Free Instrumental Music Services (PE1694)
We move to agenda items 4 and 5, on public petitions. Petition PE1694, in the name of Ralph Riddiough, is on the subject of free instrumental music services.
Paper 4 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition and the work undertaken by this committee on the matter, which has been substantive.
As members will be aware, the committee has completed its inquiry into instrumental music tuition, published its report, considered the responses from the Scottish Government and COSLA and debated the report in the chamber. Paper 4 points out that
“the petitioner has launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal action to challenge the lawfulness of charging for instrumental music tuition in schools.”
Paper 4 states:
“The Committee is asked to consider closing its consideration of the petition on the basis that it intends to monitor the progress of the legal challenge on charging for instrumental music tuition and reserves the right to revisit this issue in its future work programme.”
Are we content to close the petition at this stage?
Members indicated agreement.
We move to agenda items 4 and 5, on public petitions. Petition PE1694, in the name of Ralph Riddiough, is on the subject of free instrumental music services.
Paper 4 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition and the work undertaken by this committee on the matter, which has been substantive.
As members will be aware, the committee has completed its inquiry into instrumental music tuition, published its report, considered the responses from the Scottish Government and COSLA and debated the report in the chamber. Paper 4 points out that
“the petitioner has launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal action to challenge the lawfulness of charging for instrumental music tuition in schools.”
Paper 4 states:
“The Committee is asked to consider closing its consideration of the petition on the basis that it intends to monitor the progress of the legal challenge on charging for instrumental music tuition and reserves the right to revisit this issue in its future work programme.”
Are we content to close the petition at this stage?
Members indicated agreement.
Free Instrumental Music Services (PE1694)
We move to agenda items 4 and 5, on public petitions. Petition PE1694, in the name of Ralph Riddiough, is on the subject of free instrumental music services.
Paper 4 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition and the work undertaken by this committee on the matter, which has been substantive.
As members will be aware, the committee has completed its inquiry into instrumental music tuition, published its report, considered the responses from the Scottish Government and COSLA and debated the report in the chamber. Paper 4 points out that
“the petitioner has launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal action to challenge the lawfulness of charging for instrumental music tuition in schools.”
Paper 4 states:
“The Committee is asked to consider closing its consideration of the petition on the basis that it intends to monitor the progress of the legal challenge on charging for instrumental music tuition and reserves the right to revisit this issue in its future work programme.”
Are we content to close the petition at this stage?
Members indicated agreement.
We move to agenda items 4 and 5, on public petitions. Petition PE1694, in the name of Ralph Riddiough, is on the subject of free instrumental music services.
Paper 4 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition and the work undertaken by this committee on the matter, which has been substantive.
As members will be aware, the committee has completed its inquiry into instrumental music tuition, published its report, considered the responses from the Scottish Government and COSLA and debated the report in the chamber. Paper 4 points out that
“the petitioner has launched a crowdfunding campaign for legal action to challenge the lawfulness of charging for instrumental music tuition in schools.”
Paper 4 states:
“The Committee is asked to consider closing its consideration of the petition on the basis that it intends to monitor the progress of the legal challenge on charging for instrumental music tuition and reserves the right to revisit this issue in its future work programme.”
Are we content to close the petition at this stage?
Members indicated agreement.
Getting it Right for Every Child Policy (Human Rights) (PE1692)
Petition PE1692, in the name of Lesley Scott, on behalf of Tymes Trust, and Alison Preuss, on behalf of the Scottish Home Education Forum, calls for an inquiry into the human rights impact of the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy and data processing. Paper 5 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition.
This agenda item is intended to be an initial discussion of the petition. Paper 5 suggests options for gathering information that could serve as a useful context for the committee’s next consideration of the petition. As paper 5 sets out, the findings of the GIRFEC practice development panel will be relevant to the committee’s more substantive consideration of the petition, which will take place once the findings are in the public domain. Do members have any comments on the petition, including the options set out by the clerks in paper 5?
Petition PE1692, in the name of Lesley Scott, on behalf of Tymes Trust, and Alison Preuss, on behalf of the Scottish Home Education Forum, calls for an inquiry into the human rights impact of the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy and data processing. Paper 5 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition.
This agenda item is intended to be an initial discussion of the petition. Paper 5 suggests options for gathering information that could serve as a useful context for the committee’s next consideration of the petition. As paper 5 sets out, the findings of the GIRFEC practice development panel will be relevant to the committee’s more substantive consideration of the petition, which will take place once the findings are in the public domain. Do members have any comments on the petition, including the options set out by the clerks in paper 5?
The petition makes some extremely valid points and there are likely to be some interesting points to be developed from the petition following the updated guidance. It is fair to investigate the matter further.
The petition makes some extremely valid points and there are likely to be some interesting points to be developed from the petition following the updated guidance. It is fair to investigate the matter further.
One of the issues that the petition flags up is that, although advice was withdrawn, it is still informing practice. That is a concern and it is the kind of issue that will be dealt with through the code of practice. There is the broader question of having a named person and people’s concerns about the implications of that. However, I think that the petitioners are concerned that while the debate is on-going, some of the ideas behind it have been implemented. The Public Petitions Committee certainly felt that to deal with the petition in the context of our consideration of the code of practice made sense.
One of the issues that the petition flags up is that, although advice was withdrawn, it is still informing practice. That is a concern and it is the kind of issue that will be dealt with through the code of practice. There is the broader question of having a named person and people’s concerns about the implications of that. However, I think that the petitioners are concerned that while the debate is on-going, some of the ideas behind it have been implemented. The Public Petitions Committee certainly felt that to deal with the petition in the context of our consideration of the code of practice made sense.
