PPC/S4/12/3/A

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE

AGENDA

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4)

Tuesday 21 February 2012 The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 2. 1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether

to take item 5 in private. 2. PE1367 ban mosquito devices now The Committee will take evidence from—

Andrew Deans MSYP, Petitioner; Lisa Sturgess, Regional Officer, National Autistic Society; Howard Stapleton, Managing Director, Compound Security Systems Ltd

3. Consideration of a new petition: The Committee will consider the following new petition—

PE1415 Update Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855

4. Consideration of current petitions: The Committee will consider the following current petitions—

PE1364 Clarifying guidelines on Gypsy/Traveller encampments PE1384 Giving Voice - speech and language therapy transforms lives PE1395 Targeted funding for lesser taught languages and cultures at universities PE1407 Scottish cancer drug fund PE1411 Reforming uniform policy in all Scottish local authority schools PE1412 Bond of caution

5. Consideration of evidence - PE1367 ban mosquito devices now The Committee will consider the evidence received at item 2.

PPC/S4/12/3/A

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/S4/12/3/A

The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 2 PE1367 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/1 PE1367 Private Paper PPC/S4/12/3/2 (P) Agenda item 3 PE1415 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/3 Agenda item 4 PE1364 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/4 Scottish Government Letter of 11 January 2012 PE1364/BB Petitioner Letter of 9 February 2012 PE1364/CC PE1384 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/5 Scottish Government Letter of 9 January 2012 PE1384/K PE1395 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/6 Scottish Government Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1395/F Petitioner Letter of 2 February 2012 PE1395/G PE1407 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/7 Scottish Medicines Consortium Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1407/A Macmillan Cancer Support Letter of 17 January 2012 PE1407/B Myeloma UK Letter of 18 January 2012 PE1407/C Breakthrough Breast Cancer Letter of 18 January 2012 PE1407/D Cancer Research UK Letter of 19 January 2012 PE1407/E Scottish Government Letter of 20 January 2012 PE1407/F Petitioner Letter of 9 February 2012 PE1407/G Roche Products Ltd Letter of 10 February 2012 PE1407/H Rarer Cancers Foundation Letter of 14 February 2012 PE1407/I PE1411 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/8 Scottish Youth Parliament Letter of 19 December 2011 PE1411/A Scottish Government Letter of 11 January 2011 PE1411/B Scottish Transgender Alliance Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1411/C Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1411/D

PPC/S4/12/3/A

LGBT Youth Scotland Letter of 20 January 2012 PE1411/E Autism Rights Group Highland Letter of 31 January 2012 PE1411/F Petitioner Letter of 5 February 2012 PE1411/G PE1412 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/3/9 Scottish Government Letter of 6 January 2012 PE1412/A Petitioner Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1412/B Martin Kilkie Letter of 2 February 2012 PE1412/C Paper for Information Letter from Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs to the Convener of 14 February 2012

PPC/S4/12/3/1

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2011 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 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 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 29 November

2011. The Committee agreed to invite the petitioner, a representative of Compound Security Systems and the National Autistic Society to give evidence in person at a future meeting. All three will attend this meeting to answer the Committee‟s questions. Following the evidence session, the Committee will wish to consider what action it wishes to take.

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.

PPC/S4/12/3/1

2

4. During the course of its consideration, the previous Committee heard evidence from Andrew Deans MSYP and received written evidence from the Scottish Government, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young 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. It was noted that the majority of police forces and the Scottish Police Federation were not in favour of using these devices nor were Scotland‟s Commissioner for Children and Young People or the local authorities contacted.

5. In February 2011 the previous Committee requested that the Scottish

Government taken the following actions:

To work with the UK Government, who maintain control over regulation of goods, to achieve a ban;

To 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

To review whether the Mosquito constitutes a noise nuisance under the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004.

6. At the Committee meeting in March 2011, Fergus Ewing, the then Minister for Community Safety, stated that “the Scottish Government does not support and has never supported the use of the devices” and advised that he had written to Theresa May MP seeking a meeting at which the use of the Mosquito Devices would be amongst the matters to be discussed. The Minister added that 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 the issue of 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 his evidence 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. Of course it would be best to serve all the peoples in the UK in finding a fair solution.”

Compound Security Systems 7. Compound Security Systems, the manufacturer and distributor of the device,

has advised that it has “dealt with the issue of banning the Mosquito on a much larger scale than simply the Scottish Government” and made reference to previous investigations at EU level. Compound Security Systems states that no legal action has ever been taken against it or any of its customers.

PPC/S4/12/3/1

3

8. Compound Security Systems commissioned the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at Southampton University to undertake research into the potential effects of exposure to the device. “Whilst the report stated that further research was warranted, it did not present any conclusions that would lead anyone to believe that brief and irregular exposure to the Mosquito sound would cause any problems.” That report and other research are available on the Compound Security Systems website1.

9. Compound Security Systems advises that it has been campaigning for UK

legislation to control the use of Mosquito devices and seeks to limit the use of the device to the police and people / businesses authorised by the police. It advises that senior members of the English Youth Parliament are supportive of this campaign and have been lobbying alongside Compound Security Systems for this change.

Petitioner 10. The view of the petitioner is that the issue is not the physical effects of the device

but the wider social effects of targeting “one group in society for collective punishment and those elected to protect the interests of all of us do not feel it important to stop them”.

Action 11. The Committee is invited to consider the evidence heard today and agree to

consider the petition again at its next meeting to decide what action it wishes to take.

1 Download Product Information Sheets and Support Documentation | Compound Security Systems

PPC/S4/12/3/3

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1415 on Update Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855

Note by the Clerk PE1415 – Lodged 24 January 2012 Petition by John Steele calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition which the Committee is asked to consider and decide what

action it wishes to take. The Committee has not invited the petitioner to speak to the petition.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. There is little regulation of burial in Scotland, although the common law

(traditional and judge-made law) governs aspects of interment. The Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855 is the primary statute, and it regulates the setting up and management of burial grounds.

3. The 1855 Act does not regulate excavations or disinterment as suggested by the petitioner. This matter is instead dealt with by the common law. However, because many of the major cases are from the 19th century, it is unclear how the principles would be applied by a modern court.

4. According to the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia (paragraph 534) 1, buried remains are sacred, and the grave that they are buried in is protected from disturbance at least until the process of disintegration is complete (although no specific time period is given for this process). Disinterment (other than in situations governed by planning law or criminal investigations) is allowed only in three situations: where those responsible for the management of the burial ground find it

necessary

where the burial has taken place somewhere where there is no right of burial

where the court gives its authority to do so having been persuaded that such a course is required

1 The Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is an (but not the only) authoritative statement on Scots law.

PPC/S4/12/3/3

2

5. An article published by Historic Scotland2 suggests that a court order is more likely to be obtained if there are no objections from living relatives. It notes that, at the time it was published in 1997, there was no reported case of a warrant being granted to disinter remains for archaeological, educational or scientific purposes.

6. It is therefore likely that the practical situation would be broadly similar to that outlined in the petition – ie. that a court order would be required, that procedures would have to show reverence and respect and that the excavation may have to stop if human remains were discovered.

Scottish Government Action

7. 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 Scottish Government has since consulted on the recommendations in its ―Consultation Paper on Death Certification, Burial and Cremation‖ (2010).

8. The review and consultation put forward new proposals in relation to the disinterment of remains. However, these focus on a simplified process for relatives to request disinterment and do not deal with the issue of excavation for other purposes. At least one of the responses to the consultation (from the Institute or Archaeologists) raised the issue of excavations in passing, although it was not highlighted in the analysis of responses.

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 burial or disinterment. A Scottish Government official has confirmed that there is no timescale for further action on these aspects.

