Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PPC/S4/12/15/A
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE
AGENDA
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4)
Tuesday 30 October 2012 The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in Committee Room 1. 1. Declaration of interests: Adam Ingram will be invited to declare any relevant
interests. 2. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether
to take items 6 and 7 in private.
Not before 10.30 am 3. PE1367 - banning mosquito devices: The Committee will take evidence
from— Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and John Brownlie, Policy Manager, Community Safety Unit, Scottish Government.
4. Consideration of new petitions: The Committee will consider—
PE1442 by Douglas Reid on the body upon death becomes part of the estate
and take evidence from— Douglas Reid; Matthew Turner; Leona Turner.
and will then consider— PE1437 by Les Wallace on recycling in schools
PPC/S4/12/15/A
and take evidence from— Les Wallace.
5. Consideration of current petitions: The Committee will consider—
PE1351 by Chris Daly and Helen Holland on time for all to be heard; PE1434 by Nairn McDonald on additional funding for sport facilities and a minimum level of sports facilities.
6. Consideration of evidence - PE1367 - banning mosquito devices: The Committee will consider the evidence received at agenda item 2 and will decide what action to take in relation to the petition.
7. PE1393 - tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland: The Committee will
consider a paper by the Clerk.
Anne Peat Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee
Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5186
Email: [email protected]
PPC/S4/12/15/A
The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 3 PE1367 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/15/1 PE1367 Private Paper PPC/S4/12/15/2 (P) UK Government Letter of 9 October 2012 PE1367/GG Agenda item 4 PE1442 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/15/3 PE1437 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/15/4 Agenda item 5 PE1351 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/15/5 Scottish Government Letter of 28 September 2012 PE1351/CC PE1434 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/15/6 Scottish Government Letter of 21 September 2012 PE1434/A sportscotland Letter of 5 October 2012 PE1434/B Agenda item 7 PE1393 Private Paper PPC/S4/12/15/7 (P) University of Bedfordshire Report: Exploring the Scale and Nature of Child Exploitation in Scotland
PPC/S4/12/15/1
1
Public Petitions Committee
12th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 4 September 2012
PE1367 on ban Mosquito devices now
Note by the Clerk PE1367 – Lodged 15 October 2010 Petition by Andrew Deans on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of the „Mosquito‟ and other such devices which emit a loud, unpleasant, high-pitched noise designed to be heard only by those under 25. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. The Committee last considered this petition at its meeting on 4 September 2012
and agreed that the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs be invited to give evidence. The Minister will attend the meeting and a letter has been received from the UK Government.
Background
2. The Mosquito device is manufactured by Compound Security Systems. Its
website describes it as follows:
The Mosquito™ Anti Loitering Device / Anti-Vandal System (Le Mosquito/Beethoven in France, Swiss-Mosquito in Switzerland) is the solution to the eternal problem of unwanted gatherings of youths and teenagers in shopping malls, around shops and anywhere else they are causing problems. The presence of these teenagers discourages genuine shoppers and customers from coming into your shop, affecting your turnover and profits. Anti social behavior has become the biggest threat to private property over the last decade and there has been no effective deterrent until now.
3. It is an electronic device capable of emitting a high frequency sound which can generally be heard only by young people (typically those below 25 years of age) as the ability to hear high frequencies deteriorates with age. The Scottish Youth Parliament (SYP) has been involved in moves to ban the use of the Mosquito and similar devices for a number of years. A campaign to ban the device was launched in 2008 by the Children‟s Commissioner for England. Moves at a European level to ban the use of the Mosquito and similar devices were reported in 2010. The SPICe briefing (from November 2010) sets out further background information.
4. During the course of its consideration, the session 3 Public Petitions Committee
(PPC) heard evidence from Andrew Deans MSYP and received written evidence from the Scottish Government, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young
PPC/S4/12/15/1
2
People, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Association of Scottish Community Councils, Scottish Police Federation, COSLA, Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland, Health Protection Scotland, and a number of local authorities. The Committee noted that the majority of police forces in Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation, Scotland‟s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the local authorities contacted were not in favour of the device.
