PPC/S4/14/18/A

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE

AGENDA

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4)

Tuesday 9 December 2014 The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in the Robert Burns Room (CR1). 1. Declaration of interests: Kenny MacAskill will be invited to declare any

relevant interests. 2. Choice of Deputy Convener: The Committee will choose a Deputy Convener. 3. Consideration of a current petition: The Committee will consider—

PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on a register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary

and take evidence from— Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Kay McCorquodale, and Catherine Hodgson, Civil Law and Legal Systems Division, Scottish Government

4. Consideration of new petitions: The Committee will consider—

PE1539 by Anne Booth on housing associations to come under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

and take evidence from— Anne Booth; Sean Clerkin;

and will then consider— PE1537 by Shona Brash, on behalf of the Coastal Regeneration Alliance, on the proposed energy park at Cockenzie

PPC/S4/14/18/A

and take evidence from— Shona Brash, and Gareth Bryn-Jones, Coastal Regeneration Alliance.

5. Consideration of current petitions: The Committee will consider—

PE1463 by Lorraine Cleaver on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment; PE1523 by Jess Smith on giving the Tinkers' Heart of Argyll back to the Travelling People; PE1526 by Jack Fletcher, on behalf of Sexpression:UK, on making sex and relationship education in Scotland statutory for all schools.

6. Tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland: The Committee will consider the Scottish Government's action plan.

Anne Peat Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee

Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5186

Email: Anne.peat@scottish.parliament.uk

PPC/S4/14/18/A

The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 2 Choice of Deputy Convener – Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/1 Agenda item 3 PE1458 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/2 PRIVATE PAPER PPC/S4/14/18/3 (P) Lord President Letter of 21 November 2014 PE1458/JJ Petitioner Letter of 3 December 2014 PE1458/KK Agenda item 4 PE1539 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/4 PE1537 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/5 Agenda item 5 PE1463 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/6 Petitioner Letter of 2 December 2014 PE1463/BBB PE1523 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/7 Argyll and Bute Council Letter of 13 October 2014 PE1523/A Historic Scotland Letter of 3 November 2014 (revised 25 November 2014) PE1523/B Scottish Government Letter of 3 November 2014 PE1523/C Petitioner Letter of 19 November 2014 PE1523/D Historic Scotland Email of 25 November 2014 PE1523/E Petitioner Letter of 28 November 2014 PE1523/F PE1526 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/8 SPICe Briefing on sex and relationship education in other EU countries Dundee City Council Letter of 3 November 2014 PE1526/A Glasgow City Council Letter of 3 November 2014 PE1526/B Shetland Islands Council Letter of 5 November 2014 PE1526/C Educational Institute of Scotland Letter of 6 November 2014 PE1526/D Midlothian Council Letter of 9 November 2014 PE1526/E Scottish Government Letter of 10 November 2014 PE1526/F

PPC/S4/14/18/A

Agenda item 6 PE1393 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/14/18/9 Scottish Government response of 30 April 2014 Scottish Government National Action Plan on child sexual exploitation

PPC/S4/14/18/1

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4)

Tuesday 9 December 2014

Choice of Deputy Convener - Note by the Clerk Purpose of paper 1. This paper explains the procedure for choosing a Deputy Convener. Choice of Deputy Convener 2. Motion S4M-00165 stated that members of the Scottish National Party are

eligible to be chosen as Deputy Convener of the Public Petitions Committee.

3. The Convener will invite nominations for the position of Deputy Convener.

There is no requirement for nominations to be submitted in advance of the meeting or to be seconded. Where only one nomination is received, Members will be asked to agree the appointment.

Anne Peat Clerk to the Committee

4 December 2014

PPC/S4/14/18/2

1

Public Petitions Committee

15th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Tuesday 28 October 2014

PE1458 on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary

Note by the Clerk PE1458 – Lodged 8 December 2012 Petition by Peter Cherbi calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests & hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. The Committee held a debate in the Chamber on 9 October 2014 and on 28

October agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to attend to discuss the issues raised in the petition. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and consider, when available, the annual report by the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. A response has been received from the Lord President and the new Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is in attendance. On conclusion of the evidence session the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition.

