Official Report 586KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023.
On our agenda this morning, we have continued petitions that we wish to discuss, followed by the first consideration of some new petitions.
Onshore Wind Farms (Planning Decisions) (PE1864)
The first continued petition is PE1864, lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.
We last considered the petition on 29 June last year, when we agreed to explore a number of the issues by writing to the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, UK Government ministers, Planning Aid Scotland and the Scottish Government’s planning and environmental appeals division—DPEA. We have now received responses from all of those bodies.
The DPEA sets out the training and advice provided to reporters when conducting public inquiries. It notes:
“Reporters are advised to be alert to any overstepping of the mark and to intervene if they perceive that cross-examination is becoming overbearing”.
Planning Aid Scotland says that all its staff and volunteers are required to be chartered planners. Although it has not recently provided training relating to public inquiries, it says that it will continue to monitor the type of advice requests that it receives and use the information to inform the training that is provided to its staff and volunteers. PAS would welcome the Scottish Government undertaking research into how support could be provided for communities that participate in public inquiries.
Following the evidence session with the minister, the committee received clarification that the Scottish Government has powers to alter the 50MW threshold for renewable energy developments but has not explored the benefits or disadvantages of doing so.
Although the Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Minister for Energy and Climate declined to comment on the specifics of the petition, they indicated the UK Government’s willingness to engage constructively with the Scottish Government on planning matters.
We have also received two new submissions from Aileen Jackson, the petitioner, commenting on the responses received. She welcomes the minister’s clarification on the Scottish Government’s power to alter the 50MW threshold—I think that Mr Ewing raised that matter in examination. Aileen considers that that potentially opens the possibility for more decisions on proposed wind farm developments to be taken at a local authority level. She also highlights the UK Government proposals for changes in national planning policy on onshore wind farm developments in England. That is coupled with the United Kingdom Government’s willingness to work with the Scottish Government on these matters.
We have had a lot of constructive feedback from the various bodies to which we wrote. On the basis of that feedback, do colleagues want to suggest ways in which we might take things forward?
The committee could write to the Scottish Government to set out the committee’s recommendations on the basis of the evidence that has been gathered so far. That might include recommending that the Scottish Government undertakes work to explore the benefits and disadvantages of altering the 50MW threshold for consideration of renewable energy developments;, undertaking research into how support could be provided for communities that wish to participate in public inquiries into planning decisions, including onshore wind farm developments; exploring the scope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm development; and exploring opportunities to ensure that the demonstration of local support is a key material consideration for planning authorities when determining applications for onshore wind farm developments.
I am content with that. In asking the Government to undertake an exploration of the benefits and disadvantages, I might also draw to its attention, or provide it with, the response that we received from the UK Government saying that it would be very happy to engage on the whole matter.
On the issue of engagement with the UK Government, particularly in the light of the fact that the whole development of wind power, onshore and offshore, will be dependent to some extent on grid upgrade and interconnector capacity expansion—particularly with regard to the interconnectors that cross borders—we could recommend that the case for co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments is not strong but a sine qua non of the delivery of the respective renewable energy aims and ambitions of both Governments. A standing committee might be the way to deal with that, given the nature, complexity and breadth of the issues involved.
Secondly, in relation to the work that Mr Torrance suggests be done, could we ask that, in its response, the Scottish Government states what implications alterations would have on cost and time—the cost of dealing with applications, which might be considerable were the petitioners’ asks to be granted, especially if independent advocates were to be appointed, and the length of time that might be added to applications?
I say that because, as a former energy minister, I remember opening one wind farm that had taken about 13 years to go through the planning process and about 13 months to build, and I am not sure whether anyone really gains from a delay of that magnitude. I have that in mind, but that is anecdotal and I do not have a clear picture. However, I would like to see the facts on those two issues from the Scottish Government and, perhaps, from others—the planners and the local government side, if that is appropriate.
I think that we can accommodate all that. Are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Swimming Lessons (PE1891)
For the record, I should say that we are joined by two of our parliamentary colleagues—Foysol Choudhury and Rhoda Grant, who has so missed us that she is joining us in relation to three petitions, two of which we will consider jointly. Foysol Choudhury joins us in relation to the petition that we now move to consider. PE1891, lodged by Lewis Alexander Condy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all children will have had the opportunity to learn to swim by making it a statutory requirement to provide lessons in the primary school curriculum. I will invite Mr Choudhury to comment in a moment.