5. In February 2011 the previous Committee requested that the Scottish
Government take the following actions:
Work with the UK Government who maintains control over regulation of goods to achieve a ban;
Review whether public sector organisations have a responsibility under the Public Sector Equality Duty to prevent the use of the Mosquito, as the device discriminates against children and young people; and
Review whether the Mosquito constitutes a noise nuisance under the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004.
6. At the PPC meeting on 8 March 2011, Fergus Ewing, the then Minister for Community Safety, said “the Scottish Government does not support and has never supported the use of the devices”. The Minister advised that he had written to Theresa May MP seeking a meeting at which the use of the Mosquito Devices would be amongst matters to be discussed. The Minister said it was not clear whether the Scottish Parliament had the legislative competence to impose a ban and that various issues regarding legislative competence would have to be resolved. The Minister gave an undertaking to look at whether public sector organisations had a responsibility to prevent the use of such devices under the Public Sector Equality Duty and suggested, as an alternative to a ban, that the regulation of the use of such devices could be considered. The Minister concluded by saying—
“The earlier, primary questions are who has the power and how it can be employed; and how we go about working with Her Majesty‟s Government and whether it would not be better to act across the UK.”
Current consideration 7. This Committee held an evidence session on 21 February 2012 with Andrew
Deans MSYP (the petitioner), Howard Stapleton the Managing Director of Compound Security Systems and Lisa Sturgess of the National Autistic Society.
8. Mr Stapleton said that he had been campaigning for legislation to be passed to
ensure that the Mosquito Device was used responsibly. He was disappointed that no action had been taken by the United Kingdom Government or Parliament. He would like to see legislation allowing local authorities to decide that the device may be used in the short term and operated by a responsible person who had received appropriate training. He disagreed with the use to which some people
PPC/S4/12/15/1
3
had put his invention which had resulted in no-go areas for teenagers. However he did believe that enough research had been carried out to prove “that in no way does my device cause any harm”.
9. Andrew Deans was not in favour of regulation and did not think it would matter
whether the device was regulated or not because “as soon as you switch on one of the devices, there is discrimination, and that is not acceptable.” Mr Deans asked the Scottish Government to protect the rights of young people and reminded the Committee that a year on, the questions of who has the power and how it could be used have not been answered. Mr Dean‟s view was that as the Scottish Government does not support the use of the devices then it should be pushing for something to happen.
10. The National Autistic Association was concerned about the discriminatory effects
that the device could have on the autistic population. An element of autism is hearing sounds that others may not, but as a result of a communication disorder, not being able to express needs. For these reasons, children on the autistic spectrum could be exposed to distress for longer. The National Autistic Society would welcome a ban on the use of the devices.
11. In March 2012 the Committee wrote to the Scottish Government seeking
confirmation that the Scottish Government‟s position was still that it did not support the use of the Mosquito device, asking whether it had taken any advice on the ECHR implications and also when it last discussed the issue with the UK Government. The Committee also wrote to COSLA asking what consideration had or would be given to using byelaws to prevent the use of the device.
12. The Scottish Government responded saying that it had considered the options
that might be available to individuals to address this issue and had undertaken to discuss this with ACPOS. COSLA advised that it could not assist and referred the Committee back to the Scottish Government. The petitioner does not agree that the answer should be for individuals to have to take action.
13. The petitioner is still seeking a ban and wants the Scottish Government to state
clearly whether it will seek this. Action 15. Following the evidence session with the Minister, the Committee will be invited to consider what action it wishes to take in relation to the petition.
PPC/S4/12/15/3
1
Public Petitions Committee
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 30 October 2012
PE1442 on the body upon death becomes part of the estate
Note by the Clerk PE1442 – Lodged 8 September 2012 Petition by Douglas Reid calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law to provide that a person’s dead body is part of their estate and in effect clearly invokes their will. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition that the Committee is asked to consider and decide what
action it wishes to take. The Committee has invited the petitioner to speak to the petition.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing
2. The petitioner is concerned that a deceased person’s clear wish that their body
be donated to science can be ignored by their surviving family and/or those responsible for administering their estate. This is because, on death, responsibility for the disposal of a person’s body falls to their relatives or executors (the person or people responsible for administering their estate). This is a common law principle – i.e. a principle based on tradition and the law developed by judges through decisions in cases before them.