Background 2. The petition was partly motivated by the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary

Interests of Judges Bill (“the New Zealand Bill”). This was a Member’s Bill introduced by a member of the New Zealand Green Party proposing a mandatory register of New Zealand judges’ financial interests. After consideration, it was decided that legislation was not necessary but improvements would be made to the rules around recusals and conflict of interest. The Bill was withdrawn.

Committee Consideration

3. In its response to the Committee, the Scottish Government advised that, in its view, the current measures are sufficient but noted that a register of interests could be established administratively by the Lord President. The Law Society of Scotland suggested that more evidence was required to demonstrate that the systems in place were not effective.

4. The Lord President’s view is that a register of interests is not necessary because the three existing safeguards are sufficient (the Oath, the statement of principles of judicial ethics and the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act).The Lord President drew the Committee’s attention to the fourth evaluation round report of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) that concluded that nothing had emerged to require any recommendation to establish registers

PPC/S4/14/18/2

2

of interest. Lord Gill declined two invitations to give oral evidence to the Committee but has provided a number of written submissions to the Committee.

5. The previous Judicial Complaints Reviewer (JCR), Moi Ali, supported the call for a judicial register of interests, including non-financial interests and gave evidence to the Committee on 17 September 2013. Her view was that a register would increase transparency, increase public confidence in the judiciary and be consistent with what is required in other areas of public life.

6. In January 2014, the Convener and Deputy Convener had an informal meeting with the Lord President. At that meeting the Lord President undertook to make publicly available information on cases in which a judge or sheriff formally recused. That information has been available since 1 April 2014. In a letter of 10 June 2014 the Lord President advised that he was considering changes to the rules on complaints about the judiciary and would take account of Ms Ali’s comments when amendments were instructed.

7. The Committee held a debate in the Chamber on 9 October 2014 and considered the petition again on 28 October. In a letter of 21 November 2014 the Lord President advises that new rules regarding complaints about the judiciary and guidance will be published early in 2015 and provides information about recusals.

Action 8. Following today’s evidence session, the Committee is invited to consider what

action it wishes to take in relation to this petition. The Committee may wish to await the annual report of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer and consider the petition again in light of that.

PPC/S4/14/18/4

1

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Tuesday 9 December 2014

PE1539 on housing associations to come under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Note by the Clerk

PE1539 – Lodged 10 November 2014 Petition by Anne Booth calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make an Order under Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002 to make all housing associations subject to the provisions of that Act. This will ensure that housing associations are more open, transparent and accountable to all their stakeholders, i.e. tenants and factored homeowners. Link to petition webpage Online signatures and comments 1. The petitioner did not wish to collect signatures or comments online. Purpose 1. This is a new petition. The Committee has invited the petitioner, Anne Booth to

speak to the petition. Mrs Booth will be accompanied by Sean Clerkin. After hearing Mrs Booth, the Committee is invited to consider what action to take on the petition.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. In 2002, during Stage 3 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, an

amendment made at Stage 2, which added Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) (including housing associations) to the Bill, was removed before the Bill was passed.

3. In seeking to remove this amendment the Scottish Executive noted that it was

concerned that “many RSLs are small, informally run organisations that are not geared up for such stringent regulations”. The Minister stated that “There will be consultation before any organisation is added. I assure members that we expect the majority of organisations to be covered”.

4. It is possible to extend the coverage of the Freedom of Information (Scotland)

Act 2002 (FOISA) by means of an order made under Section 5 of the Act, which amends Schedule 1, the Scottish Public Authorities covered by the Act.

5. Prior to his departure from office in 2012, the first Scottish Information

Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, laid before the Parliament a special report Informing the future: the state of freedom of information in Scotland. The purpose of the report was to give an opinion on the current state of FOI in

PPC/S4/14/18/4

2

Scotland, to draw attention to related matters which Parliament may wish to take into account and to make recommendations.

6. In discussing the Scottish Government‘s decision not to add to the public bodies

in Schedule 1 Mr Dunion raised concerns that:

“Scotland’s FOI regime is at risk of slipping behind other legislatures. The UK Government, for example, is actively considering the FOI designation of further bodies, including housing associations, and has just recently made its first designation order to extend FOIA to cover the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd.”