Paper 5 sets out two options. First,
“The Committee could write to the Scottish Government seeking its perspective as to how the framework for the functioning of independent bodies operates where multiple remits are engaged on a particular issue. For example, the petitioners raise cases that cover human rights considerations, including rights of the child, the processes of local authorities, the processes of NHS Boards and also on the appropriate sharing and processing of data.”
Is the committee content to write to the Government on that issue?
Members indicated agreement.
Paper 5 sets out two options. First,
“The Committee could write to the Scottish Government seeking its perspective as to how the framework for the functioning of independent bodies operates where multiple remits are engaged on a particular issue. For example, the petitioners raise cases that cover human rights considerations, including rights of the child, the processes of local authorities, the processes of NHS Boards and also on the appropriate sharing and processing of data.”
Is the committee content to write to the Government on that issue?
Members indicated agreement.
The second option is that
“The Committee could write to the ICO seeking an update on its work following the introduction of GDPR including any issuing of updated advice and other work with organisations to ensure the shift in data sharing practices from those adopted under the Data Protection Act (including moving away from practices based on 2013 ICO advice and 2016 advice).”
Is the committee content to write to the Information Commissioner’s Office on that area?
Members indicated agreement.
The second option is that
“The Committee could write to the ICO seeking an update on its work following the introduction of GDPR including any issuing of updated advice and other work with organisations to ensure the shift in data sharing practices from those adopted under the Data Protection Act (including moving away from practices based on 2013 ICO advice and 2016 advice).”
Is the committee content to write to the Information Commissioner’s Office on that area?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. That completes the formal part of the meeting.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:44.
Thank you. That completes the formal part of the meeting.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:44.Getting it Right for Every Child Policy (Human Rights) (PE1692)
Petition PE1692, in the name of Lesley Scott, on behalf of Tymes Trust, and Alison Preuss, on behalf of the Scottish Home Education Forum, calls for an inquiry into the human rights impact of the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy and data processing. Paper 5 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition.
This agenda item is intended to be an initial discussion of the petition. Paper 5 suggests options for gathering information that could serve as a useful context for the committee’s next consideration of the petition. As paper 5 sets out, the findings of the GIRFEC practice development panel will be relevant to the committee’s more substantive consideration of the petition, which will take place once the findings are in the public domain. Do members have any comments on the petition, including the options set out by the clerks in paper 5?
Petition PE1692, in the name of Lesley Scott, on behalf of Tymes Trust, and Alison Preuss, on behalf of the Scottish Home Education Forum, calls for an inquiry into the human rights impact of the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—policy and data processing. Paper 5 in the committee meeting papers outlines the history of the petition.
This agenda item is intended to be an initial discussion of the petition. Paper 5 suggests options for gathering information that could serve as a useful context for the committee’s next consideration of the petition. As paper 5 sets out, the findings of the GIRFEC practice development panel will be relevant to the committee’s more substantive consideration of the petition, which will take place once the findings are in the public domain. Do members have any comments on the petition, including the options set out by the clerks in paper 5?
The petition makes some extremely valid points and there are likely to be some interesting points to be developed from the petition following the updated guidance. It is fair to investigate the matter further.
The petition makes some extremely valid points and there are likely to be some interesting points to be developed from the petition following the updated guidance. It is fair to investigate the matter further.
One of the issues that the petition flags up is that, although advice was withdrawn, it is still informing practice. That is a concern and it is the kind of issue that will be dealt with through the code of practice. There is the broader question of having a named person and people’s concerns about the implications of that. However, I think that the petitioners are concerned that while the debate is on-going, some of the ideas behind it have been implemented. The Public Petitions Committee certainly felt that to deal with the petition in the context of our consideration of the code of practice made sense.
One of the issues that the petition flags up is that, although advice was withdrawn, it is still informing practice. That is a concern and it is the kind of issue that will be dealt with through the code of practice. There is the broader question of having a named person and people’s concerns about the implications of that. However, I think that the petitioners are concerned that while the debate is on-going, some of the ideas behind it have been implemented. The Public Petitions Committee certainly felt that to deal with the petition in the context of our consideration of the code of practice made sense.
Paper 5 sets out two options. First,
“The Committee could write to the Scottish Government seeking its perspective as to how the framework for the functioning of independent bodies operates where multiple remits are engaged on a particular issue. For example, the petitioners raise cases that cover human rights considerations, including rights of the child, the processes of local authorities, the processes of NHS Boards and also on the appropriate sharing and processing of data.”
Is the committee content to write to the Government on that issue?
Members indicated agreement.
Paper 5 sets out two options. First,
“The Committee could write to the Scottish Government seeking its perspective as to how the framework for the functioning of independent bodies operates where multiple remits are engaged on a particular issue. For example, the petitioners raise cases that cover human rights considerations, including rights of the child, the processes of local authorities, the processes of NHS Boards and also on the appropriate sharing and processing of data.”
Is the committee content to write to the Government on that issue?
Members indicated agreement.
The second option is that
“The Committee could write to the ICO seeking an update on its work following the introduction of GDPR including any issuing of updated advice and other work with organisations to ensure the shift in data sharing practices from those adopted under the Data Protection Act (including moving away from practices based on 2013 ICO advice and 2016 advice).”
Is the committee content to write to the Information Commissioner’s Office on that area?
Members indicated agreement.
The second option is that
“The Committee could write to the ICO seeking an update on its work following the introduction of GDPR including any issuing of updated advice and other work with organisations to ensure the shift in data sharing practices from those adopted under the Data Protection Act (including moving away from practices based on 2013 ICO advice and 2016 advice).”
Is the committee content to write to the Information Commissioner’s Office on that area?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. That completes the formal part of the meeting.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:44.
Thank you. That completes the formal part of the meeting.
11:30 Meeting continued in private until 11:44.