3. It is possible for such relatives or executors to decide to dispose of a body in a manner which differs from the express wishes of the deceased person. Nevertheless, one would expect that, in most cases, the express wishes of the deceased would be respected.
4. The petitioner proposes that the law is changed so that a person’s body is treated as part of their estate. He argues that this would mean that the deceased person’s express wishes in relation to disposal would have to be followed.
5. It should be noted that there are circumstances where the express wishes of a deceased person can currently be ignored. For example, children and spouses are entitled to make a claim on the estate even where they have been expressly disinherited by the deceased. A further, practical issue might arise where the costs of arrangements proposed by the deceased cannot be covered from their estate.
PPC/S4/12/15/3
2
6. The law currently provides1 that, in order to donate their body for the purposes of anatomical examination, a person must express their wish to do so in writing. Their declaration must be witnessed and signed by another adult Anatomical examination can include dissection, removal of body parts and implantation of organs or devices. A relative cannot authorise the donation of a deceased person’s body for anatomical examination.
7. Where an adult would like part of their body to be removed after their death and used for transplantation, research, education, training or audit, they can authorise this in writing or verbally. In addition, after death, a deceased person’s nearest relative can authorise the same so long as they do not have actual knowledge that this was against the wishes of the deceased.2
Scottish Government Action
8. The Scottish Government commissioned a review of burial and cremation legislation in Scotland which resulted in the publication of the ―Burial and Cremation Review Group Report and Recommendations‖ (2008). The report recommended that the right of the ―nearest relative‖ (in preference to the executor) to dispose of the body of a deceased person should be codified in legislation. If a dispute arose around the issue of disposal of the body, this could be resolved in the sheriff court. The Scottish Government has since consulted on the recommendations. The ―Analysis of Consultation Responses‖ (2010, Phase 1) reported that there was a high level of agreement with these proposals.
9. The Scottish Government has taken forward aspects of the work of the review group in the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011. However, this did not deal with rights in relation to disposal of a dead body. The Scottish Government does not intend to deal with this issue until implementation of the 2011 Act is complete.
Other Action 10. The Scottish Law Commission reviewed the law in relation to succession3 (what
happens to the estate of a deceased person) in 2009. Their report did not consider the disposal of a deceased person’s body.
Action 10. The Public Petitions Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to
take in respect of this petition. There are a number of possible options, including—
(1) To seek any information. For example, the Committee may wish to ask: The Scottish Government—
1 Anatomy Act 1984, sections 4(1) and (1A). 2 Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, sections 3, 6 and 7. 3 Scottish Law Commission. (2009). Report on Succession.
PPC/S4/12/15/3
3
University Anatomy Departments
Her Majesty’s Inspector for Anatomy in Scotland—
What are your views on what the petition seeks and what should the considerations be?
(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Justice Committee.
(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate.
PPC/S4/12/15/4
1
Public Petitions Committee
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 30 October 2012
PE1437 on recycling in schools
Note by the Clerk PE1437 – Lodged 29 September 2012 Petition by Les Wallace calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the provision of recycling facilities within school playgrounds is mandatory. In addition to call for a national survey of in school practice and teaching on reduce, reuse and recycle to ensure current best practice becomes the standard practice. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition that the Committee is asked to consider and decide what
action it wishes to take. The Committee has invited the petitioner to speak to the petition.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. There is currently no legal requirement on Scotland’s schools to provide
recycling facilities within school playgrounds. Provision of recycling facilities within state school playgrounds is the responsibility of Scotland’s local authorities.
3. The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 will require waste producers, which
includes schools to separate and present for collection the key dry recyclables (glass, metal, plastic, paper and card) and food at source from the start of 2014.
4. There has been no national survey on the way in which teaching of the reduce, reuse and recycle principles is undertaken across Scotland. A national initiative on eco-schools is in operation across Scotland.
Eco-Schools Scotland
5. Many of Scotland’s schools currently take in part in an initiative called Eco-Schools. Eco-Schools is an international initiative designed to encourage whole-school action for the environment. It is an environmental management tool, learning resource and recognised award scheme.