We last considered the petition a year ago, on 19 January 2022. As a committee, we offer our sincere apologies to the petitioner for not bringing the petition back for further consideration in our schedule before now. However, at our last consideration, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, and I am pleased to say that we have now received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. In her response, she restates that
“there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland therefore local authorities and individual schools have the flexibility to decide upon the content of their own lessons at the local level.”
However, the cabinet secretary goes on to offer information about Scottish Swimming’s national learn to swim framework and the delivery model pilot schemes that are taking place over the course of 2022-23
“to help educate and provide opportunities for children across Scotland to experience the water in a fun, safe and inclusive approach.”
The cabinet secretary has also highlighted the launch of the Water Safety Scotland and Education Scotland educational resource for schools
“to provide a consistent level of learning across Scotland’s educational institutions”.
I welcome Mr Choudhury. As is normal practice when colleagues join our meetings, I am happy to offer him the opportunity to comment on the petition and to speak to the committee.
I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to come and speak to you all.
I am disappointed that it has taken a year to come back to this petition. Within that year, as you have probably heard, many accidents have happened and quite a lot of deaths linked to swimming-related issues have taken place. That is probably one reason that quite a lot of constituents have come to us to say that they want us to make sure that learning to swim is in the curriculum and that school students are taught that skill.
You have mentioned the minister’s comments. I wonder whether the committee could invite the minister and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to say why they feel that learning to swim should not be in the school curriculum. I would request the committee to leave the petition open for further consideration.
I have said the majority of the relevant stuff previously—nothing has changed since my previous presentation, and I am in your hands. We have been speaking to schools and schools also feel that, if it is in the curriculum, students will learn to swim.
Thank you. In response to the first point, I think that the cabinet secretary makes clear that—whether or not the committee might wish it otherwise—there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland, so there can be no direction from the Government in that regard.
You allude to deaths that have taken place among young children as a result of not being able to swim. To be honest with you, I am not aware of the incidence of that, which is, in itself, a difficult matter to address.
Colleagues, we have heard from Mr Choudhury and we have also finally had this response from the Scottish Government. On reflection, what do colleagues think we should do?
Considering the response that we have had from the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government, I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland. Also, the Scottish Government has indicated that the learn to swim framework is being delivered in 27 out of 32 local authority areas, with progress being made within two further local authority areas towards delivering the framework during 2023 and that Water Safety Scotland and Education Scotland have launched an educational resource for schools to provide a consistent level of learning across Scotland’s educational institutions.
Colleagues, I am obviously sympathetic to the representations that we have received from Mr Choudhury. Could we couple that suggested action with a notice to the petitioner, drawing their attention to the actions that the Scottish Government has indicated are being taken, but pointing out to them that they can bring back the petition in a year’s time if they feel that the provisions that the Government has said are about to be fulfilled by local authorities and Water Safety Scotland have failed to address the issues? I do not know whether there is much more that we can do at this stage, but we could draw to the petitioner’s attention that there is that route to take.
I was not on the committee at the time that the evidence was taken but I have read the evidence and it covers both the desirability of kids learning to swim and the importance of that skill as a lifesaving device, which I notice Mr Torrance raised in the evidence session.
In light of what Mr Choudhury has said this morning, I feel that, although we probably should close the petition for the technical reasons that have been set out, it might be helpful if, in addition to the work that you have suggested, convener, we write to the minister stressing that we are closing the petition because there is no mandatory curriculum and, in that respect, it is a technical reason.
However, we could add that, although we welcome the progress that has been made, some local authorities are still not offering provision. There are concerns that deaths have arisen perhaps because of lack of ability to swim. Each of those cases would probably be subject to a fatal accident inquiry. We do not know whether those inquiries have taken place but, if the deaths occurred recently, they probably have not.
09:45In the letter, we could say that we have advised the petitioner to consider bringing the petition back in a year, and ask the Scottish Government to confirm that it will not neglect attention to that matter, but drive it forward with COSLA colleagues and, in particular, that it will try to advance the causes that Mr Choudhury has spoken to eloquently this morning, and that the petitioner has advocated us to pursue.
Yes—that is quite a nice marriage of the different suggestions that have been made. It makes clear that, although we feel the technical need to close the petition, we have not lost sight of the underlying issues and are almost encouraging it to be brought back to us, should the shortcomings prevail. Are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Upland Falconry (PE1859)
Our next petition, PE1859, was lodged by Barry Blyther, who is in the public gallery this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.
Members will recall the evidence sessions that we had in December last year with the petitioner, the Minister for Environment and Land Reform and NatureScot. I should also include Stanley, the eagle, in that, because we put questions to Stanley directly. [Laughter.] We heard about a number of issues in relation to the petition, and there are some outstanding issues and questions for us to consider, all of which have been summarised in our papers.
