{"links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions.json?page=27","first":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions.json","last":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions.json?page=28","next":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions.json?page=28","prev":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions.json?page=26"},"data":[{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1778","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1778.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Review the Scottish Landlords Register scheme","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the effectiveness of the Scottish Landlords Register scheme. \n","background_information":"It is my view that the Scottish Landlords Register scheme is not fit for purpose.\n\nThere are three deeply concerning issues to the Scottish Landlord Register and the Scottish Government’s general guidance for Local Authorities to administer and manage the Private Landlord Registration Scheme, ‘Registration of Private Landlords : Guidance for Local Authorities’, (published 9th October 2009), which I believe leaves the entire scheme open to abuse, and therefore not fit for purpose.\n\nFirstly: Contrary to what is set out in The Scottish Landlord Register that when a prospective or renewal Landlord applies for a Landlord Registration, other than it is brought to the relevant Authorities attention, there will be literally no scrutinisation as to who that person is and no investigation to determine if they are a 'fit and proper person' to hold a Landlords Registration, therefore relying solely on the Applicant to be honest in what information they may decided to disclose and no matter what the persons background or history they will be virtually certain to be granted a Registration..........Conclusion, no vetting, no scrutinisation, no checks whatsoever, no deterrent to comply, in effect no regulation.........not fit for purpose!\n\nSecondly: Contrary to what is set out in The Scottish Governments Guide for Private Landlords, regarding a Landlords responsibilities and legal obligations in respect of gas, electricity, carbon monoxide and other safety requirements that apertain to their rental property.........there are no checks carried out by any relevant Authority, other than if it has been brought to their attention.........Conclusion, no deterrent to comply, in effect no regulation.........not fit for purpose!\n\nThirdly: It is stated and emphasised within The Scottish Governmenet-Registration of Private Landlords : Guidance For Local Authorities 9th October 2009, \"Ministers are clear that registration should be a 'light touch' process. It is recognised that the majority of Landlords do provide a good service and that many might leave the market if regulation is perceived as too onerous or expensive\" (emphasis added).\n\nHowever, it is extremely worrying and concerning that it is possible for Local Authorities to take their own interpretation of the 'light touch' process to the extreme in order to accommodate either incorrect or non registered Landlords, which then allows them to continue letting property on a long term basis without a legally required Landlord Registration .............Conclusion, this undermines the entire Scottish Landlords Register Scheme, as the interpretation of the 'light touch' process appears to be non specific and is free from any accountability, this in turn, openly allows the Authorities to stretch it as far as it deems fit.......wide open to abuse and therefore no deterrent........not fit for purpose!\n\nIn conclusion and in my opinion, the basis of The Scottish Landlord Register is very sound, however, there appears to be far too many loopholes that allow both rogue landlords and Local Authorities to undermine its purpose and its very existence. I believe an urgent review is required in order to examine and consider the serious issues and loopholes which I have raised in the above and if any of them are found to be valid I would request that the necessary steps be taken in order to tighten them up. I truly believe this would be to the benefit of The Scottish Landlord Register Scheme and would without doubt help drive up the standards of the Private Rented Sector.\n","petitioner":"David Findleton","status":"closed","signature_count":33,"created_at":"2019-12-12T11:14:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-18T12:18:30.999Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-12-12T11:00:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2019-12-12T11:00:00.000Z","closed_at":"2025-03-11T00:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"David Findleton","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1758","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1758.json"},"attributes":{"title":"End greyhound racing In Scotland","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to put an end to greyhound racing in Scotland. \n","background_information":"Greyhound racing is legal in just 8 countries in the world in 2019. Only two remain now in our country, namely Shawfield Stadium in Rutherglen and Thornton Greyhound Stadium in Kirkcaldy (this is a flapping course – i.e. unlicensed). \n\nIn August 2019 the remaining licensed track in Glasgow reduced its activity to a single night of racing per week through lack of dogs to make up a race card on a second night. Thornton aims to race twice weekly, but again often reports that a race night will not proceed due to lack of dogs. Evidently racing greyhound numbers are at their lowest in Scotland, therefore a ban at this time would place the smallest possible burden on rescue organisations to ensure that if implemented in a phased manner, all dogs currently racing in the country currently can be rehomed responsibly. We feel that the time is now for the Scottish government to put legislation in place that would make greyhound racing illegal in Scotland. This would see the closure of the last two greyhound tracks in Scotland and prevent the opening of any further tracks.