6. The Eco-Schools programme in Scotland engages children and young people in key issues including the environment, sustainability, global citizenship and the value of a low carbon future.1
1 http://www.ecoschoolsscotland.org/
PPC/S4/12/15/4
2
7. The Eco-Schools Scotland programme is made up of seven elements, incorporating ten environmental topics including litter and waste minimisation. The waste minimisation topic deals in detail with the zero waste principles of reduce, re-use and recycle (the three Rs)2.
8. There are three levels of award for eco-schools. The first two levels of award are the Bronze and Silver Awards. The Bronze and Silver awards are based on school self-assessment, The top level of award is the Green Flag award, which is assessed by the Eco-Schools Scotland team and must be renewed every two years. The assessment criteria for the Green Flag award can be accessed through the following link:
http://www.ecoschoolsscotland.org/documents/GfCriteria.pdf.
9. According to Eco-Schools in Scotland:
“We now have over 3,700 schools registered with the Eco-Schools programme in Scotland, which includes over 98% of Scotland's local authority schools, as well as independent and early years establishments. Over 40% of our local authority schools - as well as many more independent and early years providers - have attained the highest award level: the Green Flag”3.
General Teaching Council Consultation
10. The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC) is currently consulting on a proposed revision of professional standards for teachers. Included in the social values section it proposes teachers are required to:
“Embrace the educational and social values of sustainability, equality and justice and recognise the rights and responsibilities of future as well as current generations”4
11. Under this standard, teachers would be expected to:
understand the environmental, social and economic conditions of learners to inform teaching and learning;
have a critical understanding of the ways in which natural, social/cultural, political and economic systems function and are interconnected;
Connect learners to their dependence on the natural world and develop their sense of belonging to both the local and global community.
12. The consultation closes on 31 October 2012.
2 http://www.ecoschoolsscotland.org/page.asp?pg=40 3 http://www.ecoschoolsscotland.org/ 4 http://www.gtcs.org.uk/web/FILES/about-gtcs/standards-for-registration-draft-august-2012.pdf
PPC/S4/12/15/4
3
Scottish Government Action
13. The Scottish Government laid the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 in the Scottish Parliament.
Curriculum for Excellence
14. According to the Scottish Government the Curriculum for Excellence is a key part of the Scottish Government's Action Plan for the second half of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development "Learning for Change5".
15. Included within the Curriculum for Excellence is a section on sustainable development which aims to help develop “children and young people as global citizens through sustainable development education.”6 The information provided on the Education Scotland website in relation to Curriculum for Excellence appears to make no reference to recycling.
Scottish Parliament Action
16. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee considered the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Details are available at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/43961.aspx
17. No schools contributed evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committees consideration of the Regulations and the issue of how the Regulations might affect schools was not raised with the Committee.
Action 18. The Public Petitions Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to
take in respect of this petition. There are a number of possible options, including—
(1) To seek any information. For example, the Committee may wish to ask: Scottish Government/Education Scotland— COSLA—
What measures are being put in place to ensure that schools comply
with the duties placed on them by the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012
What are your views on what the petition seeks? 5 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/06/4215/4 6 http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/learningteachingandassessment/learningacrossthecurriculum/themesacrosslearning/globalcitizenship/about/sustainabledevelopment/introduction.asp
PPC/S4/12/15/4
4
Zero Waste Scotland— Eco-Schools Scotland— General Teaching Council for Scotland—
What are your views on what the petition seeks? When do you expect the outcome of your consultation to be available
(to GTSC only) (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee as part of its remit.
(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate.
PPC/S4/12/15/5
1
Public Petitions Committee
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 30 October 2012
PE1351 on Time for all to be heard
Note by the Clerk
PE1351 – lodged August 2010 Petition by Chris Daly and Helen Holland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish for all victims of institutional child abuse, a Time for All to be Heard forum incorporating a compensation scheme. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. This petition was last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 26 June
2012. The Committee noted the various strands of work underway and agreed to schedule a review of progress for the autumn and seek responses from the Scottish Government to points raised by the petitioners.
