Written Constitution for Scotland (PE1781)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1781, on a written constitution for Scotland, which was lodged by Denis Agnew. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider a written constitution for Scotland. There is no written constitution in the United Kingdom. The constitution has evolved, which means that it comprises numerous statutes, which are laws passed by Parliament; conventions, which are unwritten practices developed over time; and judicial decisions made by the courts.
The issue of a written constitution for Scotland was widely debated in the independence referendum campaign of 2014. Those who favour having a written constitution argue that it would provide clarity on issues from citizens’ rights to the checks and balances that are in place among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Those who favour leaving the constitution as it is often argue that its unwritten nature provides greater flexibility.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Could we write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the petition?
I support that proposal. As you said, convener, there are views on both sides. It would be helpful to hear the Scottish Government’s view.
I agree—it would be good to hear from all the parties involved.
It would be fair to say that the Government’s position has been that, should Scotland become independent, it would prefer that we have a written constitution. However, I am not sure whether we could have one while we remain part of the United Kingdom. We could certainly write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the petition and ask whether its position has changed from 2014. Do members agree to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Stocking of Salmon Rivers (Consultation) (PE1782)
The second new petition for consideration is PE1782, on full consultation on stocking of salmon rivers, which was lodged by Robert White on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s fishing group. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a full stakeholder consultation is carried out before Marine Scotland formalises policy on the stocking of Scotland’s salmon rivers.
Our comprehensive Scottish Parliament information centre briefing details that, since 1 August 2008, it has been illegal to stock live salmon or trout, or spawn, into Scottish inland waters without the written consent of a district salmon fishery board, or from Marine Scotland where no such board operates. Since May 2019, Marine Scotland’s policy position has been to operate a presumption against stocking of salmon rivers.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
A very interesting article on the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s website outlines the position on this issue. It seems to me to be entirely sensible for stakeholder involvement and consultation to take place before such decisions are made.
I would want the committee to write to the Scottish Government to clarify its actions. Because Marine Scotland is part of the Scottish Government, perhaps we need not write to it separately, unless the Government would prefer that we did so, or indicated that it would represent Marine Scotland in its response.
We can ask our clerks to check the position, so that there is no duplication. However, the point is that we should raise the question.
I would want to ask why Marine Scotland would not consult with people. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that.
I agree entirely with Gail Ross. It is important to widen out the consultation, which I hope the Scottish Government will agree to do when we seek its views, We might have to come back to the matter and ask it to approach specific organisations, if it has failed to do so. I think that we need to be fairly open about that.
In our letter, we could flag up that we are trying to establish who has been consulted.
Yes, exactly.
It is such an important subject, so it should be consulted on as widely as possible.
Yes, it is hugely important.
We have to get this right for the future.
Are we agreed that we recognise the importance of the issue and that we will write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
As ever, we are grateful to the petitioners for raising the issue with us.
Childhood Cancers (PE1783)
The third new petition is PE1783, by Fiona Govan, on public awareness of and funding for childhood cancers with low survival rates. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise public awareness of harder-to-treat childhood cancers and to provide additional funding for finding cures. The petitioner is concerned that there is a lack of focus on research on, and treatment for, childhood cancers in Scotland.
The SPICe briefing provides wide-ranging background and highlights that the Scottish Government and the managed service network for children and young people with cancer is working on the next children and young people’s cancer plan, for 2020 to 2025, which will be available this year.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to the Scottish Government to seek its views, but we should also consider the views of stakeholders, of whom there are a large number, so we should write to them, too.
It is a really emotive petition and I found some of it quite difficult to read. I thank the petitioner for her bravery in coming forward. If we can get feedback from anyone on the petition, we must do that.
10:30
A theme in the work of the Public Petitions Committee has been that, where petitions have been lodged about medical conditions that do not have a high prevalence, there is a fear that the condition will not be a focus for the Government. We remember PE1629, on melanoma in the eye. That theme is part of what we are exploring here, because the petitioner wants childhood cancers to be a focus.
I agree with the deputy convener about the powerful nature of the petition. We recognise the emotion behind it, and lodging it will not have been an easy thing to do.
I think that we want to get a sense of how we can ensure that, when someone has a cancer that is not as well known as others, the research is nevertheless there and funding is available. If members agree, we will write to the Scottish Government and identified stakeholders to raise questions on those issues. We will allow the committee clerks to explore the possible stakeholders for us. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Again, we thank the petitioner.
