Official Report 553KB pdf
Social Work Students (Work Placements) (PE1993)
Agenda item 3 is the consideration of new petitions. As always, before I introduce the first of the new petitions, I say to petitioners who may be with us or watching our proceedings that we do a considerable amount of work in advance of our first consideration of petitions. Part of that work is getting an initial view from the Scottish Government. That does not necessarily determine the outcome or the actions that we might subsequently take—it is simply an initial view of the Scottish Government’s perspective on the petition. We also receive a briefing from the Parliament’s impartial research service, SPICe. Petitioners should know that that work is done in advance.
The first of the new petitions is PE1993, which has been lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements, reforming the assessment criteria and adequately funding the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements.
By way of background information, the petitioners highlight that social work students spend nine months on placements during their third and fourth years but that, unlike, for example, student nurses and paramedics, there are no bursaries to support them.
In its initial response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that the relevant minister met the petitioners and representatives of the Scottish Association of Social Work, the Social Workers Union and the British Association of Social Workers to discuss support for social work students—I might refer to the summary of that meeting later. The Scottish Government’s response also states that, while a preference for bursaries over loan payments is likely to be shared by most students, there should be recognition of the wider funding landscape and the pressures across the Scottish Government’s budget, and of the challenges that that brings to ensuring that the student support package is fair while maintaining the overall affordability of the student support system. The response also highlights that social work students have access to living-cost grants that are not available to nursing, paramedic and midwifery students.
We have also received a submission from the petitioners in response to the Scottish Government. In that submission, the petitioners highlight that the support that is available for social work students currently comes in the form of a repayable loan and depends on household income. That differs from the support available to nursing, midwifery and paramedic students, who are eligible for a bursary totalling £37,500 over four years. The petitioners tell us that, while undertaking work placements, social work students work just as hard as their colleagues who are on nursing, midwifery and paramedic courses. They recognise that social work students undertake placements only during their third and fourth years, while nursing and midwifery students do so throughout the entirety of their courses, which is why the petition calls for bursaries to be made available for those in the later stages of their study.
The petitioners call for a review of the funding and assessment criteria for postgraduate bursaries administered by the Scottish Social Services Council. As noted in the SPICe briefing, it has not been possible to locate details of that scheme on the SSSC’s website, but individual universities provide more details of the scheme.
I want to refer to one comment by the minister in the Scottish Government’s response that caught my eye:
“The points raised by the petitioners in their meeting with Mr Hepburn were captured and will be taken into consideration when progressing current work to review the support available. The Minister also expressed to the petitioners that he and his fellow Ministers would welcome maintaining an open line of communication on this matter.”
I was slightly entertained by the idea of things being “captured”. That expression does not necessarily indicate that there will be a subsequent course of action.
Do members have any comments?
This area—the support that is available to students—is really important right across the board. We are trying to attract people into these important jobs, particularly in the public sector. Having met social work students and the social work organisations, I can say that they are at crisis point. People believe them to be good career options, but it is incredibly difficult to finance yourself through that process.
When speaking to social work students, I noted, in particular, that, at that late stage when they are heavily invested in their placement, other people in academic life may be able to get a balance by doing some work to support themselves financially. Are we really asking social work students doing a nine-month placement in the workplace, as they must do, to also take on additional work? That should not be the case if we want them to have the ability to do that well and to get the qualification and experience. It is such an important area: people need to have good experiences as they learn the ropes and go through their career. We need them to be available to our public sector.
I absolutely support keeping the petition open as we seek guidance from social work organisations such as the social work unions and the SSSC on what we could do to help the petitioners with this.
I am struck by the work placement point, because we really want individuals at that stage to be focused on delivering their best and getting their best from the work placement. Encouraging them to try to find alternative income streams through work while on a nine-month secondment is not really a healthy prospect or route in those circumstances, so I am inclined to agree.
I agree, convener. There is definitely a gap in the bursary provision. Trying to encourage someone to go into that sector is, in reality, tough enough, but putting extra obstacles in front of individuals will make it much more challenging for them to fulfil the course. As Carol Mochan suggested, it would be useful to get some of that information so that we can identify much more clearly what happens with bursaries for placements in the third and fourth year of social work practice. The petition requires more information to be captured. The minister may have captured that, but we need to capture some information as well to make sure that we are fulfilling our role and getting the full information that is required.
I would certainly be interested in writing to the minister to ask him what form he expects his open line of communication to take and whether he is able to confirm a structured and ongoing basis for that. As Carol Mochan suggested, we also want to write more formally to the Scottish Social Services Council to seek its views on the issues raised in the petition. We want a view on providing bursaries to all third- and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements; an explanation of the criteria for assessing bursary applications for postgraduate students; and clarification on where members of the public can access information on the assessment criteria, because SPICe seemed to find that more problematic than it ought to be. If SPICe found it problematic, I do not quite know how other people are meant to find it more readily.