7. The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee held an oral evidence session with

Mr Dunion on 10 January 2012. Mr Dunion again mentioned his concerns about the decision of Scottish Ministers, in January 2011, not to designate further bodies:

“At the time, they said that they thought that it would be premature to designate before some of the deficiencies in the legislation had been remedied. We now know that the amendment bill that ministers propose is largely technical and does not really address any deficiencies that affect designation.”

Scottish Parliament Action 8. The Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013 received Royal

Assent on 19 February 2013. This Act amended the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

9. During the scrutiny of the Bill the question of housing associations being made

subject to FOISA was raised. A Scottish Government official informed the Finance Committee that:

“Ultimately, extension is a political decision. The Scottish ministers’ view on that is clear. They have consulted contractors, Glasgow Housing Association and various other bodies and the decision was made to defer the decision on extension.”

Scottish Government Action 10. In July 2010, the Scottish Government undertook a consultation on whether

coverage of FOISA should be extended to other bodies, including the Glasgow Housing Association (GHA).

11. In its response to the consultation the Government noted, that in the responses

which mentioned it, there was near universal support for an extension to apply to all RSLs. The decision to consider extending coverage solely to GHA was seen as particularly anomalous.

PPC/S4/14/18/4

3

12. The Government also noted that it would be consulting on a draft Scottish Housing Charter, which might contain a requirement on the provision of information to the public by registered social landlords on their housing services and governance arrangements.

13. The FOISA consultation resulted in a draft Section 5 order which covered arm’s

length culture, sport and leisure trusts. It was the Scottish Government’s intention to consult further in due course on extending freedom of information coverage to other arm’s length organisations.

14. The Scottish Social Housing Charter was published in 2012. It includes an

outcome that:

“Social landlords manage their businesses so that:

tenants and other customers find it easy to communicate with their landlord and get the information they need about their landlord, how and why it makes decisions and the services it provides.”

15. This outcome covers all aspects of landlords’ communication with tenants and

other customers. The Government saw the outcome as not just relating to how clearly and effectively a landlord provides information to those who want it, but also as a way of ensuring that tenants, and other customers, can use that information to improve services and performance. It was also a means of letting people know what the RSLs had done in response to complaints and feedback. It does not require landlords to provide legally protected, personal or commercial information.

16. The Scottish Government has no current plans to use a Section 5 order to

extend coverage of FOISA to include housing associations or registered social landlords (RSLs). However, it is committed to further consultation – likely to lead to another Section 5 order – possibly in spring 2015. The scope of the consultation is, as yet, unknown, though, as shown, it previously has considered RSLs as potential candidates for extension.

Action 17. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of

the petition. The Committee may wish to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on what the petition and clarification of when it will consult and also write to the following—

the Scottish Information Commissioner; the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland; and a selection of registered social landlords.

PPC/S4/14/18/5

1

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Tuesday 9 December 2014

PE1537 on the Proposed Energy Park at Cockenzie

Note by the Clerk PE1537 – Lodged 06 November 2014 Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abandon the proposal for the development of an Energy Park at Cockenzie, and ensure that any future proposals are subject to full public consultation and do not extend beyond the existing footprint of the former power station. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition. The Committee has invited the petitioner to speak to the

petition. The Committee is invited to consider the petitioner’s evidence and agree what action it wishes to take.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. The National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) identified Cockenzie as a

strategically important location for the development of a dedicated energy hub to support the emerging renewables market. Scottish Enterprise is currently exploring options for the redevelopment of the former coal fired Cockenzie Power Station, which has consent (under S36 of the Electricity Act 1989) to generate electricity from gas.

3. In addition to the current activity, Scottish Enterprise believes that an opportunity

exists to develop new quayside capability and associated development land to support the creation of a marine energy park. Scottish Enterprise states:

The project seeks to establish Scotland as a European hub for the offshore wind industry through the creation of a facility that can compete internationally in terms of scale, quality and location.

4. The three main elements of the proposals are as follows:

New marine infrastructure comprising construction of new quayside to support import/export of goods and deployment of components to offshore wind sites.

Formation of serviced plots and associated infrastructure for development by others to support manufacturing operations.

Aggregate extraction to provide material for infill associated with quayside. 5. It is anticipated that the proposed development will require a number of consents

and that applications will be submitted for:

PPC/S4/14/18/5

2

Planning Permission in Principle for onshore development works (under the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Application for a Marine Licence for offshore works (under the Marine Works [Environment Impact Assessment] Regulations 2007.

