Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Current Petitions
- New Petitions (Notification)
Current Petitions
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.
We have had substantive discussions on both petitions in the past. Ron Beaty and his wife are in the public gallery today. He has been committed to his petition and has spoken directly to the committee. He has been in correspondence with all members of the committee in the recent past about the accidents that have happened recently elsewhere—I am thinking of the children from Lanark grammar school and the youngsters from Keswick school in Cumbria.
I invite comments from committee members. I know that Nigel Don wants to express some views on the petition.
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.
We know that wearing a seat belt can make a difference, although we do not know whether it would have done in those particular cases. That is why we have seat belts in cars. We also know, from our discussions over the period, that responsibility for the issue is shared between the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government and our local authorities, which makes things difficult.
I am sure that other members will have comments to make about how we might pursue the matter, but I express my utter frustration—perhaps it is unparliamentary to do so—that, despite our best efforts, those of the petitioners and probably of all concerned, we have changed nothing at all two and a half years after Lynn Merrifield’s petition got to us.
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.
The situation has been discussed on several occasions, but instead of it getting better it was recently reported to me that, in one local authority, children are being bussed to school while standing in the aisles. We are talking about fitting compulsory three-point seat belts for children who are transported in school transport, but local authorities do not seem to be taking any cognisance of the guidance that the UK Government and the Scottish Government have issued.
I would like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to ask it what discussions it is having with local authorities on the provision of school transport. If what was reported to me about children standing in the bus aisles going to school in the morning and coming home at night is true, it is clear that the message on school transport safety for children is not getting out to local authorities. It is only by some miracle that more incidents have not taken place when children—in particular, young children—are expected to stand in the aisles of buses. We need to work out what discussions are taking place. We also need to write to the road safety working group of the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland to find out what discussions it is having on school bus safety.
The provision of school buses across local authorities is so disparate that we do not have an overall picture of how local authorities apply the regulations that are supposed to be applied. Until we get that sorted and move on to consider seat belt safety on buses, we will continue to struggle to get the message across.
As other members have said, two and a half years on, we do not seem to be any further forward. I would like the issue to be moved forward speedily, because some of the buses that are being used to transport schoolchildren are deplorable. That is the only way to describe them. In my area, children are being transported in double-decker buses that are 20 years old, if not older, without seat belts or consideration being given to safety. That is clearly not the way to move forward in this day and age, when incidents happen such as those that Nigel Don cited and the petitioners have brought before us. We seem to be regressing rather than taking the issue seriously.
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.
As Ron Beaty said in his response, there has been a change in Aberdeenshire Council, which is doing a lot to ensure bus safety. However, as John Wilson said, we do not know what other local authorities are doing. I would like an evaluation of what Aberdeenshire Council is doing. We can ask the Government for an update on the school bus sign pilot that the council has run and on any other initiatives that the council has taken. If those initiatives are the way ahead, we can find out how the Government intends to roll them out to local authorities that are doing nothing. It is not right to have such variation throughout the country in how school pupils are treated on their way to and from school.
14:45
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.
Nanette Milne made a good suggestion. I know that we cannot do what she suggests for everything, but we have heard today that nothing has changed in two and a half years. The issue is complex, because it crosses over different local authorities, but we should get them in the committee room and not let them leave until we have sorted it out. How much longer can it take?
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?
We will continue with the petition and ask the clerk to identify a course of action and communicate it to us by e-mail. [Interruption.] The clerk wants to be safe with the clerks’ union, so he will bring a paper to the committee for public scrutiny and understanding. This is such a freedom of information society, and the way of the world is not the one that I was used to.
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.
The cabinet secretary made it clear in his letter that communications have taken place with the boards of various bodies, particularly in light of the harsh financial times that we face. However, the petitioner has raised a wider issue, which is whether the Government will seek to end, when appropriate, bonuses and other payments to people who are employed in the public sector. Scottish Water is a good example of the salaries and bonuses that are paid in public bodies. The standard seems to be to compare the Prime Minister’s salary with that of civil servants. However, taking our First Minister’s salary, we find that what is paid to Scottish Water board members is well above, if not double, what is paid to our First Minister.
It might be appropriate for the committee to write to the Government to seek clarification as to whether it will recommend that the future payment of bonuses will cease to be part of the negotiations on salaries and other payments.
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.
John Wilson makes a fair point. I accept that the Government has stated that the existing arrangements require bonuses to be paid, but John Wilson is asking us to continue the petition and to ask the Government whether it will seek to end the bonus culture at an appropriate time, so that those at the top, who are already well recompensed for what they do, are not given bonuses that most of us find quite obscene. I have tried to moderate my language, convener, and I think that I have succeeded. It is unacceptable that such bonuses are paid to those who are well able to afford a good life with the salary that they already receive.