Scottish Parliament Action

10. The Scottish Parliament passed the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 mentioned above. However, this did not take forward the aspects of the review which dealt with burial and disinterment. There have been a number of questions asked in the Scottish Parliament on the issue of burial grounds. None of these deal with the specific matter raised by the petitioner.

Action 11. The 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 continue the petition to seek any information it considers necessary. The Committee may wish to write to:

2 Logie, J. (1992) ―The Legal Position relating to the Treatment of Human Remains: Scots Law‖. Reproduced in Annex A of Historic Scotland. (1997) The Treatment of Human Remains in Archaeology: Historic Scotland Operational Policy Paper 5. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Available at: http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/human-remains.pdf

PPC/S4/12/3/3

3

Scottish Government— What are your views on the issues raised in the petition? Do you have any plans to review and update the current law in

relations to burial grounds? If not can you provide the Committee with your reasons for this?

(2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to the Health and Sport Committee to consider the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.

PPC/S4/12/3/4

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1364 on clarifying guidelines on Gypsy/Traveller encampments

Note by the Clerk PE1364 – Lodged (3 signatures) Petition by Phyllis McBain calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all guidelines relating to trespass and encampments for Gypsies and Travellers to ensure their intent is clear and that they are being applied. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. This is a current petition last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 29

November 2011. The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking greater clarity on the review of guidelines it is proposing to undertake. The Scottish Government has responded and the Committee is asked to decide what action it wishes to take.

Background 2. This petition relates to the Scottish Government’s guidelines on the management

of unauthorised Gypsy/Traveller encampments (2004). The petitioner’s view is that these “lack information addressing the concerns of settled communities who are dealing with Gypsy/Traveller encampments”. The petitioner is calling for the publication of a “Charter of Conduct” for all members of the community in relation to unauthorised encampments.

3. The Scottish Government’s guidelines set out best practice for local authorities and police forces. The basic principles are: “Policies should seek to manage unauthorised encampments to minimise disruption for all concerned and ensure that any anti-social behaviour is tackled firmly, regardless of who the perpetrators are. The same standards of behaviour should be expected from all members of the community whether Gypsies/Travellers or the settled population, based on mutual respect and with equal rights, responsibilities, entitlements and obligations.” (Para 3).

4. Stakeholders were consulted on the draft guidelines in 2004. The consultation analysis reported a diverse range of views. The Scottish Government undertook an evaluation of the use of the guidelines in 2007. That review report concluded that most local authorities had found the guidelines to be useful in managing unauthorised encampments. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland also published guidance on the management of unauthorised Gypsies/Travellers sites. The Scottish Government has advised that many local authorities now have strategies/protocols in place for managing unauthorised encampments.

PPC/S4/12/3/4

2

5. The unauthorised encampment guidance states that these strategies should be

developed with the involvement of all key stakeholders and must seek to balance the rights and responsibilities of the Gypsy/Traveller and settled communities. In 2010/11, £1 million of funding for Gypsy/Traveller sites was rolled up into the local government settlements.

Public Petitions Committee consideration

6. The petition has been considered on five previous occasions.

7. The Session 3 Committee received a large number of submissions (25

submissions in total). The Scottish Government took note of the suggestions and comments by the petitioner and confirmed that it would update and refresh its Guidance for Managing Unauthorised Camping (2004) via a web based consultation.

8. The petitioner does not believe that an online consultation is an effective way to

address the concerns around inadequate national guidance. She suggests that the debate should be opened up instead of just refreshing guidance that has been proven to fail.

9. At its meeting on 20 September 2011 the Committee agreed to write to the

Scottish Government seeking its views on points raised by Nigel Don and Mark McDonald in relation to how sites, which are not legal or authorised, can be managed and what local authorities should be required to do to help private landowners who find themselves with an encampment that they do not want.

10. The Scottish Government has responded advising that “the management of

unauthorised encampments is primarily an issue for the relevant local authority” and referring to the 2004 guidelines issued to local authorities. The Scottish Government does not intend to bring forward any new legislation but will progress a review of the guidelines.

11. The petitioner is disappointed with the Scottish Government’s stance, stating “private landowners have yet again been ignored”. At the meeting of 29 November 2011 the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking greater clarity on how the review of the guidelines was to be taken forward, to what timescale, the terms of reference and how individuals would be able to input.

12. The Scottish Government has responded advising that the review commenced in October 2011. A group involving housing, equalities and the police division has met on two occasions and undertaken a desk-based review to identify areas for amendment and update. The group has agreed that the existing guidance is out dated and requires change. Officials plan to meet with COSLA to agree an approach to updating the guidance and thereafter a wider liaison with stakeholders, including the petitioner, will be undertaken.

PPC/S4/12/3/4

3

13. The petitioner asks what the terms of reference for the review are, suggests that the review be opened up to public debate and questions how productive a review of guidance will be without taking into account the shortfalls in general presumption and current legislation. The petitioner concludes that the “lack of transparency of discussions and stakeholder participation in this review gives me no confidence in its outcome” and hopes the Committee will make its own recommendation to the review.

14. The following written submissions, received since the last meeting, are attached—

PE1364/BB: Scottish Government response of 11 January 2012 PE 1364/CC: Petitioner letter of 9 February 2012

Action 15. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a

number of options including—

(1) To continue the petition in order to seek any further information it considers necessary and / or to await confirmation that the terms of the review have been agreed and that the petitioner has been invited to contribute. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for further consideration of the issues;

(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate; or (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that the petition calls for a review of the guidelines and the Scottish Government:

has commenced a review of the existing guidelines. has confirmed that the guidance requires change. will meet with COSLA to agree an approach to update the guidance. will undertake a wider liaison with stakeholders to include the

petitioner.

PPC/S4/12/3/5

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1384 Giving Voice – speech and language therapy transforms lives

Note by the Clerk PE1384 – Lodged 6 January 2011 (417 signatures) Petition by Kim Hartley on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate how its policies and guidelines ensure local authorities and NHS boards protect provision of quality speech and language therapy services for all people with speech/language communication support needs and/or swallowing difficulties. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions asked, SPICe briefing and previous consideration. Purpose 1. This is a current petition last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 29

November 2011. The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government asking how speech and language therapy is taken account of with reference to the preventative spend agenda. The Scottish Government has responded and the Committee is asked what action it wishes to take.

Background (from the SPICe briefing)

2. Table 1 shows the trend in SLT therapists between 2007 and 2010 by headcount

and whole time equivalent (WTE). This data is based on the numbers of staff as at 30 September in each year. Over the time period, the numbers have risen between 2007 and 2010 in both headcount (5.3%) and WTE (4.1%) terms. However, whilst there were year on year increases between 2007 and 2009, the numbers have fallen back between 2009 and 2010 in both headcount (-1.3%) and WTE (-2.3%).

Table 1: Headcount and WTE numbers of SLT therapists in NHS Scotland, 2007 to 2010, as at 30 September each year

2007 2008 2009 2010

% change 2007-10

% change 2009-10

Headcount 1,189.0 1,221.0 1,268.0 1,252.0 5.3 -1.3 WTE 941.8 972.6 1003.4 980.3 4.1 -2.3

Source: ISD Scotland ‗Allied health professions staff in post‘ 3. Table 2 considers the breakdown of the 2010 figures in Table 1 by NHS board.

This shows there is a wide variation in numbers of SLT therapists across the country from 2.6 WTE in NHS Orkney to 246.1 WTE in NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde. As might be expected, NHS boards with largely urban populations have more therapists in headcount and WTE terms. However, it is noticeable that when considering WTE numbers per 10,000 population it can be seen that two boards with largely rural boards rank highest – NHS Western isles (3.25) and

PPC/S4/12/3/5

2

NHS Dumfries and Galloway (2.27). It should be noted that the latest population estimate published by the General register Office for Scotland is for mid-2009.