Application for a Harbour Empowerment Order (under the Harbours Act 1964) to create a new harbour.

6. A Proposal of Application Notice, relating to the application for Planning

Permission in Principle, was submitted to East Lothian Council on 2 June 2014. A series of public consultation events also commenced in June 2014.

Scottish Government Action 7. In October 2011, Scottish Ministers approved the redevelopment of the coal fired

power station into a gas fired one. Scottish Enterprise is the main agency involved in promoting this development.

Scottish Parliament Action 8. The Parliament has not previously considered this issue.

Action 9. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in relation to

the petition. Options include:

(i) To write to Scottish Power, Scottish Enterprise and East Lothian Council to seek their views on the petition;

(ii) To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

PPC/S4/14/18/6

1

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Tuesday 9 December 2014

PE1463 on effective thyroid and adrenal testing, diagnosis and treatment

Note by the Clerk

PE 1463 – Lodged 19 December 2012 Petition by Lorraine Cleaver calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure GPs and endocrinologists are able to accurately diagnose thyroid and adrenal disorders and provide the most appropriate treatment. Link to petition website Purpose 1. When it last considered this petition on 25 November 2014, the Committee heard

evidence from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The Committee agreed to review the evidence session and consider options on the basis that the Committee intended to make a proposal to SIGN. The Committee is invited to consider the summary below and agree its proposal to SIGN.

Committee consideration

SIGN evidence session 2. SIGN confirmed that any group or individual (healthcare professionals, patient

organisations or patients) may propose a guideline topic for its consideration. A proposal should give a broad remit of what the guideline should cover. As a first step, proposals are considered by the SIGN council and a scoping search is undertaken.

3. If a topic is suitable for a guideline, the SIGN council will appoint a chair, a

healthcare professional who works in NHS Scotland. A multi-discipline, geographically representative group will be formed to develop the guideline. The Group’s responsibility is to ask the pertinent clinical questions and help examine the evidence that is found. As part of the guideline development process, SIGN actively seeks and engages with patients so that their information is included.

4. If the guideline topic concerns an issue for which there is a sparse or absent

evidence base, there is the possibility of consensus guidelines or recommendations for NHS Scotland. Consensus guidelines are a new initiative that involves establishing a specialist group to reach a consensus on how to manage a condition based on the limited available evidence. If it is felt that a topic is unsuitable for a guideline, there are other avenues that can be considered (for example the development of a standard, a set of indicators or an evidence note).

PPC/S4/14/18/6

2

5. Since receiving the petition, the Committee has received a large number of communications from individual thyroid patients about their conditions, the testing regime and the availability of effective treatments in Scotland in comparison to elsewhere.

Availability of medicines 6. At its meeting on 25 June 2013 the Committee took evidence from Alex Neil,

Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on access to thyroid medication. This followed an interruption to the supply of liothyronine, one of the medicines used to treat thyroid conditions and in the absence of an alternative licensed source of the medicine in the UK. Mr Neil noted that the Department of Health in England has responsibility for UK medicine shortages and acts on behalf of all UK health departments on those matters. The Scottish Government was in regular dialogue with the pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical wholesalers and pharmacists to minimise the impact of any supply-chain problems.

7. For some patients the only alternative was medicines licensed elsewhere in

Europe but not licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for use in the UK. The MHRA issued guidance allowing interim use of those medicines until the supply of the original medicine was restored. It was noted that because of the relatively small number of patients who benefit from certain drugs, the number of suppliers is very small. Companies licensed to provide products on the continent cannot be forced to apply for licenses in the UK and the MHRA has clear guidance on UK unlicensed drugs.

8. The Committee held a round-table discussion with the petitioners and a number of

other stakeholders on 1 October 2013. Patient experiences 9. In his letter of 5 February 2014, the Minister for Public Health declined to set up a

working group to look at the changes sought by the petitioner but indicated that the Scottish Government would commission work on patients’ experiences of diagnosis and/or treatment in areas where evidence is limited, uncertain, disputed etc. The purpose of the project is to explore—

“how patients understand and feel about their quest for a diagnosis and/or treatment in areas where there is limited evidence, the science is uncertain or disputed and/or where a condition is rare or obscure, or not widely recognised.”1

10. The project will cover those patients experiencing difficulties with the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid and adrenal disorders and the petitioner will be invited to contribute.