Background
2. In August 2002 Chris Daly (one of the current petitioners) lodged petition PE535 seeking ―an inquiry into past institutional child abuse (focussing on children who were in the care of the state under the supervision of religious orders); and apologies for the role of the state and relevant religious orders in such abuse‖. In September 2005 he lodged petition PE888 raising concerns about the handling of personal injury cases arising from institutional child abuse and seeking ―changes to Court of Session rules to allow for the prioritisation of such cases; and a review of how rules on the limitation of actions impact on such cases together with changes to those rules‖.
3. Following consideration of these petitions at a number of meetings between 2002 and 2008, the Session 3 Committee agreed in April 2008 to close both petitions on the grounds that the petitioner had achieved a considerable amount: an apology in Parliament by the then First Minister; the publication of an independent expert review report recommending changes to legislation; and continuing consideration by and announcements from the Scottish Government on action that would be taken.
4. This petition seeks the establishment of a forum to give all victims of institutional child abuse the opportunity to relate their experiences and apply for compensation.
Time to be Heard: – A Pilot Forum
5. In Scotland in 2010, Time to Be Heard: A Pilot Forum was established. Its purpose was to ―to test the appropriateness and effectiveness of a confidential forum in giving former residents of residential schools and children‘s homes the
PPC/S4/12/15/5
2
opportunity to recount their experiences in care, especially abusive experiences, to an independent and non-judgemental panel‖1. The pilot was modelled on the Confidential Committee of the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA) and provided an opportunity for 98 former Quarriers residents to recount their experiences as children in residential care.
6. In February 2011 Tom Shaw, the Chair of the Pilot Forum, published his report on the Pilot Forum‘s findings making a number of recommendations, amongst them that—
An independent national confidential forum should be established in Scotland for all adults who, as children, were cared for in any of the following types of provision: residential schools and children's homes, residential educational provision for children with special needs, long-stay hospital provision for children with acute medical and/or mental health needs, residential youth justice provision, boarding departments of schools and private homes through boarding-out and foster care arrangements. Appropriate legislation should be introduced to give the necessary protection for the effective operation of a national confidential forum.
The arrangements for and administration and operation of the national confidential forum should be based on the model and informed by the experience of Time to be Heard. Applications from any person who spent time in care as a child should be accepted. Those who do not consider themselves to have experienced abuse in care can be given the opportunity to provide written testimony initially.
7. In March 2011 the Scottish Government published its response to Tom Shaw‘s report and in August advised that it was keen that the National Confidential Forum (NCF) be taken forward without delay.
Scottish Human Rights Commission – Acknowledgement and Accountability Framework
8. In 2009 the Scottish Government invited the Scottish Human Right Commission (SHRC) to develop recommendations for a human rights framework for the design and implementation of an Acknowledgement and Accountability Framework for the survivors of historic abuse. This work was published by SHRC in February 2010 and the Scottish Government‘s response was published in February 2011. The response indicated that the Scottish Government:
intended to conduct a scoping exercise to consider the issues surrounding a possible reparations scheme (recommendation 5)
1 Time To Be Heard: A Pilot Forum – An Independent Report by Tom Show Commissioned by the
Scottish Government
PPC/S4/12/15/5
3
would consider and respond at a later date to the recommendation to consider the development of legislation to facilitate apologies by institutions (recommendation 6)
wished to meet with the SHRC to discuss how it could take account of the recommendations in the Framework in the development of its plans for a future rollout of Time to be Heard.
Prescriptions and limitations
9. In December 2010, the previous Committee heard evidence on the ‗time bar‘ concerning civil claims for damages and personal injury. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing advised that the Scottish Government was in the process of preparing a consultation. He explained—
―We are minded to look at additional options, including considering the merits of the approach that has been adopted in Ireland involving the time-bar clock and the stopping of the periods of limitation. In Ireland, those periods are excluded in which a person is said to be under a disability, which includes their being under 21 years of age. That plays an important part, as the courts in Ireland have the power to disregard childhood or a proportion of childhood. We can all see the sense of that as a proposition.‖
10. The Minister set out other routes for obtaining compensation, for example a compensation order following a successful criminal prosecution or through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Minister conceded that he understood that many victims would view these routes as more ―theoretical than real‖.
Session 4 consideration
11. This Committee took evidence the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Minister for Public Health and Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs in November 2011.