Table 2: Headcount and WTE numbers of SLT therapists, by NHS Boards, as at 30 September 2010; and WTE SLTs per 10,000 population

NHS Board Headcount WTE Population1WTE SLTs per 10,000

popoulationNHS Ayrshire & Arran 69 58.7 367,160 1.60NHS Borders 28 21.8 112,680 1.93NHS Fife 79 63.8 363,385 1.76NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde 300 246.1 1,199,026 2.05NHS Highland 69 53.5 310,530 1.72NHS Lanarkshire 136 107.0 562,215 1.90NHS Grampian 138 104.7 544,980 1.92NHS Orkney 5 2.6 19,960 1.30NHS Lothian 201 136.4 826,231 1.65NHS Tayside 92 76.2 399,550 1.91NHS Forth Valley 81 63.8 291,383 2.19NHS Western Isles 10 8.5 26,180 3.25NHS Dumfries & Galloway 40 33.7 148,510 2.27NHS Shetland 4 3.5 22,210 1.58Scotland 1,252 980.3 5,194,000 1.89 1 Based on General Register Office for Scotland mid-year population estimate 2009: Estimated population by sex, single year of age and administrative area: 30 June 2009'

Source: ISD Scotland ‗Allied health professions staff in post‘ 4. In the background information to the petition, the petitioner presents evidence

from 2009 and 2010 that SLT services are being affected by budget cuts in some local authority and health board areas. The NHS Cost Book provides the ability to assess spending on hospital and community health services in each NHS board. Table 3 brings together the data for SLT expenditure by NHS boards in both hospital and community health service sectors, for each year 2006-07 to 2009-10. The data for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in 2006-07 to 2008-09 should be treated with caution due to reporting issues. However, when considering the remaining NHS boards, as might be expected after considering the workforce data above, there is a wide variation in the expenditure on SLT services. When considering the trend between 2006-07 and 2009-10, there was a decrease in expenditure in only two NHS boards – NHS Borders and NHS Highland. However, when considering the change between 2008-09 and 2009-10, there was a decrease in expenditure in six boards – NHS Borders, NHS Highland, NHS Orkney, NHS Lothian, NHS Forth Valley and NHS Western Isles, though it is important to note that some of these decreases were relatively small.

Table 3: Net Expenditure on Speech and Language Therapy, NHS Hospital1 and Community2 services, Cost Book 2007-2010 (£s)

PPC/S4/12/3/5

3

NHS Board 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10Change 2006-07 to 2009-10

Change 2008-09 to 2009-10

NHS Ayrshire & Arran 1,769,146 1,857,613 2,105,979 2,118,384 349,238 12,405NHS Borders 1,279,490 1,221,775 1,238,865 1,219,960 -59,530 -18,905NHS Fife 2,318,389 2,059,785 1,867,984 2,407,641 89,252 539,657NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde3 1,642,659 1,701,557 2,050,160 8,356,593 6,713,934 6,306,433NHS Highland 2,177,711 2,031,153 2,240,374 2,102,704 -75,007 -137,670NHS Lanarkshire 3,458,652 3,439,412 4,078,669 4,307,718 849,066 229,049NHS Grampian 2,554,291 2,930,068 2,638,201 3,778,196 1,223,905 1,139,995NHS Orkney 95,008 146,163 147,260 145,229 50,221 -2,031NHS Lothian 657,963 1,228,541 1,530,799 1,520,718 862,755 -10,081NHS Tayside 1,710,587 1,825,239 2,458,063 4,008,795 2,298,208 1,550,732NHS Forth Valley 1,511,632 1,457,457 1,816,227 1,769,238 257,606 -46,989NHS Western Isles 467,837 511,397 742,711 509,773 41,936 -232,938NHS Dumfries & Galloway 653,016 662,241 583,696 686,428 33,412 102,732NHS Shetland 104,988 123,825 128,875 172,061 67,073 43,186

Notes1 Data taken from Cost Book Table SFR 5.8 from each year2 Data taken from Cost Book Table SFR 8.3 from each year3 There were gaps in the dataset for 2006-07 to 2009-09 due to reporting issues connected with the data from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde during this period

It is important to note that in addition to this funding will be that of local authorities. RCSLT has advised1 that although the vast majority of therapists are employed by NHS boards (there are a small number employed in the third sector), some SLT services are funded jointly with local authorities, such as those for children with additional support needs. This is why local authorities are mentioned in the background information accompanying the petition, given the possible effect any reduction in expenditure for these services would have.

5. SLT is one of a number of professions listed under a general heading of ‗Allied

Health Professions‘ (AHP). Other professions under this group include dietetics and physiotherapy. There is no waiting times target for services delivered by professions and there is no ongoing centrally held information on current waiting times for patients to see any of the professions.

6. In 2006, ISD Scotland published ‗Waiting for AHP Services: A review of the

numbers waiting and possible waiting times for an appointment with an AHP‘. This was based on results of a census carried out on 15 September 2005. There were limitations to the findings, which are discussed in the document. However, it provided an indication of waiting times. It showed that across Scotland, patients requiring SLT services could expect to be seen within 10 weeks if they were waiting to attend a clinic, 8 weeks if they were to be seen at home and 2 weeks if they were an inpatient. There has been no recurrence of this census.

7. RCSLT‘s own survey of NHS boards in 20092 made a number of findings as

regards waiting times for SLT services, including:

1 Personal communication 2 see ‗Call to Action‘

PPC/S4/12/3/5

4

children and young people then wait on average between two to 6.5 months for therapy with some having to wait 10 months

adults needing speech and language therapy rehabilitation then wait on average up to 10 weeks for intervention with some people waiting 18 weeks

over a third of adults with learning disability have to wait longer than 18 weeks for assessment. They can then wait up to a year for intervention

8. In an answer to a PQ S3W-3286 on 15 April 2010 concerning evidence from the

RCSLT indicating that that services were worsening in some areas, the Scottish Government stated that it was committed to ensuring that all patients receive appropriate services. However, it went on to note that, ultimately, it is a matter for NHS boards to determine the level of service provision of SLT services based on local needs.

9. The Scottish Government has advised3 that it has recently set up an Allied Health Professions Workforce Group, which contains representatives of the different professions, which will be the forum for addressing concerns of the workforce. The answer to PQ S3W-23923 on 23 March 2010 also made reference to the National Workforce and Workload Programme. This has developed an extension to the AHP data set, and should allow more detailed and accurate information to be captured in relation to AHP activity and workload. The Scottish Government4 has advised that this has project been completed and will the results will be published shortly.

10. In addition, in May 2010 the Scottish Government published ‗Guidance on partnership working between allied health professions and education‘, which aims to improve partnership working between health boards and education authorities in relation to needs of children with additional support needs.

Session 3 consideration 11. This petition was first considered by the Session 3 Committee in January 2011.

Views were sought from the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, NHS Lothian, Fife and Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

12. The Scottish Government advises that it is for individual NHS Boards to determine appropriate staffing levels. It does not hold information on the provision of speech and language therapy services but has provided information on the work it is undertaking on a workforce demographic scoping of allied health professionals (AHP). The purpose of this work is to collect information on workforce models and issues and identify examples of good practice and leadership models.

13. The petitioner was concerned that the Scottish Government was not able to demonstrate how its policies and guidelines ensure local authorities and NHS Boards protect the provision of quality speech and language therapy services. The petitioner is also concerned that the Scottish Government‘s approach is that

3 Personal communication 10 January 2011 4 Personal communication 10 January 2011

PPC/S4/12/3/5

5

―no evidence‖ equates to ―no problem in relation to unmet need‖, particularly when no evidence has or is being gathered.