\n\nUltimately, we need legislative change to ban racing in our country, to tackle the high number of injuries, deaths and positive drug tests seen in this industry, and to reflect the lack of public support for this unsavoury use of animals for human entertainment and gambling profit. \n\nThe regulatory body for greyhound racing the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) has been required to publish their injury and death statistics annually since 2017. In 2018 the GBGB introduced a “Greyhound Commitment”, aiming to improve welfare and reduce injuries. Despite this, according to the GBGB’s own Injury/Retirement data for 2018, across the UK just short of 5000 dogs were injured, an increase on the previous year. The figures also state that over 2000 dogs died or been killed in the racing industry in 2017 and 2018. \n\nThe GBGB have also reported nine positive drug tests in dogs at Shawfield in Glasgow in 2018 alone, as reported in various issues of their own Greyhound Calendar publication. Information published by the GBGB demonstrates that there have continued to be positive drug tests with Class A drugs into 2019. These drug tests showed dogs were drugged with cocaine and methamphetamine amongst other drugs. In reality the rates of drugging are likely much higher as only around 3% of dog runs are tested. \n\nThere were once over 20 licensed tracks in Scotland and now only one remains (Shawfield). We have now been protesting outside Shawfield Stadium in Rutherglen for the last two years and more recently have held demonstrations at Thornton Greyhound track in Fife. \n\nThere is a declining support and appetite for this exploitative use of dogs for entertainment. Changing animal welfare legislation is key to ensure the closure of the last greyhound tracks in the country, but also to ensure that no further tracks could be opened in future. \n\nScotland has an opportunity to lead the way by banning the racing of greyhounds in the name of entertainment.\n","petitioner":"Gill Docherty  on behalf of Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation","status":"closed","signature_count":30081,"created_at":"2019-09-11T09:25:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-18T15:27:24.035Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-09-11T09:25:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2019-09-11T09:25:00.000Z","closed_at":"2026-02-18T15:27:24.023Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Gill Docherty  on behalf of Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1750","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1750.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Independent Monitoring of Satellite tags fitted to raptors","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce independent monitoring of satellite tags fitted to raptor species, to assist the police and courts in potential wildlife crime cases and to provide data transparency.\n","background_information":"The fitting of satellite tags to raptors today has moved away from conservation, exclusively, to include potential detection of wildlife crime.\n\nDespite possibly hundreds of birds being tagged (Scottish Government is attempting to establish oversight on how many there are), no prosecutions for potential wildlife crimes have ever been brought on the basis of satellite tag data as there has been an insufficient evidence base to do so.\n\nIf satellite tags were monitored by government or government-approved agencies/bodies, Police would have instant data access and an independent resource to interpret complex tag information so it can be of use to investigators in live cases. It would have, at its disposal, timely, independent, expert information.\n\nIndependent information, rather than owner or third party data, would provide transparency and end mistrust amongst stakeholders. It has the potential to offer Scottish Government and the Scottish public greater clarity on the extent of raptor crime occurring today in Scotland.\n\n**Present Problems:**\n\nThere is little uniformity when it comes to the type of tags operational today. Many types offer different functionality. Many tags signal, for example, when there is enough solar power. These signals, in some cases, can be hours apart. When it comes to how tags are fitted, there are human error considerations. Similarly, some tag types may be more reliable than others. Even then, seemingly foolproof technology can fail. There have been a number of publicised cases where birds were given up as lost, their tag no longer signalling, only to be found years later.