Evidence session 29 November 2011 - Scottish Human Rights Commission
12. Mr Wilson (SRHC) said that the SHRC was encouraging everyone ―to commit to a renewed impetus to securing remedies and justice for survivors of historical abuse.‖ He advised that the SHRC had worked independently and impartially on the human rights framework based on international law, best practice, survivors‘ views and the views of experts with experience of similar processes elsewhere, for example Ireland, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland. The SHRC framework had five elements; participation of everyone involved in all decisions that affect them, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and legality. The view of the SHRC was that any confidential committee would only be part of the broad range of remedies that should be provided in order to uphold survivors‘ rights.
PPC/S4/12/15/5
4
13. In relation to compensation, Mr Wilson noted that it was challenging and that there were a number of other measures that could be more quickly achieved and which would be cost-free.
14. The SHRC had proposed a human rights interaction to enable all stakeholders to get together to discuss the way forward with the aim of developing an action plan. The SHRC drew attention to its recommendation about apologies and suggested that there was an opportunity for the Parliament to pass legislation.
Evidence session 29 November 2011 - Scottish Government ministers
15. Michael Matheson, Minister for Public Health, said that the Scottish Government was continuing to consider how the commitment to establish a national forum in Scotland could be developed, noting that it would require primary legislation. He advised that Ministers would attend the SHRC-hosted interaction. The intention was to discuss the preparation of an action plan ―to look at what we need in order to frame the terms of the national confidential forum, and that work will allow us to look at conducting a consultation exercise to allow people to give their views on the forum‘s final form. We can then consider how we take forward legislation.‖ The Minister said that he hoped to be in position to carry out a public consultation on draft legislation sometime during 2012.
16. The Pilot Forum had not been set up to hold abusers to account or to provide compensation for victims of abuse. The Committee asked the Minister what plans the Government had to deal with these issues and whether they would be addressed as part of the national forum or separately. Michael Matheson stated that if any national forum was to have a more investigative role, the nature of the process would change. He said ―The model that we piloted last year allowed us to avoid that unnecessary legal process, but allowed people to give testimony in a confidential setting and allowed restorative justice issues to be considered if that was appropriate in certain circumstances‖.
17. Roseanna Cunningham, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs noted that the UK Government was considering the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the Scottish Government was awaiting the outcome of that before deciding whether changes should be made in Scotland. The Minister undertook to copy the Committee in to any Scottish Government response. Mr Matheson agreed that it was worth exploring the issue of reparation further ―and progressing it with any national confidential forums‖.
18. Ms Cunningham confirmed that the Scottish Government was still committed to consulting on time-bar (this had originally been expected to take place during January / February 2012). The Scottish Government was receptive to changing some of the time-bar rules but noted that any change could have a wide impact. Specifically in relation to the petition, the Minister added: ―the issue is not just about time-bar; it is also about proving the case in court. That is probably an even bigger hurdle, given the timescales that we are talking about.‖
19. More recently the Committee has maintained a watching brief on the different strands of work being taken forward and agreed to schedule a review of progress for the autumn. The Committee also agreed to seek responses from the Scottish
PPC/S4/12/15/5
5
Government to concerns raised by the petitioners. The Scottish Government‘s responses to the concerns raised by the petitioners are provided in the letter of 28 September 2012.
Action
20. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a number of possible options including
(1) To seek further information. The Committee may wish to write to the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland (CELIS) asking it summarise the work that has taken place on the Interaction and confirmation of the timescales for future work.
(2)To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate.
PPC/S4/12/15/6
1
Public Petitions Committee
15th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 30 October 2012
PE1434 on additional funding for sport facilities and a minimum level of sports facilities
Note by the Clerk
PE1434 – Lodged 30 May 2012 Petition by Nairn McDonald calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make sure every school can provide adequate sports facilities and resources for their students and to create a minimum level of facilities available. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a current petition first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 26
June 2012. At that meeting the Committee heard evidence from the petitioner and agreed to write to key stakeholders seeking further information before deciding on whether to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee as part of its anticipated inquiry. The Committee is now asked to consider the responses received and decide what action it wants to take.
Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. School funding is a matter for local authorities, which includes the funding of the
PE curriculum. Sportscotland run a sports facilities fund for facilities that will benefit the community generally. Since 2007, over £21 million has been invested through this fund in facilities throughout Scotland (S3W-36240).