Current consideration

14. In late 2011, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy

announced the development of an AHP National Delivery Plan for Scotland to provide a strategic platform for future AHP activity including service redesign. The Scottish Government undertook to contact the petitioner to discuss how improvements suggested could be made through the development of the Plan (PE1384/I).

15. The petition calls for the Scottish Government to ―…demonstrate how its policies and guidelines ensure local authorities and NHS boards protect provision of quality speech and language therapy services….” The Scottish Government confirms that while it provides the policies, frameworks and resources to NHS Boards, the actual provision of services, including speech and language therapy services, is the responsibility of local NHS Boards.

16. The petitioner is not of the view that the Scottish Government has or can demonstrate that it is doing what the petition requests of it. However she does welcome the Scottish Government‘s engagement with professional bodies in respect of the AHP National Delivery Plan on the basis that this might progress better services for people with communication difficulties.

17. At its meeting on 29 November 2011 the Committee agreed to ask the Scottish Government how it saw SLT fitting into the preventative spend agenda and what action it was taking to encourage Health Boards to invest in SLT services to secure savings in other health service areas.

18. In its latest response to the Committee (PE1384/K) the Scottish Government recognises that a number of services provided by AHPs have the potential to make significant contributions to the preventative spend agenda, including services provided by SLT. It is aware of the work being undertaken by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, (whom the petitioner represents) to evaluate the health and economic benefits of specific SLT interventions. However the Scottish Government was not in a position to reflect work in the draft budget when it was being agreed. These issues will be considered as part of the Scottish Government‘s AHP National Delivery Plan, the consultation on which was published earlier this month and runs until 30 April 2012.

19. In previous correspondence the petitioner drew attention to the number of Additional Special Needs tribunals that had arisen from a SLT issue. Statistics from the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland indicate that for 2009/10, 13% of the cases referred to it were in relation to Language or Speech Disorder while the same figure for 2010/11 was 5%.

20. The following written submissions are attached— PE1384/K: Scottish Government letter of 9 January 2012

PPC/S4/12/3/5

6

Action 21. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a

number of possible options including—

(1) To continue the petition in order to seek any further information it considers necessary. For example the Committee may wish to await the outcome of the Scottish Government‘s consultation on its AHP National Delivery Plan before considering the issues raised in the petition again. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Health and Sport Committee for further consideration of the issues;

(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate; or (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case it may be that

The provision of Speech and Language Therapy services is the responsibility of NHS Boards.

The Scottish Government is currently consulting on the AHP National Delivery Plan and has previously undertaken to involve the petitioner to discuss how improvements in support for people with communication difficulties can be progressed through the development of the Plan.

PPC/S4/12/3/6

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1395 on targeted funding for lesser taught languages and cultures at universities.

Note by the Clerk

PE1395 – Lodged 31 July 2011 (3368 signatures) Petition by Jan Culik calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct the Scottish Funding Council to provide targeted funding for lesser taught languages and cultures at Scottish universities. Link to petition webpage for written submissions, written questions, SPICe briefing and previous consideration Purpose 1. This is a current petition last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 29

November 2011. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government asking (1) whether it would give lesser taught languages and cultures controlled funding status, (2) to what extent the contribution to enterprise, tourism and cultural awareness is considered when setting priorities for SCF, (3) what the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism’s views are on the issues raised in the petition and (4) whether there was scope for funding to be made available from the Enterprise or Tourism budget heads. The Scottish Government’s response has been received and the Committee is asked to decide what action it wishes to take.

Background - the following information is taken from the Spice Briefing 2. Universities in Scotland receive funding from the government, via the Scottish

Funding Council, for teaching, research, capital and other miscellaneous strategic issues. Each year the Scottish Government sets out broad priorities for how public resources should be spent and the SFC then allocate resources to individual institutions taking into account the government priorities.

3. Overall, SFC funding accounts for around 40% of universities income, although

this proportion will vary between institutions. How the funding is allocated to each university is a fairly complex process (see SPICe Briefing Higher Education Institutions: Finance for further detail). In allocating funding for teaching SFC allocates each HEI a full-time equivalent number of funded student places in each of 12 funding subject groups.

4. A formula is then used to derive SFC allocations for teaching. Institutions have

some flexibility in how they use their funded places and do not have to fill the specific funded place to each funding subject group, apart from funded places allocated to “controlled” subjects e.g. dentistry and medicine, which institutions are expected to fill. Institutions can transfer some of their “non-controlled” funded places between subject groups to obtain a better fit between their own priorities

PPC/S4/12/3/6

2

and patterns of recruitment. Therefore, in general universities have a large degree of freedom to decide on what courses to provide from the funding that is provided to them.

5. Under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 the SFC has a duty

to secure coherent provision by the fundable bodies and it and keeps the matter under review.

England 6. The petitioner argues that targeted support should be given to lesser taught

languages in the way that exists in England. In England, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides support for strategically important and vulnerable subjects (SIVS). An advisory group informs the scope and direction of this programme. Currently, the following subjects are identified as strategically important and vulnerable:

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) area studies and related minority languages, including:

Arabic and Turkish language studies and other Middle Eastern area studies, former Soviet Union Caucasus and central Asian area studies

Japanese, Chinese and other far eastern languages and area studies courses relating to recent EU accession countries, especially those in

Eastern Europe and the Baltic quantitative social science modern foreign languages.

7. In May 2011, an evaluation of HEFCE's programme of support for SIVS was published. The evaluation found (amongst a range of findings) that the SIVS has had an important symbolic role and contributed strongly to sustained provision in SIVS. This achieved a lasting difference in areas such as partnership working and approach to interventions. While demand for SIVS subjects has risen, the extent to which the programme interventions were responsible could not be ascertained. The evaluation found that the SIVS programme was not equally well-received across the sector, for example, some interviewees said that the programme favoured Russell Group institutions, in which a large proportion of SIVS provision is located. An area where the SIVS programme has not made a lasting impact is that, with one minor exception, no SIVS subjects have lost their vulnerable status. That is, it does not appear to have solved the root causes of vulnerability in these subjects.

8. The evaluation concludes that interventions undertaken through the SIVS programme had: been successful in avoiding heavy-handed market interference; enabled the programme to show leadership while remaining responsive to developments and initiatives by the sector and sustained provision.

9. On publication of the report the Chief Executive of HEFCE said that, in light of the current reductions in funding for higher education, “…difficult choices now have to be made”.

PPC/S4/12/3/6

3

Scottish Government Action 10. The Scottish Government issued a consultation paper covering the whole “post-

16” landscape on 14 September 2011 Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education. It sets out proposals for reforming the university, college and training sectors in Scotland. The consultation closed on 23 December 2011.

Public Petition Committee consideration 11. The Committee considered this petition for the first time on 20 September 2011

hearing evidence from the petitioner, Hugh McMahon and Sir Tom Stoppard. The Committee agreed to seek written responses on the issues raised in the petition from Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council and the University of Glasgow.

12. Glasgow University responded that support for minority languages / area studies was provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on a UK basis between 2006 and 2011. That support has now ended and was not being renewed. Overall, the allocation of available continuing support that is available is open to the whole of the UK and is supported on a UK wide basis. For this reason, the University disagreed with the petitioner’s claim that HEFCE allocates targeted support to these subject areas in England.

13. Glasgow University was awaiting funding from ERASMUS MUNDUS (from the EU) from 2012 to 2017 to support an International Masters Degree which would require teaching support from the School of Modern Languages and Cultures (SMLC). It confirmed that although on a “much reduced” basis, the SMLC would continue to offer Russian, Czech and Polish specialist support teaching funded by ERAMUS MUNDAS.