With the convener’s permission, I would like to place on record a couple of matters arising from the evidence session with the minister, of which I have given notice to the clerk.
First, at the outset of her evidence, the minister said that I had been the cabinet secretary at the time, but I pointed out that I was not the cabinet secretary responsible for the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill. However, the minister then added that the junior minister who took the legislation forward was acting under both Roseanna Cunningham and me. That is true, but it gives a slightly false impression of the situation, and I wanted to correct that. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not cabinet secretary with direct responsibility for that bill; that was Ms Cunningham, and Ms Gougeon took forward the bill on a practical day-to-day basis, acting on instruction from Ms Cunningham. Therefore, I had no direct ministerial focus or policy role for that bill, although, of course, I was a member of Cabinet.
Secondly, later on, the minister said:
“If the solution that Mr Ewing is referring to is that I instruct law officers to make a statement that a criminal offence will not be prosecuted, he is doing a disservice to the legal profession that he was once part of.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 21 December 2022; c 17.]
In response, I point out that I am still part of that profession, because I am on the roll of solicitors, although I am no longer in practice. Of more substance is the fact that I did not call for a blanket ban on prosecution; rather, I sought guidance, and I hope that guidance is an option that can be explored.
I will make further, substantive remarks later, but I wanted to clarify those points for the record. Thank you for the opportunity.
I know that all the members were impressed by the petition and I think that we were troubled by some of the evidence that we received. We have had an opportunity to reflect on that. A number of issues arise from it, and I think that the committee’s likely direction of travel is clear but, in pursuing that journey, are there suggestions as to what we might reasonably do now? It would be good to hear from colleagues in relation to that.
There is no doubt that the petition has created real anxiety across all areas. When the minister was here the last time, the committee was quite intent on progressing it. Mr Ewing has, in his way, highlighted the things that were said in the previous session that needed to be corrected.
It is important that we go back to the minister, so I suggest that we write to the Minister for Environment and Land Reform and NatureScot on the outstanding issues that were raised, on a number of which clarification is still needed. Those issues include the existing licensing purposes and options; the circumstances in which falconry could constitute an offence and in which a person could be charged and prosecuted—that issue is vitally important; how the welfare of birds of prey, particularly large birds such as eagles, can be ensured through the content of the new arrangements for the protection of mountain hares; and the potential unintended consequences of any legislative change. Those are fundamental matters that we should raise at this stage, and I propose that we do that at the next level.
Are there any other suggestions or comments from colleagues?
I agree with Mr Stewart’s recommended course of action and, in doing so, I express my gratitude for the information and help that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre. We had a briefing earlier, for which we are grateful.
In the light of that, I hope that we can put in the letter to the minister the information that we received about the possible distinction between the use of falconry for hunting purposes and for exercise purposes. As well as the issues that Mr Stewart has enumerated, we should ask that regard be paid to whether that information might form the basis of her seeking guidance and advice from NatureScot, which, I gather, deals with operational and strategic arrangements for licences in general, to see whether it can recommend a way that would enable the sport of falconry to continue to be practised in the light of the distinction that we have had the benefit of hearing about this morning from SPICe.
In addition to that, I hope that we can write to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to clarify the circumstances that would constitute an offence, and whether a person could be charged and prosecuted. Again, that might benefit the legal authorities, which are the only ones that have the right to decide whether there should be a prosecution. To be fair to her, the minister has no such locus and that line cannot be crossed. We should ask the prosecution authorities in what circumstances they might be minded to consider criminal proceedings. Perhaps we should also set out in the letter the distinction that we have had explained to us this morning, so that they can see a potential solution but also the quandary that falconers face, and appreciate that the committee is taking the issue seriously.
What I am asking for, convener, is that the letters to the legal authorities and to the minister should go to some lengths to set out our concerns about what we have heard, and our desire for a solution to be found that involves everybody working together to that end.
I am content with that. I also suggest that, in the light of the responses that we might receive, we go back and ask SPICe to draw all that information together in the form of a further briefing, which would then inform the committee about the steps that we could take on the back of that. We want to arrive at a solution having underpinned our recommendation by exploring every possible piece of advice to clarify all the outstanding points.
Perhaps I could add a little addendum.
Please do.
I forgot to say that, at the very end of the letter to the minister, we could perhaps politely indicate that all members of the committee feel particularly exercised and concerned about this matter, and it is therefore our intention to pursue it. We should indicate that we are treating it very seriously indeed, and perhaps thereby inject a little bit of lead into the ministerial pencil.