Are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition raises important issues. We will write to the minister and to the Scottish Social Services Council, as suggested, and consider the petition again when we consider the responses that we have received from them.
Drink Spiking (Support for Victims) (PE1995)
PE1995 has been lodged by Catherine Anne McKay. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a multi-agency approach to investigating spiking incidents to ensure that victims are given access to appropriate testing and that incidents are investigated robustly. A member of the petitioner’s family feels failed by the system after her negative experience of reporting a suspected spiking incident. I read, with some concern, about the incident as described.
The SPICe briefing notes that the Education, Children and Young People Committee held a round-table evidence session on spiking at its meeting on 26 January 2022.
In response to the petition, the Scottish Government outlines its work to address spiking, and that includes an investigative strategy to provide guidance and direction to staff responding to and investigating incidents of spiking; senior investigating officers leading on local spiking-related investigations; and round-table, cross-organisation meetings.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Bear in mind that we cannot pursue the individual circumstance that the petitioner identified, because it is not competent for us to do so. There is a general issue in there, however, and that general issue certainly raised concerns within me about a potential variable attitude to such incidents.
I, too, read the petitioner’s description of the experience that a member of her family underwent and was struck by how serious it was, and must still be, for that family.
It is about that person’s reputation as well.
Yes. I was just going to make a distinction—perhaps a fine distinction—which is this: although it is not really open to us to investigate individual circumstances, nonetheless a couple of general points arise, namely why a urine test was not carried out and whether one should have been carried out. Is that an issue to which we should get a reply? If a urine test was not carried out because the police formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, that delimits any later possibility of establishing that there was spiking, because the medical evidence, which would have come from a urine test, would not be available if the test had not taken place fairly promptly. We should therefore be asking the police whether urine tests should be routinely taken. Is that part of the advice that they have got? To be candid, I am not quite sure, but I would like clarity on that.
The petitioner also states that hospital personnel appeared to form the view that spiking may well have taken place, so, although we cannot look at that particular issue in that particular case, where there is apparently some corroborative evidence, or potential corroborative evidence, surely that should make the conducting of a urine test almost routine.
It is our duty to pursue properly petitioners’ pleas. When a very serious incident has occurred, that duty is a higher level of duty. I am therefore keen that we investigate the matter further and ask the Scottish Government and the police whether a urine test is something that should be routinely carried out or carried out where there is any evidence available or where more evidence may emerge. Evidence is not always necessarily available from the first 24 or 48 hours, and, after that, it is too late to conduct a urine test.
I have friends who have children of the age when this is perhaps happening. It is a serious issue, because those young people have said to me that, when they go out, they make preparations with one another to make sure that drinks are not being spiked. If young people are looking out for one another, and raising the issue as a concern among themselves in those groups, it must be taken to be a serious issue by the police.
I would be interested in getting some feedback from the police, as Fergus Ewing indicated, but also some feedback on how seriously they take the issue and whether they have training for police officers in that area.
I absolutely agree.
Some work has been done on that already. We note that Police Scotland has had support. Universities have done a lot of work themselves to support any student in that situation. I note from the report that the Scottish Government has had round-table discussions. Those are all good. It would, however, be useful to get a summary from SPICe about what happened at the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s evidence session on drink and needle spiking, because it has done a lot of work on that already. We could capture some of that information and use it to our benefit, because what Carol Mochan and Fergus Ewing have said is very valid, but we could maybe—I am going to use the word again—capture some more clarity.
10:15
I am very concerned that I have now planted the word “capture” in your vocabulary, Mr Stewart. You are now capturing everything in every petition. I encourage you not to be led down such a dangerous path, but I fully support the sentiments.
That round-table discussion, however, was 14 months ago, and I will tell you what struck me. First of all, this Parliament has a duty to try to ensure that, although the composition of its membership is not youthful, we understand and respond to issues that are of direct concern to many young people, and this clearly is one such issue. In my ignorance, I had assumed that a urine test was probably a fairly routine process, but I was struck by the issue of there being possible reputational damage done to the individual in question, who was thereafter unable to evidence that their drink had been spiked, that was the issue, and that, as a consequence, it was open to others to suggest that they had just been irresponsible or reckless in their behaviour. That was very damaging, and it would be avoidable if processes were in place to try to properly identify the experience that people had been subject to. I think that we are all minded to pursue the petition further and to make inquiries. Mr Ewing suggested contacting Police Scotland, which is perfectly sensible.
In addition, I did not catch anyone suggesting it, but a good recommendation in the briefing paper is that we should request a SPICe summary.
Mr Stewart raised that.
He said that?
Yes, he wanted to capture it. [Laughter.]
I failed to capture what he said.