14. The SFC responded that “it is ultimately for individual institutions to determine

their own curriculum mix, taking into account demand at a local, regional or national level” and that “it would be inappropriate for SFC to attempt to intervene and influence which languages should or should not be protected”. The SFC believed that analysis of the 2009-10 figures demonstrated overall that Scotland appeared to be well supplied with modern language provisions at first degree level and above.

15. The Scottish Government’s position was and is that proposed changes in the provision of courses are matters for individual universities rather than the Scottish Government.

16. Over the period of the forthcoming Spending Review the Scottish Government is proposing increased funding for Scottish universities of £327 million. In relation to the post-16 landscape, the Scottish Government confirmed that its pre- legislative paper, published on 14 September 2011, sets out:

“in the case of languages a distinction needs to be made between learning to speak a second language and cultural and area studies. Maintaining

PPC/S4/12/3/6

4

opportunities to learn to speak a second language is important culturally, economically and to ensure a supply of teachers for our schools. We will therefore ask the SFC and the universities to give particular attention to capacity for language learning and to this overall issue.”

17. The petitioner took issue with much of the submission from Glasgow University differentiating between one-off grant funding and targeted funds and drawing the Committee’s attention to the SFC’s duty to have regard to the economic, social and cultural needs of Scotland.

18. The petitioner makes mention of ongoing negotiations with Glasgow University about targeted funding for Nursing. Nursing is designated as a “controlled funding” subject where the number of places is controlled centrally to ensure adequate levels of future nursing staff. Languages are not controlled funding subjects.

19. At the last meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government on a number of issues. It was also noted that some of the issues raised in the petition might be sub judice. Subsequent inquiries have confirmed that no legal action has been raised to date.

20. In response to the question about giving controlled funding status for lesser taught languages and cultures, the Scottish Government advises that this is matter for the SFC. There is currently no mechanism for controlling funded student places for lesser taught languages and cultures and the “SCF does not consider that there is any need to change this.” The Cabinet Secretary has recently written to the SFC asking that it keep under review the provision of Russian, Polish, Czech and Slavonic studies. The Scottish Government advises that the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism is satisfied that the SFC has taken account of the economic, social and cultural needs of Scotland and that there are “no plans to make funding available from the Enterprise or Tourism budgets for this purpose.”

21. The petitioner points out that the concern is specifically about Central and East

European languages and cultures (Russian, Czech, Polish), not modern languages in general. He queries why the SFC has no mechanism for controlled funding for student places. The petitioner notes that the review referred to was carried out at least five years ago and believes that the Scottish Government and SFC are “not facing up to the seriousness of the situation” for strategic and vulnerable languages and to modern language provision.

22. The following written submissions, received since the last meeting, are

attached—

PE1395/F: Scottish Government Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1395/G: Petitioner Letter of 2 February 2012

PPC/S4/12/3/6

5

Action 23. The 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 continue the petition in order to seek any further information the Committee considers necessary and await the outcomes of the Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education consultation and Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Education and Culture Committee, for further consideration of the issues. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate, or

(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.

PPC/S4/12/3/7

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1407 on Scottish cancer drug fund

Note by the Clerk PE1407 – Lodged 12 October 2011 Petition by Jamie Walker calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set up a Scottish Cancer Drug Fund. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This petition was last considered by the Committee on 15 November 2011. At that meeting the Committee took evidence from the petitioner and agreed to write to the Scottish Government and a number of organisations seeking their views on issues raised. Responses have been received and the Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take on this petition.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. The UK Government‘s Cancer Drugs Fund for England was set up following a commitment in the Coalition‘s programme for government1. A consultation was held between October 2010 and January 2011 and the scheme was launched on 1 April 2011. It is a three year scheme, with £600m being committed to it. The UK Government2 has stated that the fund will provide a means of improving access to cancer drugs ―prior to the anticipated reform of arrangements for branded drug pricing on expiry of the current Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme at the end of 2013‖. At this point, the UK Government wishes to move to system of value-based pricing, which seeks to ―improve NHS patients‘ access to effective and innovative drugs by ensuring they are available at a price that reflects the value they bring‖3.

3. Each year of the fund will see £200m made available to Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs), with associated guidance being published alongside it. The 2011-12 Guidance was published to coincide with the first tranche of funding being made available on 1 April 2011.

4. The fund is specifically for cancer drugs that have not been approved for use in the NHS in England by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) – either because NICE has not considered them or because NICE has not approved after assessing their efficacy and cost effectiveness. Each SHA gets a share of the fund and should set up processes for dealing with applications as outlined in the

1 The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010 2 The Cancer Drugs Fund: Guidance to support operation of the Cancer Drugs Fund in 2011-12 (p 6) 3 ‗A new value-based approach to the pricing of branded medicines: A consultation‘ (December 2010, para 1.2)

PPC/S4/12/3/7

2

guidance. However, it is up to each SHA to determine what drugs it will be prepared to fund. The Cancer Research UK web page4 discussing the fund contains a list of the SHAs and their ‗priority lists‘ for the cancer drugs to be funded, together with the clinical circumstances it will be prepared to fund the drug. Before a patient is able to access the fund, Cancer Research UK notes that many SHAs still require them (through their doctor) to have gone through their local Primary Care Trust‘s process for providing funding for particular treatments in individual or exceptional circumstances.

The Scottish system for assessing newly licensed medicines

5. The current process for approving medicines for use in the NHS in Scotland is detailed in Scottish Government guidance (CEL 17(2010)) from May 2010. In short, the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) considers all newly licensed medicines following an application by the manufacturer. This is unlike in England where NICE only considers those drugs referred to it by Ministers. The SMC considers the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the medicine and makes a decision on whether or not it recommends its use in the NHS in Scotland.

6. Where the SMC guidance has not recommended a medicine for use, NHS Boards can still decide to prescribe the medicine to a specific patient if it is felt there are grounds to do so. This now takes place through an Individual Patient Treatment Request (IPTR). CEL 17, together with subsequent advice stipulated that Boards should have had written protocols for handling requests in place by April 2011.

Rare Cancers Foundation research

7. In making the case for a cancer drugs fund, the petitioner makes reference to research from the Rare Cancers Foundation (RCF). In August 2011 it published a report5, considering the variations in access to cancer treatments across the UK. Its key findings for Scotland were: There were 23 cancer treatments which are not routinely available in Scotland

which may be available in England through the Cancer Drugs Fund. People in Scotland are now more than three times less likely to gain access to a

cancer drug which is not routinely available than people in England. If the same approval rate occurred in Scotland as does in England, then 248

cancer patients in Scotland would gain access to life extending treatment instead of 74 – an increase of 174.

It is estimated that the total cost of improving access to cancer drugs in Scotland to similar levels as in England would be £5,172,390. This is less than £1 per person in Scotland per annum. Over a three year period this cost could be expected to grow to between £16.8 million and £19.6 million.

8. Recently6, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy (the Cabinet secretary) responded to this research. Whilst finding it helpful in many

4 Cancer Research UK; Cancer Drugs Fund 5 ‗Nations divided? - An assessment of variations in access to cancer treatments for patients in England, Scotland and Wales‘ 6 Meeting of the Parliament 29 September 2011 (col 2258-2259)

PPC/S4/12/3/7

3

areas, she stated that it contained a number of errors, which meant a number of its conclusions were open to challenge:

―For example, some of the medicines that have been listed as being not available in Scotland are, in fact, available. There has been double counting, and some of the ―not recommended‖ decisions were made because the pharmaceutical company in question had not made a submission to the SMC. I will discuss those issues with the Rarer Cancers Foundation in due course.‖

9. The RCF also published a study7 into the use of the IPTR process by NHS Boards in March 2011. Its findings were achieved through requesting information directly from NHS Boards. Amongst its findings was that: at that stage, not all Boards had written policies in place; there was no consistency in the criteria used by Boards in determining whether an IPTR request would be approved; the application rate in Scotland is higher than the equivalent system in England. During a debate on 29 September 2011, the Cabinet Secretary noted that the Scottish Government was gathering data on requests and approvals in order to assess the situation across the country (col 2265).