\n\nGiven the many variables, having access to an independent analyst or team of analysts to interpret the data, and any other considerations, could help Police when trying to ascertain whether crimes have been committed. Wildlife crime is one of Scottish Government and Police Scotland’s top priorities.\n\nHowever, Police Scotland themselves have admitted to Ministers in Parliament that bringing cases on the back of satellite tag information can be challenging. \n\nIn response to a question raised by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee on March 12th 2019, with regard to whether the tags were 100 percent reliable, Police Scotland), said: \n\n“There is still a margin of failure. Some tags are out in the extremes for a long time, they have issues and they fail…From an investigator’s point of view, it is often difficult to hang your hat on a tag’s disappearance definitely being the result of persecution. There is no doubt that that will be the case on some occasions, but differentiating between tag failure and persecution is a real challenge.”\n\nAddressing the same points about investigative challenges, Police Scotland said: “In the past six months to a year, there have been instances of birds seeming to disappear then to reappear due to issues with the tags. That is always a challenge for us.\n\n“On the recording of crime, we need to be absolutely certain that a crime has taken place- as opposed to just considering that, in all probability, a crime has taken place- before we can record the incident as a crime.”\n\n**The role of owners and/or third parties:** \n\nAt present, if a tag fitted to a raptor stops signalling, Police are informed through the tag owner, or a third party monitoring that data for the owner. Police must then obtain the data. Police can be given data at different moments in a live investigation. As it is the property of the entity owning the tag, there is no obligation upon the owner to give data to the Police necessarily in a format or timescale which they might find most beneficial.\n\nBodies or individuals fitting tags to raptors, as data owners, may have reasons for doing so beyond, exclusively, conservation. It is not uncommon for tag owners to use data to build political or campaign cases through the media.\n\nWhilst it is possible that these public interpretations may be correct, there can be no accountable way of establishing this with certainty.\n\nIn the high profile disappearance of Fred the Eagle, which elicited Ministerial comment, tag owners advanced their interpretations of the case through campaign videos and media statements. Police Scotland are yet to establish criminality in that case.\n\nLack of independent monitoring of tag data means incidents, such as that of Fred, are contested in the public sphere, increasing mistrust amongst stakeholders. Accusations which would not hold in a court of law can be made in public without the scrutiny or accountability which would be required by a legal process. No cases have had the required evidential basis to bring a criminal case.\n\n**Precedent:**\n\nIt would not be unusual for government to seek independent expertise in collating data on wildlife crime.\n\nScience and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), a division of the Scottish Government Agriculture and Rural Economy Directorate currently administer the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, investigating suspected poisoning of animals. These investigations inform Scotland’s annual official Wildlife Crime reports and hotspot maps. SASA’s independence and level of expertise is acknowledged and its work- and conclusions- are trusted by stakeholders. This is an example of an independent body which could monitor and analyse data for government.\n\nAn opportunity exists for satellite tag cases, in future, to be brought within the standard crime recording processes which govern all other wildlife crime reporting in Scotland, if there was independent monitoring of data.\n\n**In Summary:**\n\nIf the petition was successful Police Scotland would have immediate access to independently verified data, helping them investigate potential crimes.Police would not have to obtain the data from owners or third parties, who may have objectives in how they utilise the data.\n\nTag Data would be transparent. Police Scotland already benefits from this type of transparent resource, provided by SASA, in other areas of wildlife crime investigation. This verified information enables Scottish Government to produce official wildlife crime reports annually.\n\nDamaging mistrust between stakeholders would be reduced and evidence and due process would take the place of public accusation.\n","petitioner":"Alex Hogg on behalf of Scottish Gamekeepers Association","status":"closed","signature_count":1729,"created_at":"2019-08-14T14:07:00.000Z","updated_at":"2022-07-13T12:27:26.734Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-14T14:07:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2019-08-14T14:07:00.000Z","closed_at":"2022-07-13T12:27:26.732Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Alex Hogg on behalf of Scottish Gamekeepers Association","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1747","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1747.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Adequate funding to support children with additional support needs in all Scottish Schools","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide adequate funding to support children with additional support needs in all Scottish Schools (Primary, Secondary and Special).