11. Following the recent evidence session with SIGN the Convener met with Elaine

Smith MSP and the petitioner to discuss the formulation of the request to SIGN. 1 The Scottish Government, Letter to the Public Petitions Committee (15 April 2014). Available at: http://external.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/General%20Documents/PE1463_TT_Scottish_Government_15.04.14.pdf

PPC/S4/14/18/6

3

The petitioner’s letter of 2 December 2014 sets out the issues that she would like to see SIGN look in to. The petitioner suggests that particular areas SIGN should be asked to look at in formulating guidelines are (1) the treatment of those thyroid patients who, once diagnosed, remain unwell on levothyroxine and (2) the level of prescribing natural desiccated thyroid hormone and the reasons for that.

Action

12. The Committee is invited to agree to now write formally to SIGN forwarding the

evidence it has received, including patient testimonies and the suggestion by the petitioner of specific areas for investigation. SIGN should be invited to work with the petitioner to initiate the process for developing guidelines in the area of diagnosis and treatment of thyroid conditions and formulating the necessary questions.

PPC/S4/14/18/7

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Tuesday 9 December 2014

PE1523 on giving the Tinkers’ Heart of Argyll back to the Travelling People

Note by the Clerk PE1523 – Lodged 29 May 2014 Petition by Jess Smith calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to direct Historic Scotland to investigate what action can be taken to ensure the restoration and preservation of the Heart of Quartz stones positioned in a field next to the A815, opposite the junction of the B839, overlooking Loch Fyne, known as the Gypsy Wedding Place, referred to locally as the Tinkers’ Heart. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. The Committee last considered this petition on 30 September 2014 and agreed

to write to the Scottish Government, Historic Scotland, Argyll and Bute Council and Kate Howe (the owner of the land) to obtain their views on the restoration and preservation of the Tinkers’ Heart. The Committee is invited to consider the responses received and decide what action to take in relation to the petition.

Committee Consideration

2. In response, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affair’s submission of 3 November 2014 was supportive of the Petitioner’s concern to preserve the Tinkers’ Heart. Notwithstanding the Heart’s failed application for listed monument status, the Cabinet Secretary expressed satisfaction with the existing listed monument framework. In this regard, she highlighted the other means available to preserve important historical sites. This includes the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments, which has made records of the site. Argyll and Bute Local Authority has also listed the Tinkers’ Heart as archaeological site, thereby protecting it from development applications. The Cabinet Secretary also commended the land owner, Kate Howe, for erecting cattle proof fencing. The Cabinet Secretary encouraged the Petitioner to apply to Historic Scotland and Archaeology Scotland for maintenance grants.

3. Argyll and Bute Council’s submission of 13 October 2014 intimated its support

for the petition and urged the Scottish Government to direct Historic Scotland to investigate what action can be taken to restore and preserve the site.

4. Historic Scotland’s submissions of 3 November 2014 and 25 November 2014 explained why the Tinkers’ Heart does not meet the criteria for scheduling as a monument of national importance, as set out in Annex 1 of the Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011 (the Criteria). When assessed against the Criteria, the Tinkers’ Heart was found to have ‘associative’ value, but there was insufficient written or physical evidence to demonstrate its ‘intrinsic’ or ‘contextual’ significance. These factors mean the Tinkers’ Heart was deemed to have limited

PPC/S4/14/18/7

‘national importance’ under the Criteria. In this regard, Historic Scotland noted: “there is currently no mechanism for recognising features which are important primarily for their associations, such as the Heart”.

5. Historic Scotland advised that listed status does not create a duty of care on

land owners to protect a site, nor a right of public access. As such, listing the Tinkers’ Heart would not guarantee its maintenance or preservation. Historic Scotland also noted that developing it as a visitor attraction would not necessarily increase visitor numbers or income for the community. It commended the actions already taken to preserve the site (noted in paragraph 2) and invited the Petitioner to make a maintenance grant application.

