School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)
Item 2 is consideration of current petitions. With the committee’s permission, we will group together PE1098 and PE1223. PE1098 is by Lynn Merrifield, and seeks to ensure the provision of three-point seat belts for every school child passenger on school buses and to ensure that, as part of a best-value regime, local authorities have proper regard to such safety requirements. PE1223 is by Ron Beaty, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to take all appropriate action, whether through amending guidance, contracts, agreements or legislation, to require local authorities to install proper safety signage and lights on school buses for use only when school children are on the bus, and to make overtaking a stationary school bus a criminal offence.
I recognise that this is a difficult subject on which to make progress, but it will not simply go away. It would be appropriate for the committee to express our sadness at the continuing loss of life and to offer our condolences to the family of Natasha Paton, from Lanark grammar school, who died in a bus crash on 31 March, and to the families of Kieran Goulding and Chloe Walker, from Keswick school, who were killed on 24 May. It is just horrible to reflect on how their parents and the rest of their families must be feeling. We owe it to them to try to make some progress on the issue.
I associate myself with Nigel Don’s comments. In light of the awful accidents that have happened, it is incumbent on the committee to keep pushing and to find out what actions the Scottish Government, local authorities and the United Kingdom Government propose to take to make our schoolchildren safer.
I, too, offer my condolences to the families of the children who were tragically killed in the bus accidents.
I agree with everything that has been said so far. We are all horrified every time we hear of another accident, particularly a fatal accident, involving school buses.
I am relatively new to the committee, so I wonder about bringing people to the committee to question. I am interested to find out Strathclyde partnership for transport’s views. SPT covers a large area and involves many local authorities: Biggar is in SPT’s area, for example. If a local authority such as Aberdeenshire Council is doing innovative work on school transport, it might be interesting to hear what SPT is doing, too.
I hope that my point will not be too sideways. Bus services in rural areas differ from those in cities. In rural areas, buses necessarily travel at top speed—at 50mph—when that is permissible, to take children to school on time over relatively long distances. In cities, buses necessarily travel at 30mph or slower. In cities, where passengers are allowed to stand when on the bus and are encouraged to do so to get enough people on buses to make them efficient, the simple expedient of reducing the speed limit to 20mph might result in traffic travelling faster and buses being safer. More than one answer to the problem could be considered in our cities.
I express my sincere condolences to the families of the three young people who were tragically killed. I agree with everything that my colleagues have suggested. It would also help to write to Strathclyde Police and Cumbria Constabulary asking them to convey to us the results of their investigations into the two tragic incidents, the lessons that have been learned and the actions that it is proposed will be taken.
I am thinking about possible ways ahead. Does the issue merit a big debate along the lines of that which we had on knife crime? School buses are hugely important. Do we have the means to do something such as bringing together representatives from all the local authorities?
That is certainly possible. We will consider whether the suggestion is practical. The new spirit of collaboration and co-operation among UK politicians and the fact that there is a new Secretary of State for Transport provides the opportunity to obtain another perspective. I suggest that the clerk should produce suggestions for us and that we should make a final recommendation on what is practical in due course. Not unlike the Parkinson’s medication situation, people assume that in this case certain measures are in place when youngsters travel to school. Parents are always shocked when they see the bus—they say, “I cannae believe the insecurity”—never mind the other safety aspects that are part of the wider debate about the petitions. We will follow up the suggestion.
To the parents, families, friends and teachers of the three young people whom we have named, I echo everything that Nigel Don and others have said.
We could threaten them with that if they did not make their contribution, then they would cough up straight away.
I think that they would.
The frustration that I am hearing from the committee—I know that some of the petitioners are here—is that we do not feel that we have done the petitions justice because of the delay. The decisions that have to be made are way beyond our remit, but we need to push the issue much further up the agenda and see whether we can change the situation, especially since there has been a change of Government. If we cannot be seen to respond positively to the tragedy of the incidents and the human cost, and to find some hope rather than despair, what is the point?
Myoclonic Dystonia (Care Standards) (PE1299)
The next petition is by Geraldine MacDonald, and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to set national standards of care for all myoclonic dystonia sufferers, and to issue guidance to all local authority social work and housing departments to ensure that they provide adapted services and environmental adaptations to sufferers, based on a fair assessment of their condition.
As with today’s first petition, this petition raises implications for the dissemination of information and the training of health professionals. We might need to look down a level at how information is disseminated in each health board area and what the implications are for local authorities. What level of awareness of the condition is there at those levels? We also need to decide how to proceed on training.