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.
We had a chance to discuss the petition in detail at Waid academy. Issues have been raised as a result of our inquiries. I invite comments from members.
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.
We should continue the petition and write to the Scottish Government to seek answers to a number of questions. For instance, following the Scottish Government’s letter of 21 April 2010, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People stated that clarity and awareness of the law in the area “could be clearer”. We should ask the Government whether it will review the information fact sheet that it provides to local authorities and, in doing so, whether it will work with the petitioners, who are producing their own presentation and information handout, to produce an improved, clearer fact sheet. That would be a good starting point. I am sure that colleagues will make other points. There are many aspects of the petition that we must pursue.
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.
The Scottish Government has indicated that the current legislation imposes no duties on it to monitor how local authorities are implementing the legislation. I would like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to find out whether it would be interested in reviewing the legislation to ensure that monitoring is taking place. The Government’s role is to set guidelines for local authorities, but it would be useful for us to find out how it monitors implementation.
As I have indicated to the committee previously, before entering the Parliament in 2007 I worked with the Scottish Low Pay Unit. As part of that job, I carried out research into the type of working practices that local authorities were advising employers to engage in with young people. At that time, just prior to the legislation coming into force, we found out that there was a lack of understanding of the role of the 32 local authorities and the regulations that apply to them and others, especially employers, when young people are employed.
Once again, we are dealing with legislation that is administered on a day-to-day basis by local authorities. The Scottish Government should monitor what is happening, but the UK Government is still responsible for employment legislation across the UK. Although a number of European Union laws have been introduced in the UK, there are clearly areas in which young people are not covered or represented.
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.
Again, we had a thorough discussion of the issues around the petition when we were at the academy, and a number of responses have come back to us, including one from the Scottish Youth Parliament.
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.
The submissions from Culture and Sport Glasgow and Highland Council contain quite a lot of professional evidence to suggest that price is not the only issue. Obviously, price is important for those who think that it is the main issue, but I draw members’ attention to the evidence, which is that there are other issues and that, although dropping the price results in more people showing up initially, they go away quite quickly, and attendance levels do not change over a longer period of years—that seems to be what the evidence suggests, if I may reduce it all to one line.
I note Highland Council’s comments about its approach to tickets for families. That seems to be making a significant difference, and we should draw that to the attention of either the Government or all the other councils and suggest that it be replicated elsewhere.
We need to get the Government’s view on the issues that have been raised in general and on price on particular, but we should also draw its attention to the information that we have received and ask it to review it, because it might be able to produce some guidelines, perhaps working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which might improve a lot of things.
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.
I thank the students from Waid academy for their attendance. I know that you have a pre-arranged tour of the Parliament, so we will allow you time to slip out at this point. Thanks for coming down, and good luck over the next few months. Remember, the rules are that, if you do well in your exams, you give a reward to your family. I have tried that one in my house, but it has not been very successful.
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.
Since our previous meeting, we have received a response from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the procedures for exhibitions.
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.
15:15
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.
As the petitioner indicated, at First Minister’s question time the First Minister raised concerns—he indicated that he hoped he was raising them on behalf of the whole Parliament— about the Israeli Government’s intervention in relation to the aid convoys for Gaza. Issues continue to come forward but, as I said, I reluctantly agree to close the petition now. However, I am sure that there will be other ways to raise the issue with the corporate body in future.
Do we have any options? The corporate body says that it
“believes that changing the rules on exhibitions would not be in Members’ interests nor that of the Parliament as a whole.”
What if we disagree with that and think that changing the rules would be in the Parliament’s interest because the issue reflects on the Parliament? Is there anywhere else that the Public Petitions Committee can go with the matter? If not, is there anywhere that anyone else can go with 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
“firmly believes that it would be to the detriment of Members in carrying out their Parliamentary duties, were it to sit in judgement on what issues a Member could or could not raise through exhibitions.”
All I can say is that there will be a set of circumstances—the example that we are talking about was very close to this, if not already there—where members will be troubled if such judgment is not exercised. The procedural reason that has been given is problematic for us as committee members and as individual MSPs. I am concerned about how the rules are interpreted and how they operate in practice. There might well be issues in future that are equally powerful and sensitive, and the corporate body might well change its view, if appropriate.
I urge members who feel strongly about the issue to continue to pursue it through the avenues that have been identified and to test it on the basis of the letter. I say with great reluctance that we have to close the petition, because of the procedural formalities under which we operate. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
New Petitions