Sheriff Court Fees Order 2018 (Review) (PE1784)
The next new petition is PE1784, by Gordon Edwardson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct a review of the Sheriff Court Fees Order 2018 in order to make self-litigation more accessible to disabled people. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to the Scottish Government to ask it what its views are and what actions it will take. We should write to the key stakeholders, such as the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service—the organisations that are actually implementing these things. We should also write to the Scottish Human Rights Commission to get some views on the whether the action that is called for is appropriate and would represent the right balance. We need to ensure that we get the best outcome for all the parties.
I was not aware of the issue. The petitioner flags up differences between the system in Scotland and the system in England and Wales. I suspect that there will be trade-offs, with issues and benefits on both sides. One question is whether the fact that somebody has a low income means that their access to someone who can litigate on their behalf is reduced. That is an issue of fairness and equality. The petitioner has highlighted the important issue of access to justice for disabled people, and I think it is worth exploring whether there is discrimination here.
To my mind, there is a problem for disabled people, but there is a problem with court case fees in general, for everybody, at all levels. In the end, we will probably have to take it more widely than the petition.
The petition probably highlights a broader issue for us to deal with. We know that there is general concern about access to justice, legal aid and so on. However, if there is discrimination in the process, we will want to explore that.
Yes. There is a bigger issue, and we need to get it right.
Do we agree to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition, and to write to the key stakeholders that will have views on the matter, including the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission?
Members indicated agreement.
Again, we thank the petitioner for highlighting the issue to the committee.
Social Work Powers (Review) (PE1785)
The next new petition is PE1785, by Shane Hepburn. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and reduce the powers of social work departments. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to the Scottish Government to seek its views, and we should also write to the key stakeholders. Various stakeholders are listed in the note by the clerk, but can we add the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the list?
I thank the petitioner for raising the issue.
It is an interesting issue. I must be honest and say that, instinctively, I would not want to reduce the powers of social work departments. However, the issue might be how their powers are exercised against particular groups. How young people in care are treated is an important element of the petition.
We should acknowledge that the independent review of the care system, which the Scottish Government has accepted, has raised huge issues, and we perhaps need to see the petition in parallel with the on-going work around what has been a significant commitment to real change.
As David Torrance suggested, it would be worth while to write to the Scottish Government, to key stakeholders who have an interest and will have views on the issue and the care system, and to COSLA. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Again, we thank the petitioner for bringing the issue to our attention. We recognise its importance.
Makaton Sign Language (Legal System) (PE1787)
The final new petition for consideration today is PE1787, by Sandra Docherty. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all parts of the legal system use Makaton sign language. Makaton is a language programme that uses symbols, signs and speech to enable people to communicate. It is estimated that over 100,000 children and adults in the UK use Makaton symbols and signs either as their main method of communication or to support speech. The language is also used by teachers, health professionals and public sector bodies.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
As you said, convener, Makaton is widely used in a lot of sectors. My son is given a sign a week and we practise it at home. It is fun and also useful. However, the petition goes to the heart of what it is for—communication. As we see in the committee papers, Mark McDonald MSP has been vocal on the subject.
We should write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the actions that the petition calls for. There might be other stakeholders that we should include—for example, the petition mentions the criminal justice system and the police.
Perhaps we should include the courts as well.
Yes.
There is a question about access to justice, as is reflected in the previous petition. If people have communication systems that allow their voices to be heard, it is really important that the systems of the state recognise that. I have been involved with organisations that support people with learning disabilities to engage in processes at the council and local levels so that, rather than things being done to them, they can put forward their views. Makaton is an important part of that.
One of the difficulties with such languages is that they can have local dialects. That is certainly true of British Sign Language. I do not know whether Makaton has the same problem.
The thing about Makaton is that it uses symbols and signs, but that is certainly worth exploring. If it is used in a localised way and that is a barrier to its use, people will flag that up. However, my sense is that the Makaton system is pretty rigorous. It is really important that, whichever system people are engaged with, their voices can be heard in the process, where possible. If there are limitations to Makaton, we hope to identify them by asking the question.
Another important group to include is advocates who speak for people. They would have to understand it, too, so their views are important.
I suggest that we ask the clerks to look at umbrella bodies and organisations that represent people with learning disabilities. I know from my experience that it is an issue that groups that support people with learning disabilities will advocate on.
Does the committee agree that we should take those actions?
Members indicated agreement.
Again, we thank the petitioner for bringing the issue to our attention. The petition will come back to the committee and the petitioner will have an opportunity to respond to any submissions that are made.
I thank everyone for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 10:39.Air ais
Continued Petitions