We will do that. This is an important petition, and we will keep it open. I hope that I am not being too light as we discuss it because, actually, the issues are quite significant, and we want to find out more.
I do not know who to write to about this, but there is another issue. It was suggested, in the instance that the petitioner discusses, that the hospital staff thought that the drink might have been spiked, but that did not seem to lead to any process or test. I do not know whether there is anybody who could help us to understand the practice around that.
We could certainly ask the Government.
Yes, we could ask the Government. I was wondering whether to write to every health board, but that would be quite cumbersome. We could maybe ask the Government whether there is any standard practice on this, identifying the fact that, among the young people who are petitioning us, there is a sense that it is an emerging and growing concern. It may well be that it is something that needs to happen because of a growing number of incidents.
Do we agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Abortion Law (Disability) (PE1996)
PE1996, which has been lodged by Calum MacKellar on behalf of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, calls for action to prevent discriminatory abortions for disability in Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to ensure that abortions cannot take place after 24 weeks in circumstances where the child is likely to have a disability.
The petitioner highlights that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 enables termination up to the point of birth if the fetus has a disorder but restricts termination to 24 weeks if the fetus has no disability. The petitioner feels that that sends a discriminatory message that a non-disabled child’s life has more worth and value than that of a child with a disability.
Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has said that it recognises that the issue of terminating a pregnancy where a fetus is likely to have severe physical or mental abnormalities is a deeply emotive one. It has stated:
“The Scottish Government equally values the contribution of all members of society and opposes any discrimination on the basis of disability.”
The committee will be aware from its consideration of related petitions that the Scottish Government currently has no plans to amend the Abortion Act 1967.
In response to the view that the Scottish Government has offered, the petitioner has highlighted the lack of explanation for why the provision exists. He suggests that section 1(1)(d) of the 1967 act enables a woman who could arguably cope with a disabled child to terminate the pregnancy because she believes that having a non-disabled child is preferable to having a disabled child.
The petitioner notes the Marie Stopes UK position paper that is referred to in the SPICe briefing, which suggests that introducing an upper gestational limit for abortion on the ground of fetal abnormality could have the unintended consequence of pressuring women to make a difficult decision in a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing the number of abortions. The petitioner feels that the Marie Stopes UK position paper does not develop or emphasise the legal context of the 24-week limit. He notes that the 24-week limit reflects an important and meaningful fetal development stage at which it is considered that a healthy fetus is deserving of protection, whether or not the fetus may eventually become a burden.
Do members have any suggestions for action in relation to the petition? I certainly studied the briefing that we received with some care.
I, too, read the briefing thoroughly. It is an important and sensitive issue. The Government has indicated that it has no intent to change the law on abortion. I believe that the right to choose and to get appropriate healthcare throughout pregnancy is important for women. In this instance, therefore, I do not believe that the petition should go forward. That is my balanced view.
Thank you. I note the reference in the briefing that we received to the October 2021 case that was heard in the High Court in respect of the UK Secretary of State for Health, in which an effort to strike down section 1(1)(d) of the 1967 act was dismissed. At that time, the court dismissed the argument that that section of the act perpetuated negative stereotypes of people with disabilities as it focuses more on the rights of the pregnant person and their medical treatment. I found the briefing interesting in presenting different sides of the argument that the petitioner was seeking to represent, which, in itself, was well expressed.
We have heard Carol Mochan’s position. Do other colleagues have any suggestions? It appears not. Carol Mochan proposes that, in this instance, particularly given the Scottish Government’s position that it does not intend to amend the Abortion Act 1967, there is nothing that the committee can meaningfully do to pursue the petition and we should therefore close it. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We will write to the petitioner to explain that we cannot meaningfully advance the petition.
Braille Food Labelling (PE1997)
PE1997 has been lodged by Fiona McDonald on behalf of Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans. I understand that the petitioners are with us in the public gallery, and I welcome them. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce new legal requirements on retailers to provide Braille labelling on food products detailing the name of the item and its use-by or sell-by date. The petitioners highlight that Braille labelling is currently required only for medicines, leaving Braille users at a disadvantage when identifying food products that they wish to purchase.
Responding on behalf of the Scottish Government, Food Standards Scotland states:
“As the body with policy responsibility for general food labelling FSS recognises that having access to adequate food information is essential to enable consumers to make informed choices when shopping for food.”
The response highlights the intention, following the exit from the European Union, for general food labelling legislation to be considered for review on a UK-wide basis. However, it is noted that the scope of the legislation is considerable and that any such review may be unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, Food Standards Scotland has invited Sight Scotland and Disability Equality Scotland to meet it to improve its understanding of the needs of blind and partially sighted consumers.