I get the feeling that there is not much disagreement that the committee needs to continue with the petition, but we have to get into some of the detail around it. I am certainly not familiar with the condition, even from my caseload, so perhaps we need to get some more knowledge about it. We will continue the petition and seek the Government’s views on the points that the committee has raised.
I am interested to know how the roll-out of the clinical standards from NHS Quality Improvement Scotland is going.
Okay. We accept the continuation of that petition.
Scottish Water (Executive Bonuses) (PE1300)
We are now on to PE1300, by Drew Cochrane, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to issue a direction to Scottish Water under the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 to discontinue the practice of paying bonuses to its senior executives. The petition has been before the committee previously and members have expressed views on it. Are there any comments on how to handle it today?
Although I would like to close the petition today, the petitioner raised an important issue in his response to the Scottish Government’s response. In the response that he sent to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth was not clear about whether the Scottish Government will seek to end the payment of bonuses and other enhancements to members of the board of Scottish Water, or to members of the boards of other quangos in Scotland at an appropriate time.
There are situations in which bonuses are set at a level that people find acceptable. When people meet targets, we can thole bonuses, especially for those who work in the banking sector. I do not mean those who receive exorbitant bonuses for work that they do not carry out or that they carry out unsuccessfully; I mean workers in the banking industry who depend on bonuses to supplement their salary. Perhaps they should have a bigger salary—maybe that is a better way—but nobody says that bonuses for such people should end. However, we are talking about bonuses for people at the top end in bodies such as Scottish Water. Mr Ackroyd received a bonus of £101,000. Frankly, people find such bonuses unacceptable.
We will need to keep the petition open if we want to raise those further matters. The phrasing of the letter to the cabinet secretary is important, although there is not a big difference between what Bill Butler and John Wilson have said. We will try to ask for a proper examination of the bonus and reward culture that takes into account fairness and equity for staff. Clearly, some staff in banks—which, when you think about it, are now half public and half private—and in public bodies are paid low levels of bonus, which is part of the reasonable reward mechanism. However, the issue relates to the very top of public bodies, where there does not seem to be hard work for the bonus. I want to get the language right in the letter.
Our question would fit well with the fact that Governments of all colours tell us that everything is constantly under review. If that is the case, let us ask that question on that basis.
We will frame a question and circulate it to members to get broad agreement before we send it.
We should also take into consideration the submission from Waterwatch Scotland.
Okay. After hearing about those reward mechanisms in Scottish Water, the six students from Waid academy who are in the public gallery are making decisions on their future careers. The water industry can be quite rewarding if you get the right qualifications.
If some members have their way, in future, it will not be as rewarding as it is currently. I want to get that on the record.
Fair enough. We will keep the petition open and explore those issues.
Honest Politicians (PE1316)
PE1316 is by Matthew Goundry. We have seen it before. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that all individuals who seek election to local or national public office are subject to enhanced disclosure. Our information is that the political parties that we represent have not covered themselves in glory, as they have not responded to us. Do we unanimously agree to send a really cheeky letter to all the party secretaries to ask what is happening?
I do not think that we should do that. The reason for what has happened is the general election.
That is a minor matter.
Some people might disagree. Now that the parties have had time to draw breath, we should simply write to them again and see whether we can get answers for the petitioner. We can then consider the matter in detail.
Assuming that people in our respective party headquarters are not watching the committee’s proceedings, each of us should send an e-mail to our party headquarters in which we say, “I was horrified to discover that our party was the only party that did not respond. Please do so quickly.”
That would encourage them—that is, if there are any party officers left after all the money has been spent on the election. We will continue the petition and endeavour to get responses to the points that the petitioner has raised.
School-age Workers (PE1317)
PE1317 is by Paul Dryburgh and Ellen Cummings, youngsters from Waid academy who are with us this afternoon. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take the necessary action to ensure that the rights of school-age workers in part-time employment are protected so that employers cannot impose excessive working hours to the detriment of the workers’ academic studies, and to bring about greater transparency in the distribution of tips to young workers in the hospitality trade.
I pay tribute to the young people who lodged the petition. I believe that they have completed their surveys to collect more information and evidence to back up the petition’s general thrust. We all look forward to receiving that information from the petitioners; I do not think that we have it yet.
I do not want to repeat what has been said. I agree with Bill Butler. A huge amount of valuable work has been done. Might the petitioners be interested in doing a presentation in the Parliament for other parliamentarians? I am sure that they would be interested in finding out about the issue.
As Bill Butler said, the students at Waid academy must be congratulated on how they have progressed the petition and on the research that has been carried out among their peer group. It is clear that the issue of how employers tend to use young people and the related legislation arises in that school; indeed, I am sure that it arises throughout Scotland.