On which analogy, I will ask whether members are content with the action that has been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Detainees in Custody (Access to Medication) (PE1900)
PE1900 was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. The petition, on which, as colleagues will recall, we have previously taken evidence, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. We took evidence from former members of the Drug Deaths Taskforce and, subsequently, the Minister for Drugs Policy. We explored a range of issues in relation to the petition, including the use of dihydrocodeine, access to monitoring data and implementation of the medication-assisted treatment standards.
The committee has received two submissions from the petitioner, Kevin John Lawson, which are included in our papers, and correspondence from NHS Grampian to the Minister for Drugs Policy, which was an area that we explored in our cross-examination.
The correspondence from NHS Grampian confirms that it is currently unable to administer MAT, including methadone, in a police custody setting. That, it states, is due to historical constraints and the absence of a controlled drug licence.
The correspondence states that NHS Grampian has set up two short-life working groups, one of which is specifically tasked with completing the implementation of MAT standards in police custody. NHS Grampian is also looking to have a controlled drug licence in place by the end of February this year.
In the light of the responses received, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?
I would like us to keep the petition open. I think that, in doing so, we should write to the Minister for Drugs Policy to highlight the issues that are raised in the petition and the related evidence; welcome the work of the MAT implementation group to date; highlight the on-going concerns about resource and capacity issues in the health sector; ask for an update on the situation in NHS Grampian by the end of February with regard to whether a controlled drug licence for police custody settings has been obtained and the timescale for completing the implementation of MAT standards in police custody settings; and seek reassurance on issues of capacity and monitoring of implementation across Scotland to ensure that MAT standards are being met.
The confirmation of the position in NHS Grampian was disappointing, I have to say; in progressing the petition, we should give proper emphasis to that.
I agree with the recommendations that Mr Torrance suggests. Furthermore, I suggest that we consider direct engagement with health and social care partnerships, where there are clear deficiencies in implementation of the related MAT standards that we are discussing. Perhaps we could seek evidence directly from those health and social care partnerships about what the blockages and impediments are, which could offer us a way to be useful in getting delivery expedited.
Just to be clear, what would that involve us doing?
It would involve us identifying health and social care partnerships that are not achieving the MAT standards and inviting the management of those health and social care partnerships to give evidence on why that is a problem.
Perhaps we could explore that. [Interruption.] I wonder how to pursue that in the round. NHS Grampian has said that it has not been able to implement the MAT standards in police custody without explaining to us why that is the case, so I wonder whether we might pursue that point directly with NHS Grampian in the first instance, as an example of a health board that is struggling.
I agree in principle with Mr Sweeney’s recommendation, because the health and social care partnerships have a direct role to play. I wonder whether, in the first instance, we could raise the specific point in the letter to the minister and perhaps couple that with a request that she provide us with an update on what progress has been made in using the substantial amount of money—I cannot remember the figure; was it £500 million?—that has been set aside for the pursuit of drugs policy objectives in general. The indication that the minister gave was that that was to be used, in large part, to hire relevant personnel, whether as employees, consultants or contractors.
In the case of the provision of services to detainees in police custody, that might well involve the provision of budget for doctors, or other health professionals, who would be hired by the police. I am sorry—I am being a bit long winded, convener.
No, it is helpful to tease this out.
10:00
A related way of pursuing Mr Sweeney’s point might be to ask the minister specifically what progress has been made and how many additional people have been employed in each particular area, if she has that information. If not, we could ask her to get that information, and to give us a progress report on how that money has been spent thus far, because that gets into the nitty-gritty. It is a very substantial amount of money, but what is it being used for? It is not easy to hire the right people quickly—that is a difficult, complex task.
However, I know that the minister is entirely devoted to this work, and I think that all members would be interested in more factual information on these issues.
I accept that, but I am mindful of the petitioner here, and I wonder whether, in the first instance, we want to focus specifically on the position in NHS Grampian in our inquiry to the minister.
That is fine, but I think that the situation in all parts of Scotland would probably be of interest.
It would be helpful to draft a letter that we could consider before we send it off. I suggest that we ask the clerks to produce a draft letter.
To follow up on that point, what was interesting in the correspondence from NHS Grampian was the point that it is seeking to implement a controlled drug licence by the end of February. It is almost offering itself as a pilot of how to rapidly implement a controlled drug licence. When that happens, it would be helpful to get an insight from the health board and the relevant health and social care partnership as to how they achieved that and what the impediments were.