3. A national audit of sports facilities in 2006 found an ageing stock of sports
facilities, although there were many good examples of high quality facilities. In relation to schools it found that: “Facilities in local authority schools account for £20m of required expenditure. However, significant improvements have already been made under the Scottish Executive‟s school rebuilding programme, whilst further improvements will be secured from other school projects currently underway. The further education sector is also investing substantial sums in new and upgraded sports facilities.”
4. Building Better Schools, the school estate strategy issued jointly by the Scottish
Government and COSLA in 2009, sets out the aim of making school facilities more available to the local community. In addition, the Scottish Government‟s Commonwealth Games 2014 Legacy Plan, includes the creation of Community Sport Hubs across all local authority areas. The Scottish Government has set a target that 50% of these hubs must be based in schools. The initiative is being led by Sportscotland, which has set aside £1.5m per annum to 2015 for the programme. The most up-to-date list of hubs details and locations is available here.
PPC/S4/12/15/6
2
5. Further, the Active Schools network aims to increase the number of opportunities for all children to get engaged in sport and also try to build bridges with sports clubs and other community organisations to give pupils a „pathway‟ to continue their participation in sport outside school.
Scottish Government Action
6. Reaching Higher – the 2007 national strategy for sport recognised the importance of quality facilities and recommended opening up school sports facilities to the community.
7. The Government has a target that by 2014, every pupil in S1 to S4 has at least two hours or two periods of PE a week.
Scottish Parliament Action
8. Physical activity was the subject of a debate in the chamber on 17th May 2012. This included discussion of physical education in schools. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7031
9. In the last Parliamentary session, the then Health & Sport Committee undertook a wide-ranging inquiry into sport. Its final report focussed on physical education (PE) in schools as a way to encourage better physical literacy and greater participation rates in sport and other physical activity. Amongst its recommendations, it wished to see greater leadership from the Scottish Government to ensure better PE provision and the meeting of the PE target. It also considered the Active Schools programme. Whilst acknowledging the good work that was taking place, particularly with primary schools, it considered little progress had been made in the early years of secondary school. It wished to see better coordination between partners at a local level and agreement nationally on how to take the programme forward. As regards facilities it wished to see: greater use of sports hubs to facilitate sporting opportunities and to provide a
base for sports clubs the unlocking of the potential for school facilities to be used by the wider
community 10. The Committee received a response from the Scottish Government to the report
on 21 August 2009, and a response from Sportscotland on 2 September 2009. The Parliament held a debate on the Committee's report on 16 September 2009.
11. The Health and Sport Committee launched an Inquiry into Community Sport in 2
July 2012 looking at the benefit of local sports clubs both to (i) the preventative health agenda and (ii) their communities and the importance of places for sport, in terms of availability, accessibility, affordability, and the quality of facilities. The Health and Sport Committee plans to publish its report in early December.
Public Petitions Committee Consideration 12. At its meeting on 26 June 2012 the Committee agreed to write to Scottish
Government, Education Scotland, sportscotland, Association for Physical
PPC/S4/12/15/6
3
Education Scotland, Scottish Sports Association and COSLA. The following responses have been received:
PE1434/A: Scottish Government/Education Scotland Letter of 21 September
2012 PE1434/B: sportscotland Letter of 5 October 2012 No response from petitioner
13. The Scottish Government / Education Scotland response points out that the
statutory responsibility for this matter lies with local authorities and that it is for them to determine having regard to the School Premises (General requirement and Standards)(Scotland) Regulation 1967. As part of the Commonwealth Games legacy, the Scottish Government will be aiming to develop 150 Community Sports Hubs throughout Scotland of which at least half will be based in schools.
14. Sportscotland confirms it works closely with local authorities and that there is a
statutory obligation placed on it by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 which requires „adequate provision for sport‟.
15. The Committee will recall that at its meeting on 26 June 2012 it agreed to consider referring the petition to the Health and Sport Committee as part of its on-going inquiry into community sport.
Action 16. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of this petition. It is recommended that the Committee should now refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee under Rule 15.6.2 to consider as part of its inquiry into community sport.