\n","background_information":"The Scottish Government want children with Additional Support Needs (ASN) to be included in mainstream education more than ever. Whilst this is to be encouraged, it is certainly not suitable for all children with ASN and indeed not for any without the required support and staffing in place. \n\nWe do not doubt that part of this \"inclusion plan\" is actually to do with saving money as placements at Special Schools are costly with a much higher staff to pupil ratio. The presumption of mainstream has not been sufficiently funded. Its implementation by many councils is damaging to very young children with complex needs.\n\n**Children with Additional Support Needs** \n\nStatistics gathered from the Pupil Census’ show: \n\n2012 ASN Pupils in Primary 62,546, Secondary 48,434, Special 6,976 \n\n2018 ASN Pupils in Primary 101,530, Secondary 90,554, Special 6,823\n\nA rise of 62% in Primary, 87% in Secondary and interestingly a reduction of 2% in Special School.\n\nIt is unclear if these figures will include the many children who are on part-time timetables, children who are being utterly failed by the system that cannot support them in a full time programme. These figures also may not include children who are currently not in the education system at all as a suitable placement cannot be found for them.\n\nThe falling numbers in Special Schools reflect the massive growth in children with ASN in the mainstream environment and also the hugely limited places in – and closure of some – special schools. Some parents find the only option is to move their children to private schools to ensure they are getting the support required. This comes at a great cost to parents/carers wellbeing in addition to the child and legal costs to the council in already dwindling budgets. Staffing in Special Schools is also changing, with specialised Learning Support staff being replaced with PSAs to save money. Whilst the PSA role is crucial, in this environment where children with the most complex physical and behavioural needs are placed, specialised support is vital to the success of their education.\n\n**Pupil Support Assistants (PSAs)** \n\nPSA numbers have reduced, in real terms, in all local authorities. Just recently the City of Edinburgh Council initially refused to consider 250 applications for pupil support in 2019-20. Following some negative press articles, a halt on further cuts and a review process was promised. However, the initial decision that 250 children whose needs were not even being considered was shocking, and no doubt the reconsideration was only due to the bad press received.\n\nWe previously obtained statistics relating to City of Edinburgh Primary Schools and from 2014 pupils with ASN had risen by 25% but PSAs in Edinburgh Primary Schools had only increased by 16.5% since 2014-5. So we can clearly see that funding has not increased in proportion to the rapidly rising number of pupils requiring additional support.\n\n**Education throughout Scotland needs adequate and ring-fenced funding specific to additional support for learning to be able to effectively cope with rising numbers of children with identified needs.**\n\nGetting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) states that education:\n\nIs child-focused - It ensures the child or young person – and their family – is at the centre of decision-making and the support available to them.\n\nIs based on an understanding of the wellbeing of a child - It looks at a child or young person’s overall wellbeing – how safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included they are – so that the right support can be offered at the right time.\n\nIs based on tackling needs early - It aims to ensure needs are identified as early as possible to avoid bigger concern.\n\nTo quote from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 “Your education authority must provide your child with “adequate and efficient” additional support so that they are able to benefit fully from their education.” The local authorities do not have the budgets to offer anywhere near the correct level of support and so cannot meet the objectives of GIRFEC or the Education Act.\n\nWith the inadequate funding, families compete against each other for support. There is simply not enough to go around. This is a battle every academic year and one that should not have to be fought. With the numbers of children with ASN attending mainstream rapidly rising, these children may receive lots of support there but this is to the detriment of other children at the mainstream school who require less support (but who still have additional support needs). There are children being failed daily, not because the school staff don’t want to help, but because there are simply not the human resources. The PSA role was originally brought in to be of assistance to the teacher and the whole class. With the gap of Pupils with ASN to ASL Staff widening, the PSAs available for the rest of the class is limited and potentially non-existent. PSAs would also not be able to support the teacher as per the original intention. The effect is a negative one on the whole school.