6. In her submissions of 19 November 2014 and 28 November 2014, the Petitioner expressed concern that it would be difficult to apply for funding to maintain the site whilst it remained privately owned. For this reason, the only way to ensure its lasting protection for the Scottish people was to grant it listed monument status. The Petitioner was also concerned that the threshold and types of evidence required by the Criteria are not fit for purpose, insofar as they do not appear to capture the spirit of the Government’s priorities set out in its policy Our Place in Time. In this regard, the Petitioner feels the Criteria do not give adequate weighting to places deemed to be of primarily associative value, particularly in circumstances where the site holds value for a minority culture, such as the Travelling Community, which has few tangible sites of cultural significance.

Action

7. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of the petition. The Committee may wish to – (1) Write to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs to comment

on whether the current Criteria are adequate to recognise and protect the monuments of minority cultures, such as the Travelling Community, noting:

(i) Due to the oral traditions of certain minority cultures, limited written evidence may be available to support an application for listed monument status;

(ii) Due to their minority status, the monuments of minority cultures may historically have been undervalued by the wider community and therefore may be less likely to remain in their ‘primary context’;

(iii) Due to the reasons above, minority monuments may be more likely to be classified as having ‘associative value’; and

(iv) Historic Scotland’s advice that “there is currently no mechanism for recognising features which are important primarily for their associations, such as the Heart”.

(2) Take any other action that the Committee considers appropriate.

PPC/S4/14/18/8

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2014 (Session 4), Tuesday 9 December 2014

PE1526 on making sex and relationship education in Scotland statutory for all schools

Note by the Clerk

PE1526 – Lodged 28 June 2014 The Petition by Jack Fletcher, on behalf of Sexpression:UK calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce comprehensive sex and relationship education (SRE) into the Scottish Education Curriculum and make it statutory for all schools to teach. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. The Committee last considered this Petition on 30 September 2014. It agreed to

contact the Scottish Government, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) and a cross-section of local authorities to seek information on current SRE policy. The Committee also requested a SPICe briefing on SRE policy in other countries. The Committee is invited to consider the submissions received and decide on what action it wishes to take.

Background 2. In Scotland, there is a statutory requirement for Gaelic to be taught in Gaelic

speaking areas,1 and religious instruction to normally be provided.2 All other curriculum policy is created in guidance issued by Education Scotland.

Curriculum for Excellence 3. SRE is part of the ‘Health and Wellbeing’ portfolio in the Curriculum for

Excellence. Education Scotland also publishes SRE good practice guidance. Research 4. In 2010, NHS Health Scotland published a review of SRE in primary schools.

This found the quality of the guidance varied and some local authorities feared opposition to SRE from pressure groups.

Scottish Government Action

5. In 2013, the Scottish Government held a consultation on revised SRE guidance.

The new guidance will be published this year.

1 Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c44)(s1(5)(a) iii 2 Education (Scotland) Act 1980 s8(i)

PPC/S4/14/18/8

6. In 2013, the Scottish Government created a Working Group on Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), which recommended future reforms should focus on educational resources. The Working Group is now developing an action plan.

Health and Sport Committee 7. In 2013, the Health and Sport Committee held an inquiry into teenage

pregnancy, which recommended a review of SRE in schools. The Scottish Government rejected this proposal, citing its recent reviews of SRE in 2008 (secondary schools) and 2010 (primary schools).

Public Petitions Committee 8. In 2013, the Public Petitions Committee held an inquiry into tackling CSE. Its

report called for a ‘mapping exercise’ of good practice and a national CSE education programme. The Scottish Government’s response referred the Committee to the Curriculum for Excellence and its Working Group on CSE (see paragraph 6).

Committee Consideration 9. The SPICe briefing of November 2014 notes that the EU Parliament and the

WHO have found that making SRE mandatory is linked to, but does not guarantee, higher quality SRE. Rather, the quality of SRE is most likely to be affected by religious culture. UNESCO’s research also concluded that high quality SRE can impact positively on sexual behaviour, but the impact is relatively low.

10. In their submissions, Dundee City Council, Glasgow City Council and Midlothian Council did not agree with the Petitioner’s call to legislate for mandatory SRE. In contrast, the Councils supported the provision of SRE under the Curriculum for Excellence, which is assessed by inspections carried out by Education Scotland. The Councils noted that the Curriculum for Excellence has helped schools to deliver SRE in a holistic manner using the latest research.