That might offer an insight for the minister and, indeed, the Parliament into how to speed up the process for other health boards and other health and social care partnership areas so that we can try to get this rolled out. It seems that that was the key sticking point that was identified in the correspondence, so if we find out how to break through that bureaucratic issue, we could focus on that.
Yes, that makes sense. We will accommodate all of that. I would quite like us to see a draft—even by correspondence—of the potential letter to the minister. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Community Participation Requests (Appeal Process) (PE1902)
PE1902, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.
At our previous consideration of the petition, we identified that work is on-going to identify the possibility of an appeal process as part of the Scottish Government’s review of the 2015 act. The Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth has informed us that the Scottish Community Development Centre’s working group continued its work through 2022 to explore the potential for an appeal or review process for participation requests and it will bring its findings to the Scottish Government for full consideration.
As I mentioned earlier, we have Rhoda Grant with us this morning. Rhoda, is there anything further that you would like to suggest to the committee, given that information?
Yes. I am a wee bit disappointed with that response from the Government, because it means that there will not really be any change in policy until much later this year, or possibly next year, to be more realistic. In the meantime, I think that Caithness Health Action Team should be recognised as a community organisation under the 2015 act, because it spends a lot of time representing its community.
I understand that NHS Highland is now working with CHAT in a much more positive fashion. The committee could consider writing to NHS Highland to ask whether it will now be willing to recognise CHAT and to give it the input and status that it would have had if it had been recognised under the 2015 act.
CHAT is coming to me with issues from its community more and more often. The organisation is well recognised and people turn to it for guidance and representation on health issues. It could only help NHS Highland and indeed the wider community if CHAT was round the table. I ask the committee to consider keeping the petition open until we get some form of resolution, because the work that the Scottish Government is doing will not resolve the issue in the near future.
A strand of thinking that you have articulated that registers with me is that we have no timetable. We are simply told that work was done in 2022 and that it will lead to findings being brought to the Scottish Government for consideration. That does not give us a timeline. It could take any amount of time for that to happen, then the Government could take any amount of time to consider the findings, and it could be any time after that before any consequence is suggested.
I wonder whether we might ask the Scottish Government, or whatever the appropriate body is, for a slightly more accountable timeframe to which it can be held. I do not know that there is much more that we can do after that. I am not sure whether Rhoda Grant’s suggestion is one for the committee or whether it is for more personal intervention. Do colleagues have any thoughts?
Convener, you make a valid point about the timescale for the process. Rhoda Grant expressed some views but, as you have identified, I am not sure how the committee could progress the matter. We can ask for a timescale but, other than that, we are limited as to what we can do, considering that there has already been some development from the Scottish Government about what it has indicated that it plans to do. As you said, the problem is the timescale. We do not know how long it will take. It could be towards the end of this year before anything happens.
Our expressing an interest in pursuing the matter might ensure that something is pursued.
Rhoda Grant raised a fair point. If the Government says in response to any request for action, “We might get round to doing something one day,” that’s no very good. The committee should not accept that response in principle, although we should probably word it more moderately and with politesse—as you advocated, convener—rather than in the words that I have just deployed. However, we should press the issue and say that we would like a more specific response about when the Government plans to take any action.
At the same time, I agree with you, convener, that Ms Grant will not be backward in coming forward and making her own representations. It might be a matter for individual MSPs to pursue in their constituencies or regions as well.
We can explore the most appropriate way for the further suggestion that Rhoda Grant made to be accommodated, whether that is through the committee or some other means. Are we otherwise content to proceed on the basis that we have discussed?
Members indicated agreement.
Sex Education in Schools (PE1918)
PE1918, which was lodged by Kate Freedman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance on implementing clear teaching rules that focus on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses; puberty; LGBT sex, including asexuality; fertility; pornography; and any other things that are deemed useful.
The Scottish Government has outlined the ways in which the views of children and young people are used to influence policy in the area, including collaboration and co-design in classrooms. Its recent submission provides examples of local engagement seeking the views of children and young people on sex education. It also states that the Scottish Government is in the process of revising its relationships, sexual health and parenthood—RSHP—teaching guidance and that it will run a public consultation to gather views. As part of that, it is exploring the best approach to gathering the views of children and young people. The submission concludes by stating that the Government is working to have the revised guidance available as early as possible in the 2023-24 academic year.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I wonder whether we should keep the petition open and write to Education Scotland to follow up on the committee’s previous request for information on how it monitors the implementation of teaching guidance. I would also like to see as soon as possible what comes back from the consultation on RSHP.
As there are no other suggestions from members, are we content to do as Mr Torrance suggests?
Members indicated agreement.
Air ais
AttendanceAir adhart
New Petitions