the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
We heard some powerful evidence on the petition. I am struck by the petitioner’s submission, which is slightly disturbing in as much as she clearly believes that the responses that we have received address the matter in such a way that they focus not on the subject of her petition but elsewhere. For that reason, I think that there is considerably more that we need to do.
I support the clerk’s recommendation that we write to the Scottish Government about the needs of children with complex and severe learning difficulties, raising the issues that are detailed in our paper. We need to get considerably more information and to focus on what we heard, which gave us some cause for concern. It seems from the petitioner’s submission that the situation, which we thought was completely unacceptable, is continuing unabated as we speak.
I dealt with such a case recently, and I was horrified by the way in which the young girl was treated. The response that we have received does not match the reality of my constituent’s experience, and it completely misses what the petition is aiming at. There is a good bit of work still to be done to get appropriate responses.
I would like us to impress on the Government, when we write to it, that it should consult the petitioner and other stakeholders in the area. The petitioner, in oral evidence and her submissions, has highlighted a number of other cases that have been brought to her attention. If the practice is widespread, is going unchecked and is unregistered, we need to ensure that the Government is bringing forward proposals that address the issues that parents and others have identified.
I urge the Government to consult the petitioner and other stakeholders to ensure that it addresses and hears at first hand about the issues that parents have raised.
Do other members wish to go with the three recommendations that have been made or do they have anything to add?
I am happy to go with the recommendations.
I think that they cover what is required. We are agreed that we should follow the recommended action and pursue the matter further.
Child Abuse (Mandatory Reporting) (PE1551)
PE1551, by Scott Pattinson, is on the mandatory reporting of child abuse. Paper 9 from the clerk and the submissions refer to the petition.
We need the Government to be clear on the issue. I can see the arguments in favour of the petition and, equally, I can see the consequences, not all of which are good for organisations. In addition, pressure might be put on victims who are reluctant to share. There needs to be greater scope in the discussion, so perhaps we should ask the Government what it is going to do and how it proposes to take the issue forward. I do not think that we can ask the Government to legislate immediately. We need to take soundings from all who are involved, because the issue is not simple or straightforward.
The paper suggests writing to the chair of the inquiry to highlight the petition. The inquiry is likely to run for a considerable period of time, so I am not averse to that, but the Government must give some indication of whether it will pull stakeholders together, because there are arguments for and against.
Members seem to be pretty much agreed with that course of action.
Members indicated agreement.
American Signal Crayfish (Trapping) (PE1558)
PE1558, by John Thom, on behalf of the RNBCC Crayfish Committee, Ken-Dee catchment, is on the American signal crayfish. Members have paper 10 from the clerks and the submissions relating to the petition. If members have any comments, they should make them now.
I do. I read with interest the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s submission, which is beautifully presented with lots of colourful pictures and details. When I got to the end of it, I was not sure that it had addressed any of the points that I had raised, so I ran off the Official Report of the evidence session that we had with SEPA, particularly my exchanges at columns 11 to 17. I found that the points that I raised had not really been addressed in SEPA’s very lavish production.
First, the claim was made that a lot of current research is under way. I have a table that details research that goes back more than 15 years, but it does not necessarily identify anything that is happening at the moment.
Secondly, I know that we keep hearing from Dr Edsman, but the point that is continually made but never addressed is about the difference between commercial fishing and not-for-profit trapping and fishing, all the proceeds from which are diverted back into research. I have still not heard a specific response to that. If the activity is done for commercial gain, I can understand the link between that and the signal crayfish travelling into other lochs and lakes, but when it is not for commercial gain, I am less persuaded.
I also note that, at the very back of the SEPA report, there are case studies on the use of synthetic pyrethroids and other biocides. I do not know that the examples from the United States, France, Norway and Sweden vindicate the evidence that we have received. Many of the examples in the report appear to have had some effect at the time, because no crayfish were found during the following summer and none were caught in traps in the following year. The studies say things such as,
“All the treatments killed all the crayfish in cage tests”
and
“The treatment killed crayfish in test cages, but there are no results yet”.
What surprised me was that the dates of the case studies were 2008, 2009 and 2010, and they appeared to be the most recent dates on which we had any evidence about the long-term effects of the treatments. If a great deal of money is being spent on current research, I would have thought that we might have been interested in spending some of it on at least trying to find out about the long-term effects of the treatments.
I come out of all this thinking that I am being fobbed off, and I am inclined to say that I want to drill down further with some specific questions on the points that were put to SEPA and Scottish Natural Heritage at our earlier meeting. As we are not getting the information directly, we should go back to some of the examples of alternative methods that were trialled to ask what the long-term consequences have been and whether any money has been invested in research to establish what those were.
That was a comprehensive critique of the responses. They all seem to be valid questions that we should be asking. Do members agree that we pursue the issue in the manner that Jackson Carlaw would like?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you for paying such close attention to the petition, Jackson; that has been helpful.
Local Authority Planning Appeals (PE1560)
PE1560, by John Buston, is on local authority planning appeals procedure. Paper 11 and the submissions are available to members.
We seem to have come to the end of the road on this one.
Sometimes we just have to accept that that is the case. There is going to be a review of planning, so we could bring that to the attention of the panel. We will close the petition but will write to the panel with the petition and suggest that it be borne in mind during the deliberations.
Members indicated agreement.
Loch Ness and the Great Glen (PE1564)
The final continued petition today is PE1564, by James Treasurer, on behalf of Friends of the Great Glen, on saving Loch Ness and the Great Glen. Members have paper 12 from the clerk and the submissions.
I am for closing the petition. The local authority seems to be on the case and things are not as they were being portrayed. The petitioners have made their point and some of it seems to have been taken on board by the council, but the areas that it was suggested were under threat are not likely to be where the turbines are located. I am for closing the petition and leaving the issue with the council.
Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
With that, we can close the meeting. I thank everyone for their contributions.
Meeting closed at 11:56.Air ais
New Petitions