Scottish Government Action

10. In the recent debate on instituting a cancer drugs fund in Scotland the Cabinet Secretary (col 2259-2260), stated her openness to ―considering ways to improve access to clinically evidenced and cost-effective medicines that improve patient outcomes‖. She also noted the UK Government‘s plans to introduce value-based pricing and said the Scottish Government was working with the UK Department of Health to ensure Scotland‘s interests were recognised. Whilst recognising the attractions of a cancer drugs fund she stated her concern with such a scheme was on the basis of equity:

―I have two key concerns about equity. First, I am concerned about the risk of a cancer drugs fund creating inequity between those who suffer from cancer and those who suffer from other serious conditions, such as Alzheimer’s and heart disease. We should continue to improve access to drugs; however, in my view, that should mean access to all drugs—not just to cancer drugs. […] The second …is the risk of inequity within cancer care. Drugs are an important weapon in the battle against cancer, but they are not the only weapon. Radiotherapy and surgery are increasingly the treatments of choice. We need to invest in them too, and we need to do more to prevent cancer in the first place.‖ (col 2260).

She then made reference to the recent investment in radiography equipment and the Government‘s Detect Cancer Early Implementation Plan, which was published in August 2011.

7 ‗Exceptional Scotland? – An audit of the policies and processes used by NHS boards to determine exceptional prescribing requests for cancer treatment‘

PPC/S4/12/3/7

4

Scottish Parliament Action

11. The debate on Wednesday 29 September 2011 was the main platform for debate on the policy of a cancer drugs fund for Scotland.

Public Petitions Committee consideration 12. The petition was considered for the first time on 15 November 2011. At that meeting the Committee took evidence from Jamie Walker and James Walker and agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Support, Myeloma UK, Cancer Research UK, Rare Cancers Foundation, Scottish Medicines Consortium, Royal College of Radiologists, Procurement Scotland and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society seeking their views on issues raised in the petition and at the meeting. The following submissions have been received—

PE1407/A: Scottish Medicines Consortium letter of 12 January 2012 PE1407/B: Macmillan Cancer Support letter of 17 January 2012 PE1407/C: Myeloma UK letter of 18 January 2012 PE1407/D: Breakthrough Breast Cancer letter of 18 January 2012 PE1407/E: Cancer Research UK letter of 19 January 2012 PE1407/F: Scottish Government letter of 20 January 2012 PE1407/G: Petitioner letter of 9 February 2012 PE1407/H: Roche Products LTD letter of 10 February 2012 PE1407/I: Rarer Cancers Foundation letter of 14 February 2012

13. The Scottish Government advises that it has sought to improve access to all newly licensed medicines through a package of measures following recommendations from the PPC as part of PE1108 (Cancer Treatment Drugs). It recognises the potential for further refinements to the process and has asked Scotland‘s Chief Medical Officer and Chief Pharmaceutical Officer to review processes with a focus on ensuring the timeous consideration of SMC accepted medicines across all NHS Boards in Scotland. A clinical Short Life Working Group (SLWG) was established to consider what actions were needed to further strengthen the safe and effective use of new medicines. The SLWG concluded that there were some improvements that could be made to the management of formulary arrangements and that further guidance would be issued early in 2012.

14. The Scottish Government believes that providing a ring-fenced budget for cancer medicines in not equitable. The current arrangements focus on the introduction of clinically and cost-effective medicines to treat all conditions in accordance with clinical need.

15. The Collaborative and Scottish Government Procurement Division‘s response sets out the role of the SMC, the Pharmaceutical price Regulation Scheme (PPRS), the Pharmacy Team within National Procurement and Patient Access Schemes. The UK Government is working towards the introduction of a system of value-based pricing (VBP) for branded medicines on expiry of the current PPRS agreement. The Scottish Government is committed to working with the Department of Health in developing and implementing VBP.

PPC/S4/12/3/7

5

16. Four of the written responses are not supportive of a Cancer Drug Fund in Scotland. For example:

―SMC does not support the establishment of a Cancer Drug Fund in Scotland as we believe that this would not be in the best interests of patients.‖ – Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)

―we do not support the introduction of a cancer drugs fund in Scotland at this time because we think that improvements to the existing system should be able to ensure fair access to effective medicines.‖ – Macmillan Cancer Support

―we do not believe that the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) is the solution; in fact, it could actually prove to make the situation even worse for a greater number of cancer patients in the future.‖ – Myeloma UK

―the approach used in England is not appropriate for Scotland due to the different nature of the health systems… Scotland can learn from both the strengths and weaknesses of the Cancer Drugs Fund to design an improved system.‖ – Rarer Cancers Foundation

17. Breakthrough Breast Cancer is not against a CDF for Scotland in principle but it draws attention to the challenges that exist regarding such a fund. Breakthrough suggests that rather than introducing a fund in Scotland at this stage, when it is likely to have limited impact before the implementation of VBP, a thorough review of the effectiveness of current drug access system in Scotland is undertaken.

18. Cancer Research UK believes that lower cancer survival rates in Scotland could best be addressed through cancer prevention initiatives and earlier diagnosis. It states that the CDF for England has been criticised for funding non-cost-effective treatments and that the fund may exacerbate regional inequalities in access to drugs. However, the fund has given the opportunity for some patients in England to access treatments which have not been approved for use on the NHS.

19. The view of the petitioner is that ―cancer should always be treated as and regarded as a special case.‖ The petitioner does not agree that a CDF would lead to ineffective treatments being prescribed by doctors and he is concerned about the two year gap before the VBP Scheme is due to be introduced. The petitioner concludes that a CDF needs to be implemented to end inequality with England and suggests a public consultation on a CDF, a review of SMC practices and a review of contracts and regulations with pharmaceutical companies.

Action 20. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. There are a number of possible options, including—

(1) To continue the petition in order to seek any further information considered necessary. In this case, the Committee may wish to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on the timetable for the issue of further

PPC/S4/12/3/7

6

guidance and asking what work has been undertaken, or is planned, with the Department of Health in developing and implementing VBP.

(2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to the Health and Sport Committee for further consideration of the issues raised.

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

(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that the Scottish Government:

Has confirmed that it has no plans to reconsider its policy on a Scottish cancer drugs fund;

Has sought to improve access to all newly licensed medicines; Has confirmed that further guidance will be issued; and Has committed to working with the Department of Health to develop

and implement VBP (value-based pricing).

PPC/S4/12/3/8

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012(Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1411 on Reforming Uniform Policy in All Scottish Local Authority Schools

Note by the Clerk PE1411 – Lodged 14 November 2011 Petition by Luca Scarabello calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform school uniform policies by stopping gender-specific uniforms and changing clothes worn for uniforms to more comfortable, less physically restrictive, more affordable and practical garments. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This petition was considered by the Committee for the first time at its meeting on 29 November 2011. The Committee agreed at that meeting to gather some evidence before deciding whether to pass the petition on to the Equal Opportunities Committee. A number of submissions have been received and the Committee is asked what action it wishes to take.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. Many schools encourage the wearing of school uniform although pupils are not obliged by law to wear this form of dress. Head teachers can, however, insist on an acceptable standard of dress. Banning particular garments or jewellery should be based on reasonable grounds. 3. The importance of dress code was noted in the report of the Discipline Task Group – Better Behaviour, Better Learning (2001). This recommended that:

―…schools should consult with pupils, teachers and parents/carers in order to agree a dress code for children and young people. Local authorities should support schools in the implementation of their agreed dress codes‖. (p30)

4. An update in 2004 found that most schools had introduced dress codes, in consultation with pupil councils, parents, carers, school boards and staff and sanctioned by the local authorities. Over 89% of schools have introduced dress codes and have done so successfully. 5. A survey by the Office of Fair Trading in 2006 found, based on sample data, that 75% of state schools in Scotland specify uniform requirements, compared to 84% in England, 81% in Northern Ireland and 64% in Wales (quoted in school clothing grant report referred to below).