11. Glasgow City Council suggested a more appropriate measure to improve SRE

would be to increase the frequency of Education Scotland’s inspections.

12. In its submission of 5 November 2014, Shetland Islands Council was the only local council to support the Petitioner’s call to legislate for mandatory SRE. It noted that if SRE became mandatory, it would support an exemption for children to be withdrawn from the programme on religious grounds.

13. The EIS’s submission of 6 November 2014 did not support legislating for

mandatory SRE. It argued this measure would limit teachers’ ability to respond to the specific needs of pupils and place undue pressure on teachers who lack SRE training. Instead, the EIS called on local councils and schools to offer more SRE teacher training.

PPC/S4/14/18/8

14. The Scottish Government’s submission of 10 November 2014 did not support legislating for mandatory SRE. The Government did, however, support the Petitioner’s call for more teacher training and the need for high quality SSRREE. It argued its forthcoming revised SRE guidance will raise the profile of SRE and encourage schools to provide further teacher training. The Government noted its guidance will be published this year and will be heavily publicised and promoted.

15. The Scottish Government also noted it is developing two new policies, which will

also support the provision of comprehensive SRE: Teenage Pregnancy and Young Parent Strategy; and Sexual Health and Blood Borne Viruses Framework.

16. When questioned at the Committee’s meeting on 30 September 2014, the

Petitioner and his colleague Rebecca Ryce noted that Sexpression have had no involvement in the development of the Government’s revised SRE guidance. Nonetheless, Rebecca Ryce described the revised guidance as “fantastic”. The Petitioner and Ms Ryce did however raise concerns that the guidance may not be wholly implemented because SRE is not a mandatory component of the Scottish curriculum.

Action 17. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of

the Petition. Options include –

i. To close the Petition on the basis that:

(a) The Petitioners are supportive of the Scottish Government’s forthcoming revised SRE guidance;

(b) The Scottish Government has given a commitment to raise the profile of SRE when it publishes its revised guidance;

(c) Education Scotland will be tasked with monitoring and assessing

the implementation and delivery of the Government’s revised SRE guidance by local authorities;

(d) The submissions received by the Committee were supportive of

the current non-mandatory provision of SRE.

ii. To refer the petition to the Education and Culture Committee for it, to consider whether the provision of sex and relationship education in schools should be mandatory.

PPC/S4/14/18/9

1

Public Petitions Committee

18th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 9 December 2014

PE1393 on Cut them free – Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation in Scotland

Note by the Clerk PE1393 – Lodged 8 July 2011 (3045 signatures collected) Petition by Martin Crewe, Director, on behalf of Barnardo’s Scotland, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to (1) commission new research on the nature and scope of child sexual exploitation in Scotland; (2) report back on all action points set out in the 2003 Scottish Government guidance on Vulnerable Children and Young People Sexual Exploitation Through Prostitution; and (3) review and develop dedicated Scottish Government guidelines on child sexual exploitation, updating the 2003 Scottish guidance and incorporating the relevant parts of the 2010 National Child Protection Guidelines. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. Following publication in January 2014 of the Committee’s report on tackling child

sexual exploitation in Scotland, the Scottish Government committed to publishing an Action Plan. The Plan was published on 11 November and on that date the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning made a statement to the Parliament on child protection. The Committee is invited to consider the action plan and agree what action it wishes to take on the petition.

Background

2. This petition was lodged in 2011. Following initial consideration and evidence,

the Committee decided to undertake an inquiry into tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland. The inquiry took place during 2013 and the Committee’s report made 28 recommendations.

3. In her initial response of 30 April 2014, the Minister for Children and Young

people detailed the action being taken in relation to each of the recommendations and advised that she had asked the Ministerial Working Group to prepare a national action plan. The Minister’s detailed response of 30 April 2014 has been circulated with papers for this meeting together with the National Action Plan published on 11 November 2014. The Action Plan makes a number of commitments including working with partners to develop a national awareness campaign.

PPC/S4/14/18/9

2

Action 4. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition.

On the basis that the Committee has undertaken an inquiry and published a report, the Minister has responded in detail to the report and now published a National Action Plan, the Committee may wish to consider closing the petition.

5. In closing the petition the Committee will wish to thank Barnardo’s for the work it

has done and continues to do in this area.