\n\nWe feel the role of the PSA is not now what it was planned to be when first introduced. PSAs in mainstream schools are dealing with children with the most complex needs and challenging behaviours, carrying out tasks set by professionals such as Occupational Therapists, Speech Therapists, Psychologists etc. Additionally, there are so many PSAs on temporary contracts, which means high turnover of staff. This is not ideal for any of the children involved, where routine and consistency is a major factor to successful learning. We need to be able to provide permanent posts with salaries that reflect the skills and importance of this role, to attract and retain more quality staff to these posts.\n\nIn special schools there has also not been a relative increase in staffing and resources, and some of the special schools therapy rooms are now used as additional classrooms, so it is difficult for therapies to take place in the schools.\n\nThere has been much in the media recently with serious concerns regarding the Mental Health of young people and also the immense stress that teachers are constantly being put under by having to support children with a wide variety of additional needs. With the figures for Autism alone standing at 1 in 100 children affected, there is an argument that nearly every school needs a special unit, adequately staffed with professionals such as Occupational Therapy, Educational Psychologists, and Pupil Support Assistants. There are nowhere near enough language units attached to mainstream schools, and again with the most in need taking these places, those who would still require this option are unable to access them. There really is no such thing as mainstream anymore. It is a complex mix of children from all backgrounds with all abilities.\n\nWe urge you to see the future picture here: to reduce the strain on our teachers, allow our ASN pupils the support they deserve, allow all the children to reach their full potential and reduce the impact and cost to our future Health and Social Care services by acting now to provide the necessary support for our future generation. \n","petitioner":"Alison Thomson","status":"closed","signature_count":12528,"created_at":"2019-08-05T14:00:00.000Z","updated_at":"2024-09-26T07:53:08.886Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-05T14:00:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2019-08-05T14:00:00.000Z","closed_at":"2024-09-24T23:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Alison Thomson","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1743","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1743.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Amend the law to protect the rights of pre-1989 Scottish Secure Tenants","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to prevent disproportionate rent increases being set for Scottish Secure Tenants.\n","background_information":"**This petition is raised by Govan Community Council and Central Govan Tenants’ and Residents’ Association.**\n\nIn 2016, a number of pre-1989 Housing Association tenants in Govan, previously known as Scottish Secure Tenants, appealed their rent increases to the Rent Assessment Committee (now the Housing and Property Chamber). Their rents were increased disproportionately by between 35 and 60 per cent for the three-year period of the review. These tenants are generally elderly and the increases have, in a number of cases, caused considerable hardship. \n\nThe members of the assessment panel determined what they claimed were comparable rents by conducting online research to identify the rents that were being asked for by private landlords across the City of Glasgow. One of the tenants who was entitled to legal aid appealed to the Court of Session who found that this procedure was 'erroneous in law' and 'fundamentally flawed' and upheld his appeal (2017 Court of Session appeal decision in the case of Mr James Wright v Elderpark Housing Association before Lord Drummond Young).\n\nThe Housing and Property Chamber was asked by the other tenants to review their rent increases in light of this judgement but declined to do so. These rents now stand as local comparables for further rent assessments and in one case of appeal in 2018, the Housing and Property Chamber used one of these rents to impose a 95 per cent rent increase. There is therefore every likelihood that as further rents come up for review over the coming period they also will be at risk of disproportionate increases. All pre-1989 Scottish Secure Tenants across Scotland are therefore at risk. In at least one case an existing tenant has had to relinquish their tenancy as a result.\n\nThere are currently around 1,000 of these tenancies remaining.\n\nSection 48 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 states:\n\nDetermination of fair rent.\n\n(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part of this Act what rent is or would be a fair rent under a regulated tenancy of a dwelling-house, it shall be the duty of the rent officer or, as the case may be, of the First-tier Tribunal, subject to the provisions of this section, to have regard to all the circumstances (other than personal circumstances), and in particular to apply their knowledge and experience of current rents of comparable property in the area, as well as having regard to the age, character and locality of the dwelling-house in question and to its state of repair and, if any furniture is provided for use under the tenancy, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture.\n\n(2) For the purposes of determination it shall be assumed that the number of persons seeking to become tenants of similar dwelling-houses in the locality on the terms (other than those relating to rent) of the regulated tenancy is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in the locality which are available for letting on such terms.\n\nWe believe the legal basis on which the determinations were made is flawed and tenants are being prejudiced as a result. This was rectified for one tenant following the court of session appeal but not for others. The injustice therefore continues.\n\nWe propose that the wording in Section 48 subsection (1) be amended from “rents of comparable property in the area\" to ‘rents of comparable social housing in the immediate area’.\n\nWe also believe that the small number of tenants whose rents were determined by the method condemned as 'erroneous in law' should be given the right to re-assessment. \n","petitioner":"John Foster on behalf of Govan Community Council and others","status":"closed","signature_count":99,"created_at":"2019-08-05T13:52:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-18T12:18:57.876Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-08-05T13:51:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2019-08-05T13:51:00.000Z","closed_at":"2025-03-11T00:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"John Foster on behalf of Govan Community Council and others","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1723","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1723.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Essential tremor treatment in Scotland","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focus ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have this condition.\r\n","background_information":"I have essential tremor and have been to hell and back for the past 62 years. The effects of essential tremor can have a serious impact on a person’s life, with lack of understanding and awareness of the condition leading to ineffective treatment but also bullying. I want to prevent any child or adult going through verbal and physical abuse like i did.\r\n\r\nThere are over 4000 people in Scotland with essential tremor. The main treatment at the moment is brain surgery or deep brain stimulation (DBS) which some people with the condition do not want to endure. DBS is expensive. The cost to the NHS in Scotland is approximately £30,000. The cost of a focus ultrasound scanner is approximately £10,000. The focus scanner is also a much less invasive procedure.\r\n\r\nThe introduction of a focus ultrasound scanner together with an awareness raising campaign of essential tremor could help Scotland take the lead in looking at innovative, more effective treatments for the condition.\r\n","petitioner":"Mary Ramsay","status":"closed","signature_count":824,"created_at":"2019-05-23T09:49:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-08T16:21:34.379Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2019-05-23T09:49:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2019-05-23T09:49:00.000Z","closed_at":"2025-11-26T00:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Mary Ramsay","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1692","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1692.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Inquiry into the human rights impact of GIRFEC policy and data processing","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to initiate an independent public inquiry into the impact on human rights of the routine gathering and sharing of citizens’ personal information on which its Getting It Right For Every Child (GIRFEC) policy relies. \n","background_information":"The GIRFEC policy, under which unlawful information gathering and sharing had already become embedded across the public and third sectors, was legislated for in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, despite numerous expert representations that it was not in accordance with overarching data protection and human rights legislation. Much of the debate focused on the compulsory ‘named person’ scheme within Part 4 of the legislation and on the innocuous job title rather than the legally problematic job description which mandated routine data collection and sharing by and with multiple agencies without notification or consent of the ‘data subjects’ (children, family members and associated third parties).\n\nThe legislation was subject to challenge in the courts, with the UK Supreme Court ruling that the information-sharing provisions within Part 4 of the 2014 Act (on which the GIRFEC policy, named person scheme and wellbeing agenda all rely) were “incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the ECHR because they were not “in accordance with the law” as that article requires” and “may in practice result in disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information.” \n\nFollowing this ruling, Deputy First Minister John Swinney made a statement to the Parliament which reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to imposing a ‘named person’ on every child and family, assuring service providers that current information-sharing policies were in accordance with the law, despite official government documents contradicting this contention. \n\nMr Swinney also committed to a three-month “intense engagement” in order to gather information to inform the Scottish Government’s actions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s definitive interpretation of the law. However, we would question the extent to which the organisations engaged by the Scottish Government fully reflected the range of views on these matters or focussed on organisations who were supportive, in principle, of the ‘wellbeing’ agenda and compulsory named person scheme underpinned by GIRFEC and the CfE.