Seòmar agus comataidhean

As always when we consider new petitions for the first time, it is important to say to anybody who might be tuning in because we are considering their petition that, prior to our consideration, we do a certain amount of background work in relation to the petition. Often, we seek the Scottish Government’s view, although any position that we might take thereafter is not conditional on that. I assure petitioners that we will have begun the process even before our first consideration in public.

The first of the new petitions is PE1983, lodged by Daniel Osula and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system by ensuring that clear information is provided to members of the public about how their case will be considered and that information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff.

In the petition’s background information, Mr Osula raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of court staff when cases are being prepared and allocated to judges. He notes that he has pursued complaints about the issue directly with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. In a response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it considers both matters raised by the petition to be operational matters falling under the statutory responsibility of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Criminal Courts Rules Council. The Scottish Government also highlights that the operation of the courts is the responsibility of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service under the leadership of its independent board, headed by the most senior judge in Scotland and the head of the Scottish judiciary, the Lord President.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to write as recommended by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

It is a controversial subject. Has anyone anything else that they would like to contribute? If not, are we content to thank the petitioner for raising the issue and to point out that, in view of the information that we have received and the responses that we have been given, it seems that we are unable, through petition at least, to effect a change and that therefore we will close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1931, lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Government to prevent the digital exclusion of rural properties and households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the relevant contractor—BT Openreach—to seek further information about how work is sequenced and prioritised. The Scottish Government’s response explained that it conducted an open market review to identify the premises that would be eligible for public investment through R100. The intervention area identified was tested through a public consultation to confirm that it was accurate. The Scottish Government also weighted the scoring for some rural locations as part of the bidding process to encourage deployment in those areas. The submission provides information about the full fibre charter for Scotland, which aims to extend build further into remote, rural and geographically challenging areas.

BT Openreach’s response to the committee explains its inside-out approach to sequencing works, whereby build begins from the primary exchange location, where the main fibre controls unit is located, out into the communities. The rationale for that is to make the most use of public subsidy and extend the network as much as it can with the funding that is available.

Finally, a recent parliamentary question from Willie Rennie MSP highlighted an FOI that, he said, reveals that the full R100 programme will not be delivered until March 2028.

The subject has entertained the chamber with a degree of controversy for as long, frankly, as I can recall. Colleagues, have we any comments in the light of the evidence that we have received?

Are there any other comments? Are we content to proceed as Mr Stewart suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1989 is lodged by Mary Montague, who, I suddenly recognise, is the provost of East Renfrewshire Council and a constituent. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces.

The SPICe briefing states that people living in Scotland’s most deprived areas are twice as likely to experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest but that public spaces in those areas are significantly less likely to have defibrillators.

The Scottish Government’s response highlights the delivery of the initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy, noting that survival rates have risen from one in 20 to one in 10. The Scottish Government highlights the refreshed strategy for 2021 to 2026, in particular its aim of increasing the percentage of OHCAs that have a defibrillator applied before the ambulance service arrives from 8 to 20 per cent. The response also highlights work that is being undertaken by the University of Edinburgh resuscitation research group to analyse the placement of defibrillators across Scotland and map it against the areas that have the highest risk of cardiac arrests occurring.

I should note that Mary Montague is the Labour provost of East Renfrewshire, in case anybody thought that I was getting a bit cosy in that respect. She is well respected and regarded.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

PE1937, lodged by Gillian Lamarra, urges the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their physical education kit to school on the days when they have PE.

At our meeting on 28 September 2022, we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner to seek their views on the action called for in the petition. I had not realised that it was as long ago as that; it seems fresher in my mind. In response, the commissioner set out their view that primary schools should adopt a flexible approach to policies on changing for PE classes. The commissioner’s response also highlights long-standing concerns about other parts of the learning estate, such as school toilets. The response also suggests that, although different PE changing practices among primary schools may be justified, the Scottish Government should explore whether national guidance is required to help create some degree of consistency.

We have also received a response from COSLA that highlights that extensive work is under way across councils and schools to support the vision of a Scotland where children’s human rights are embedded in all aspects of society and public services. COSLA goes on to state that local government believes that it would not be appropriate for the important matters raised in the petition to be subject to national-level policy or guidance, with schools best placed to determine the design and delivery of policy around wearing PE kits.

I imagine that the school estate across Scotland will be hugely varied, so some schools will find it easy to make different arrangements, while others will probably have to plan over a longer period to make such arrangements possible.

Colleagues, in the light of the submissions that we have received, what do you suggest would be an appropriate way forward?

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. I thank my colleague David Torrance for convening the previous meeting, when I was, unfortunately, off ill.

Our agenda is largely to consider seven continued petitions and five new petitions. We will not take any external evidence.

Our first item of business is to agree to take item 4 in private. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1867, lodged by Scott Macmillan and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

A BSL interpretation of our discussion will be on the Parliament’s BSL channel following today’s meeting.

We last considered the petition in November 2022, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on the development of the next BSL plan and an exploration of how BSL national qualifications might be developed. We have received a response from the cabinet secretary that suggests that the Scottish Government will undertake engagement and consultation work to inform the priorities of the BSL national plan for 2023.

The cabinet secretary has also provided details on BSL awards currently available at SCQF levels 3 to 6. While delivery of those awards is still at an early stage, the cabinet secretary has indicated that uptake is increasing. The cabinet secretary goes on to state that, while the Scottish Government shares the petitioner’s vision for BSL to be more widely taught in schools, having qualifications in place does not necessarily lead to the language being offered at level 2 by schools and it remains the choice of schools to decide which languages to teach. The Scottish Government, therefore, does not believe that the steps sought by the petitioner are necessarily sufficient to support an increased take-up of BSL.

We have considered the petition on a number of occasions. Do colleagues have any suggestions in light of the cabinet secretary’s letter and her commitment to consult further on the 2023 plan?

We will defer closing the petition, Mr Stewart, if you are content, although I think that your analysis is largely correct. It would be interesting to put that question more directly back to the JCVI. Mr Ewing is correct: I do not think that, in all the representations that the JCVI has made, we have a specific explanation of why it is right in one place and wrong in another.