PPC/S4/12/3/8

2

Scottish Government Action 6. Other than the recommendation of the Discipline Task Group (DTG) , there is no specific Government guidance on the issue of dress codes. In relation to the argument about affordability, the Government had a working group on school clothing grants. The report was published in January 2011 and found significant disparity between the average grant and the average cost of school uniform. The main recommendation of the group was that the Scottish Government and COSLA should produce joint guidance for local authorities in respect of the school clothing grant. Scottish Parliament Action 7. There has been little parliamentary activity on the specific issue of the type of dress code in schools, although there was a petition in 2007 on the school clothing grant issue (PE 999). In June 2011, Rhoda Grant asked what support the Government will provide to low-income families to help meet the costs associated with school in this parliamentary session. Question S4W-00900 - Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Scottish Labour) (Date Lodged 15/06/2011) Answered by Michael Russell (27/06/2011): This is a matter for education authorities. However, we will look to work with local authorities to identify steps we can take in the future to improve support for low income families to help meet the costs associated with school, for example, school uniforms and school trips. Petition Committee consideration 8. At its meeting on 29 November 2011 the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People (SCCYP), Association of Head Teachers and Deputes in Scotland, School Leaders Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament (SYP) seeking their views on the issues raised by the petition. 9. The following responses have been received:

PE1411/A: Scottish Youth Parliament Letter of 19 December 2011 PE1411/B: Scottish Government Letter of 11 January 2012 PE1411/C: Scottish Transgender Alliance Letter of 12 January 2012 PE1411/D: Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People Letter of

12 January 2012 PE1411/E: LGBT Youth Scotland Letter of 20 January 2012 PE1411/F: Autism Rights Group Highland Letter of 31 January 2012 PE1411/G: Petitioner Letter of 5 February 2012

PPC/S4/12/3/8

3

10. The SYP believes the issues raised in the petition merit further investigation and, should the petition be continued, it would be willing to consult its members on this matter. 11. The SCCYP also thinks the petition raises important issues and agrees with the petitioner that even if pupils and parents are consulted on school uniform policy, some consultees would undoubtedly favour of gender prescribed uniforms; whilst this process would be democratic, the outcome would be unfair to gender variant pupils. The SCCYP believes that schools should be reviewing their uniform / dress codes to ensure they do not have the effect of unlawfully discriminating against pupils with protected characteristics. 12. The SCCYP also points out that for some disabled children, particularly those on the autistic spectrum, the enforcement of a strict dress code would be inappropriate and unlawful. Submissions received from Autism Rights Group Highland and Maurice Frank highlight the practical difficulties and concerns for pupils on the autistic spectrum and that although it is open for parents and pupils to challenge schools to make reasonable adjustments, it would be preferable to ―get things right from the start‖. 13. The submissions from the Scottish Transgender Alliance and LGBT Youth Scotland support the petition. They suggest many schools lack awareness of transgender equality issues and have not considered the equality impact of their uniform policies on pupils with the protected characteristics of gender reassignment. It was suggested that clear national guidelines would help ensure consistency and that there was a need for gender neutral uniforms. 14. The Scottish Government advises that local authorities are responsible for their own school uniform policies and that school rules on uniforms must not discriminate on the basis of gender, race or religion. The Scottish Government points out that the Equality Act places a duty on education authorities to prevent indirect and direct discrimination on the basis of perception and association related to protected characteristics. Action 15. The 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 continue the petition in order to seek any further information it feels necessary.

(2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to either the Equal Opportunities Committee or the Education and Culture Committee to consider the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.

PPC/S4/12/3/9

1

Public Petitions Committee

3rd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 21 February 2012

PE1412 on bonds of caution

Note by the Clerk PE1412 – Lodged 14 November 2011 Petition by Bill McDowell calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law of succession to end the requirement for a Bond of Caution by an executor-dative when seeking confirmation of any intestate estate. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This petition was considered by the Committee for the first time at its meeting on 29 November 2011. The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government about the timeframe for the consultation on succession law and ask whether separate consideration could be given to the issue of bonds of caution.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. The law of succession is concerned with the distribution of the property of a person who has died. It is divided into two parts – intestate succession (covering the situation where no will is left) and testate succession (where a will is left). 3. An ―executor‖ is the person responsible for gathering in the property of the deceased person and then distributing it to those entitled to inherit it. An executor appointed by a will is an ―executor-nominate‖, an executor appointed by a sheriff (as occurs when someone dies intestate) is an ―executor-dative‖. 4. Before being confirmed by the court, an executor-dative is required to take out a ―bond of caution‖.1 A bond of caution is an obligation by a third party, ―the cautioner‖, to indemnify any creditor or beneficiary of an estate against loss caused by maladministration, negligence or fraud on the part of the executor. It is usually provided by an insurance company, although it can also be provided by a private individual. 5. A bond of caution provides protection in those cases where suing the executor would not provide an effective legal remedy, for example because the executor has disappeared or is unable to meet the legal claims arising. However, where the insurance company is providing caution, the estate will bear the cost of the associated premium. Only two insurance companies currently provide bonds of caution (Zurich SGS and Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA)) and it has been suggested that monopoly of provision has a negative effect on the quality of service, as well as the level of premium charged.2 1 SPICe has referred to the term in lower case, reflecting the Scottish Law Commission‘s publications on the topic. ‗Caution‘ is pronounced to rhyme with ‗nation‘. 2 Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper on Succession (DP 136), pages 110–111.

PPC/S4/12/3/9

2

6. The Scottish Law Commission (SLC) undertook a detailed review of the law of succession (including bonds of caution) publishing a Discussion Paper (DP 136) in 2007 and a final Report (Scot Law Com No 215) in 2009. 7. In the final report, the SLC made a number of recommendations relating to bonds of caution. In particular, after an ―overwhelming response‖ in support of such a move (SLC Report, para 7.11), the SLC recommended abolition of the requirement on an executor-dative to obtain caution before obtaining confirmation (recommendation 66). The SLC further recommended that this change should only take effect in relation to deaths occurring on or after the implementing legislation in question comes into force (recommendation 78). Scottish Government Action 8. The Scottish Government gave its response to the SLC‘s Report in July 2009. In relation to the bonds of caution, the Scottish Government commented:

―We are grateful to the Commission for also reviewing the law on executors dative and the requirement for Bonds of Caution. The recommendation is that these should no longer be required and that the court should have the discretion to refuse to appoint executors. We understand this recommendation was positively received. There are, however, a couple of issues which will need to consider further, including the impact on the insurance market for Bonds of Caution‖

9. SPICe contacted the Scottish Government on 22 November 2011 to obtain the Government‘s up to date position on the issue. Government officials responded as follows:

―The Scottish Government has undertaken a period of pre-consultation dialogue on a number of the potentially contentious recommendations contained in the Scottish Law Commission‘s Report on Succession. This included discussion on the abolition of the requirement for caution by executors-dative and on how to mitigate any risk to the estate. That dialogue will inform consideration of how best to take this, and other issues, forward in a public consultation which would precede any reform of the law.