I would be interested to know whether any of the ideas on monitoring or the model byelaw that the Government provided to local authorities were included in outcome agreements. If not, why not?
I understand that, in the case of children under the age of 16, we are dealing with a welfare issue. Local authorities have a role to play there. Have we received information from local authorities about how often the byelaws have been invoked? I do not remember reading that. It would be interesting to explore that issue, if we have not received such information.
We can explore that.
I congratulate the students who lodged the petition, who are sitting in the back row of the public gallery. When we considered the petition previously, I said that they frightened me. Perhaps we are frightening them now—I hope so. It has been suggested that we ask the Government to consider issuing a new fact sheet. It would be a good idea for it to look at the fact sheet that the students are producing. We all think that we can talk to young people, but they do not think so. I am younger than the rest of the committee, so perhaps I am an exception. Younger people know how to talk to one another better than the Government does. It would be a great idea if the Government could look at what the students have produced and base its fact sheet on that.
As I often say, with age comes wisdom.
Not in all cases.
The committee wants to be helpful on the petition. Members have made a couple of suggestions that the students may want to pursue. They have a final year at school, so there may be time for them to do that before they move on to the next stage of education or work. A number of issues have been raised, so we will continue the petition and bring it back to the committee. If the petitioners want to discuss with the clerks the option of making a presentation to elected members, we will see whether we can do something about that.
Leisure Facilities (Free Access) (PE1318)
PE1318 is from Ronan Buist, Megan Lumsden and Daniel Swaddle, who are also students at Waid academy. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide free access to all publicly funded leisure centres, including swimming pools, for all school-age children across Scotland.
The issue of standardised admission fees has been raised by the petitioners and the Scottish Youth Parliament. Obviously, the level of fees is a matter for individual local authorities, but we could write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it has discussed that issue with local authorities and whether it can do something to get a degree of consistency across Scotland with regard to the level of admission fees. The matter is for local government, but I do not think that that would be going too far.
I congratulate the youngsters on bringing this important issue forward. However, I contrast this petition with the previous petition that we discussed, which hit the nail on the head in a way that resulted in our wanting to pursue everything that the petitioners suggested.
We will continue the petition and try to get some more responses. Nigel Don has identified at least two nuances within the debate on which it would be helpful to hear the views of the Government and other agencies.
Israel (Scottish Parliament Exhibition) (PE1324)
PE1324 is our final current petition today. It is from Sofiah MacLeod of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to cancel the Israel's contribution to medicine, science and technology exhibition, which was scheduled to run in the Scottish Parliament from 27 to 29 April.
We should close the petition, based on the information that we have received on the SPCB’s policy on events and exhibitions, which gives MSPs responsibility for the content of exhibitions that they initiate.
I think that the committee has taken the matter as far as it can—although I am always open to positive suggestions, should someone want to make one. The letter from Mr Grice makes it clear that the corporate body viewed this as an issue with two distinct aspects: policy versus the ability of MSPs to raise awareness of areas that they regard as being of legitimate interest. We may disagree with that view, but I do not know whether there is anything that we can do now to further the petition. However, I am always willing to listen to what colleagues have to say.
I reluctantly agree that we should close the petition. The corporate body has made its view on the exhibition clear, but my difficulty is that its view of the rules for exhibitions is slightly intransigent. It may well be up to an individual to raise a matter with the member who is hosting an event, but I think that that negates some of the responsibility that the corporate body may have in the future. Current MSPs are, in the main, fairly reasonable and fairly sensible individuals. However, if someone was elected who did not hold what the majority saw as responsible or meaningful views of political issues that they wished to promote, we could end up with exhibitions that the majority would not agree with. As far as I understand it, the corporate body represents the majority view of the Parliament.
Do we have any options? The corporate body says that it
I will listen carefully to what the clerk has to say but, for what it is worth, my view is that there is no further locus for the committee. I can think of only one other way of exploring the issue, if I may put it that way. If members wish to pursue the issue, they should take it up with their party’s member of the corporate body—each major party has a member on the corporate body—because the issue is one for the corporate body. I think that that is where we are, but I wait to hear what the convener or the clerk—or both—has to say.
I do not think that we have any option other than to close the petition. However, there are other opportunities for MSPs to make their feelings known, such as through the Parliament’s motions system and by approaching the corporate body. It is important for us to separate the issue that occasioned the dispute with the SPCB and the broader issue, which is much bigger than our quarrel with the SPCB. MSPs have made their views on that issue very clear in a number of ways, especially through the cross-party group on Palestine. I am content to close the petition.
I do not think that there is any simple course of action. I have a specific concern about the letter that we received from the corporate body, which states that it
Previous
New Petitions