We have also received a submission from the petitioners that notes that a meeting with Food Standards Scotland took place in early March. The petitioners tell us that the meeting provided an opportunity for them to offer clarity on the numbers of people living with sight loss in Scotland, while exploring the importance of offering a variety of accessible formats to match consumers’ individual needs and preferences. The petitioners also mention that Food Standards Scotland is considering a public consultation that would be aimed at providing further insight on the impact of mandatory Braille labelling for food products that are sold in Scotland.
Do members have any suggestions? It is an interesting petition on an issue that had not occurred to me, until I read the detail of it, as being meaningful. I can see the practical issues that are associated with it but, nonetheless, I am pleased that meetings have taken place to at least explore matters further. What more might the committee do?
There is no doubt that there is an opportunity to deal with the petition and seek some clarity as to what is taking place. You touched on the consultation that is anticipated. It would be useful for the committee to write to Food Standards Scotland to ask it to update us on its plans for the consultation that is to take place with reference to the labelling of food products that are sold in Scotland having mandatory Braille labelling, and the timescale for that consultation to be carried out.
We should also write to the Food and Drink Federation Scotland to seek its views on the issues that the petitioners have raised, and specifically on the anticipated additional costs of adding Braille to labelling on food products. That will also give us an indication as to where this is going. In addition, it would be useful to find out from the Scottish Government what its views and feelings are on the process, because it has a role to play as well.
I am interested in having a bit more understanding as well. The response from FSS says that a review is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, but what discussions are taking place about the process that might underpin a wider UK comprehensive review of food labelling? FSS refers to a review happening on a UK-wide basis, but I would like to understand whether the Scottish Government expects to proceed on that basis in this instance. What further information can it give us? We might ask it who in the UK Government is potentially leading on the matter. It may well be that, having received confirmation of that, we should write to the UK Government in due course to ask for its views on the process that would underpin a review. The proposed review is not as immediate a response as the petitioner is looking for, so I am very much in favour of Mr Stewart’s suggestions.
Are there any other thoughts from colleagues? As there are none, I propose that we keep the petition open and write to the various organisations, the Scottish Government and potentially the UK Government on the basis that we have described. We will maintain contact with the petitioners so that they have an opportunity to feed in their responses to any responses that we receive, and we will have that information before us when we next consider the petition. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PE1999)
Our final new petition this morning is PE1999, which has been lodged by William Hunter Watson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is referred to as the UNCRPD, is fully implemented in Scotland. The petitioner believes that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted. He states his view that covert medication and chemical restraint are incompatible with the UNCRPD, as he interprets article 25 as meaning that persons with disabilities have the right to refuse treatment. The petitioner highlights the importance of the right to refuse treatment in care homes and mental hospitals.
We have received two submissions from individuals who have shared their experiences in relation to treatment without consent. In particular, Barry Gale expresses his view that there is a gap between policy and practice. He states that patients and carers should be empowered
“to make their own discretionary decisions about their own lives, and to put the onus on the professionals to appeal against them—instead of the other way around.”
The committee has received a response to the petition from the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. He states that, for some individuals,
“compulsory treatment is used to provide the person with medical treatment to alleviate suffering and for the protection of both the person and others”.
He adds:
“Compulsory treatment is only allowed under mental health legislation in Scotland in very strict circumstances.”
The minister’s submission highlights safeguards that are in place, such as the right to independent advocacy and the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The minister states that other interventions should be considered before restrictive practice is proceeded with, as such action should be a last resort. He notes that the Scottish Mental Health Law Review’s report proposes reforms to help to drive reductions in the use of coercion, including restrictive practices, while recognising the potential need for it in certain circumstances.
I should have recorded David Torrance’s apology for the meeting earlier. I do so now. I feel that, if he was here, he would recollect some of these themes being raised in petitions on such issues before, as I do. Do colleagues have thoughts as to how we might proceed?
10:30
I note the reference in our papers to the independent Scottish Mental Health Law Review, which was chaired by John Scott KC and which published its final report on 30 September. The Scottish Government states in its response to the petition that it is taking time carefully to consider the recommendations. That is fair enough, because the issues are by no means straightforward.
It would make sense for the committee to inquire as to when the Scottish Government expects to respond to the mental health law review. As I understand it, the review recommended that a human rights approach be taken to these matters but it acknowledged that there may still be instances where treatment may require to be administered without consent—for example, for health reasons, as has been alluded to. It would be useful to ascertain—I am sure that the petitioner would like to know this—when the Government is going to respond. I think that its response will very much dictate how the petitioner will wish us to proceed in relation to any possible recommendations that may arise from the Government’s response to the review.
I agree. Do we have any other suggestions? As there are none, are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has advocated?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public section of our meeting. We will next meet on Wednesday 19 April. I thank all those who have joined our proceedings this morning.
10:31 Meeting continued in private until 11:32.Air ais
Continued Petitions