Official Report 834KB pdf
We come to agenda item 3, which is the consideration of new petitions. As I always do, I will explain to anybody who might be looking in for the first time that, with new petitions, we take advice from the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, as well as seeking the Scottish Government’s initial thoughts, so that we can expedite our consideration, rather than meeting simply to determine that those are the first two things that we will do.
Children (Automatic Expulsions) (PE2139)
PE2139, which has been lodged by Maria Giordano, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce automatic expulsion for children charged on suspicion of committing a crime against another child. The petitioner’s view is that victims are treated worse than perpetrators. She notes that, in some cases, an accused person goes on to share a classroom with the alleged victim.
The Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975, as amended, state:
“an education authority shall not exclude a pupil from a school under their management to which he has been admitted, except where they are of the opinion that the parent of the pupil refuses or fails to comply, or to allow the pupil to comply, with the rules, regulations, or disciplinary requirements of the school”
or
“they consider that in all the circumstances to allow the pupil to continue his attendance at the school would be likely to be seriously detrimental to order and discipline in the school or the educational well-being of the pupils there.”
12:45In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that exclusion from school other than in conformity with the regulations has no statutory authority and may leave the education authority open to legal challenge. For that reason, its position is that it would not be lawful to employ a policy of automatic exclusion without considering the individual circumstances of each case. It goes on to state that it has no plans to change the law on exclusions. It also states that where staff are alerted via a multi-agency response that a young person has been charged in connection with an incident involving another pupil, school staff should follow the advice of social work and/or Police Scotland about how to manage the situation while the young people are attending school.
Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
Perhaps the committee could consider writing to stakeholders to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for. Those stakeholders should include COSLA; Connect, which was formerly the Scottish Parent Teacher Council; the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland; Together, the Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights; and the Scottish Youth Parliament.
Even though the Scottish Government has said that it has absolutely no intention of doing anything about the matter, are colleagues nonetheless content to seek the views of those organisations?
Members indicated agreement.
In-vitro Fertilisation (Privately Sourced Donor Eggs) (PE2146)
Our final petition is PE2146, lodged by Jamie Connelly, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow couples and individuals to purchase altruistically donated eggs from private clinics for use in NHS-funded IVF treatment, and to instruct NHS Scotland to create a clear clinical pathway to support those using private donor eggs.
The SPICe briefing explains that large NHS-hosted clinics provide both private and NHS fertility treatment, for which there are separate waiting lists. Those in receipt of NHS treatment are fully funded by the NHS, while those who do not meet the criteria for NHS treatment can be offered private, fully self-funded treatment. That self-funded treatment is mostly provided by the NHS service at cost. However, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is slightly different in that it partners with the only private clinic in Scotland in providing paid-for care. That private clinic is not for profit and partners with an egg donation supplier in Spain. The briefing notes that many of the private clinics in the UK will source donor eggs from suppliers abroad. However, there are risks associated with sourcing eggs abroad and with their transportation.
The petitioner and his partner were told that the likelihood of getting donor eggs through the NHS would be “miniscule” as the waiting time is potentially more than 30 years. He reports that the NHS in Scotland operates on an all-or-nothing policy, which means that, if patients source eggs from elsewhere, they will lose all NHS funding for IVF. My goodness—with a wait of 30 years, you would have to register at birth for it to be of any use to you at all.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has always been clear that couples who are eligible for NHS fertility treatment should not pay for any aspect of their treatment, and this includes the purchase and use of donor gametes. It also states that couples who require an altruistic egg donor may wait between three to four years for treatment. This wait time can change depending on donor availability and we are aware that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is planning several campaigns this year to recruit egg and sperm donors, which will hopefully reduce the waiting times.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government to ask for a more detailed response to the petition, in particular to the suggestion that those who face significant waiting lists for donor eggs should be able to use an altruistically donated, privately purchased donor egg for NHS treatment. We could also ask what data is available to support information on NHS waiting times for couples who require an altruistic egg donor; whether the waiting time exceeds four years and, if so, what is the longest waiting time; and whether the Scottish Government believes that NHS boards are currently meeting the needs of couples who face a significant waiting list for donor eggs, which could prevent them from receiving treatment in time to have a biological child.
Thank you very much, Mr Torrance. Do members agree with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of our formal consideration of petitions. Our next meeting will take place on 7 May. I thank those who have been following our proceedings.
We now move into private session.
12:50 Meeting continued in private until 12:54.Air ais
Continued Petitions