Progress on this work has been slower than anticipated because of the need to respond to other pressures.‖

Scottish Parliament Action 10. A public petition (PE1134) was submitted to the Scottish Parliament in March 2008 by the current petitioner calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law of succession to end the requirement for a Bond of Caution by an executor-dative when seeking Confirmation of any intestate estate. 11. This petition was closed in April 2008 on the grounds that the Scottish Law Commission was at that time considering responses to its Discussion Paper on its review of succession law and was not due to report on this until early 2009. The Public Petitions Committee also agreed to forward the petition to the Commission for its information as part of that review.

PPC/S4/12/3/9

3

12. Succession law has been the topic of several Parliamentary Questions including the following:

Question S3W-29780 - Ian McKee (Lothians) (Scottish National Party) (Date Lodged 07/12/2009) : To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to take action in response to the Scottish Law Commission reports on succession and on damages. Answered by Fergus Ewing (08/12/2009): The Scottish Law Commission has produced helpful reports on succession and on damages. The Commission‘s report on Succession (No.215, 2009) was published on 15 April and, having provided the Scottish Government‘s initial response on 13 July, I subsequently met with the chairman of the commission to discuss its proposals. The intention now is to engage with stakeholders, through a programme of dialogue and formal consultation, so that determination of the way forward can take account of all relevant perspectives, including any potential financial and regulatory implications. Similar integrated work is being developed in relation to damages for personal injury, bringing together the Commission‘s report on Damages for Psychiatric Injury (No.196, 2004), their Report on Personal Injury Action: Limitation and Prescribed Cases (No.207, 2007) and their report on Damages for Wrongful Death (No.213, 2008).

Oral Question selected for answer on 21 January 2010:

Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to legislate in relation to the Scottish Law Commission's "Report on Succession", published in April 2009. (S3O-9233) The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing): The "Report on Succession" recommends significant reforms to the law. I provided an initial response in July. Subsequently, in answer to a parliamentary question from Ian McKee, I confirmed that I had also met the commission's chairman. The Scottish Government is now having a dialogue with and consulting stakeholders to inform the way forward. Plans for legislation will be finalised in the light of that work, taking account of all relevant perspectives. Rob Gibson: Succession was last legislated on in the 1960s, and indeed the Scottish Law Commission's 1990 review was not acted on in the Parliament's first eight years. I am delighted with the indicated timetable, which I presume means that an answer will emerge only after 2011. However, it is important that, as far as equality in family law is concerned, the interpretation of heritable property succession rights is legislated on as early as possible. Fergus Ewing: Rob Gibson is entirely correct to say that the current law rests on the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, which, although it has served Scotland well, now needs considerable updating. We hope to take that forward through consultation, and in that regard I am delighted that the Justice Committee has responded positively to my suggestion of meeting the commission informally to discuss the report. Given the complexity of the issues, not least the recommendation to abolish the distinction between heritable and movable property—something, indeed, that Rob Gibson raised in his member's bill in 2006—the widest consultation should be carried out to ensure that we maintain a consensual approach. With that in mind, it is more likely than not that legislation will emerge only after the end of this parliamentary session. Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con): Like everything else that comes before the Justice

PPC/S4/12/3/9

4

Committee at the moment, the matter is complex. However, does the minister agree that a degree of urgency is needed, given that, apart from anything else, the 1964 act was predicated on the concept of the so-called nuclear family, which, of course, is quite different from the realities of modern life? Fergus Ewing: I am sure that the convener of the Justice Committee bears up well under the heavy burdens that rest on his shoulders. I entirely agree with his sentiment that there be a degree of urgency. However, given the range of issues involved, the nature of the SLC's specific recommendations and issues arising from the different family background that the member correctly referred to, we advocate an approach based on the maxim ―Festina lente"3.

Committee consideration 7. The following submissions have been received since the last meeting:

PE1412/A: Scottish Government letter 7 January 2012 PE1412/B: Petitioner letter 12 January 2012 PE1412/C: Martin Kilkie Letter 2 February 2012

8. Although the Scottish Government confirms that it is ―committed to a formal consultation on the fundamentals of succession law‖ this does not appear to be imminent. The Scottish Government is now considering whether to progress certain elements separately but no final decision has been taken. In his letter, the petitioner makes a number of points in relation to the time taken to progress changes and, unsurprisingly, expresses support for bonds of caution being taken forward separately. The petitioner asks this Committee to explore whether this could be taken forward by way of a Scottish Statutory Instrument. 9. The Committee will wish to be aware that it is not just a case of choosing to effect a policy change by way of subordinate legislation; there has to be primary legislation that would enable that route to be taken. In the case of the requirement in law for bonds of caution, it is not thought that there is such primary legislation. That is the reason why the Scottish Law Commission has included the matter in its draft Bill (primary legislation). Action

7. The 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 write to the Scottish Government. The Committee may wish to ask:

Given that this issue was included in the Scottish Law Commission‘s 2009 report ―due to an overwhelming demand that the topic be examined‖ will the Scottish Government confirm that the abolition of bonds of caution is one of the topics that is being considered for separate progress and confirm when a decision will be taken on this?

3ie to do things the proper way instead of in a hurry.

PPC/S4/12/3/9

5

Would it be possible to take this issue forward by way of subordinate legislation?

(2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to the Justice Committee to consider the issue raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.

Rùnaire a’ Chaibineit airson Cultair agus Cùisean an Taobh a-muigh Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs Fiona Hyslop MSP/BPA T/F: 0845 774 1741 E: scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuDavid Stewart MSP Convener Public Peititions Committee Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP

abcdefgh

___ Your ref: PE 1352 14 February 2012

In my letter of 13th October 2011, I undertook to update the Committee on progress with the new flagpole for the Saltire at Edinburgh Castle. I can now report that Historic Scotland have identified a site with which I am content. It offers a prominent location for the Saltire when seen from Princess Street and is also sited so that visitors to the Castle can take photographs showing themselves and the Saltire with views looking out over the Castle to Edinburgh and beyond. I have pleasure in enclosing a plan and photo-montage images showing the proposed flagpole as it would appear in action. Historic Scotland will now approach City of Edinburgh Council as planning authority, to ask if the flagpole requires planning permission. Should the Council reply in the affirmative, the process will be taken forward as for any other planning application. The flagpole would be installed after any necessary planning permission was granted. I shall, of course, write to you again once we have completed the necessary processes.

FIONA HYSLOP

St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG Taigh Naomh Anndrais, Rathad Regent, Dùn Èideann EH1 3DG www.scotland.gov.uk

abcde abc a

Rock & Shrubs

Wal

l & F

ence

Dou

ble

Wal

l

ICSV

WFL

Grass

131.7

BOOKSHOPGrass

131.8

130.6

131.

2

134.0

134.8

130.2

Stone Paving

120.1

Stone

P

P

PP

Ston

e

P

Paving

Paving

Cobbles

P

Cobbles

ST. MARGARET'S

Grass

Cobbles

131.2

Cobbles

Shrubs

Cobbles

Rock & Shrubs

Stone Paving

Rocks & Shrubs129.9

Wall & Fence

Path

134.2

134.9

Stone PavingP

Ston

e

129.2

129.7

Wall

CHAPEL

WATER TANK

Top of Bankin

g

line

of fe

nce

Paving

Grass

EDINBURGH CASTLE

SALTIRE FLAGPOLEOPTIONS

SK-002

David Storrar

David Nicol

As Shown

November 2011

PREFERRED LOCATION FOR FLAGPOLE (SCALE 1:200) VIEW FROM PRINCES STREET/THE MOUND

VIEW FROM SCOTTISH NATIONAL WAR MEMORIALVIEW FROM NEAR ONE O'CLOCK GUN