\n\nIn his statement, Mr Swinney stated that “Any sharing of personal information that takes place now or in the future must be done in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. A local authority or health board can nominate a person as the ‘Named Person’ for a particular child, and to arrange for that person to be responsible within the local authority or health board for the provision of services to that child. Organisations can, within the framework of the existing law, continue to deliver or engage with existing or developing ‘named person’ services.” He went on: “So my message to local authorities and health boards is a clear one – please continue to develop and deliver a named person service in your area, to make the benefits of the service available to every child who needs it.” \n\nIt was not explicitly acknowledged that local authorities and health boards had already been developing and delivering named person ‘services’ under GIRFEC, whereby children’s, family members’ and third parties’ personal (often sensitive) information was being shared without consent or notification between myriad agencies, including Police Scotland, third sector bodies and private service providers - all contrary to the law as confirmed by the highest UK court. What’s more, many families were unaware of the roll-out of the scheme, let alone the existence of any single point of contact in so-called ‘trial’ areas.\n\nRecords obtained via FOI requests and GIRFEC board minutes document that the Scottish Government’s GIRFEC team ‘cascaded’ new advice (essentially a unilateral re-interpretation of the reserved UK Data Protection Act 1998) via community planning partnerships a year before the 2014 Act was passed, and more than three years before its information-sharing provisions were due to come into force. In striking down the pertinent provisions of the 2014 Act, the Supreme Court upheld the arguments that lowering the threshold for non-consensual processing of personal and third party data from ‘risk of significant harm’ to risk of (an undefined, subjective notion of) wellbeing was not in accordance with overarching human rights and data protection laws. The court ruling simultaneously rendered the prematurely-issued 2013 guidance unlawful as it clearly constituted an interference with Article 8 rights, but the government failed to issue revised advice to stop the data misuse on which its GIRFEC policy and named person scheme is founded. There has been no acknowledgement of wrongdoing by any of those responsible, let alone action to get information governance right. \n\nThe Scottish Parliament lacks the power to legislate a lower consent threshold for data processing and, no matter how laudable and legitimate its aim, the improvement of ‘wellbeing’ is not one of the exemptions set out in Article 8(2) of the ECHR which are concerned with protecting vital interests. The UK government’s so-called ‘snoopers’ charter’ has been dealt a similar blow by the courts since its allegedly benevolent aims may not be pursued by means which breach Convention rights.\n\nRecords obtained via subject access requests have proved that parents, children, young people and associated third parties have had their privacy rights routinely infringed by service providers over several years under the auspices of the GIRFEC wellbeing agenda. Children and adults alike have experienced, and continue to experience, distress, fear, humiliation and harm as a direct result of data misuse by service providers, yet no one has been held to account and there has been no effective or affordable access to justice for those who have been adversely affected. \n\nAn unintended consequence of past and ongoing unlawful data collection, as well as its sharing, has been a breakdown in trust, leading families to disengage from conventional services and rely predominantly on informal peer support and advice networks. The fact that privacy-breaching 'anticipatory' guidance has been the basis for training service providers for nearly five years - and continues to be referenced and applied by councils, NHS boards and other agencies - is considered by families to be nothing short of a national scandal. \n\nThe Children and Young People (Information Sharing) Bill was introduced in 2017 following the Scottish Government’s “intense engagement” with selected groups, who are mostly in receipt of public funding. Written representations were then considered by the Education and Skills Committee, which proceeded to invite oral evidence from a small number of respondents from September to November 2017. \n\nAn accompanying draft Code of Practice on Information Sharing had been provided “to demonstrate how the power to make a binding Code contained in primary legislation could work to address issues raised in the UK Supreme Court judgment”. Mr Swinney said the Scottish Government would not consult on a non-illustrative code until after both the UK Data Protection Bill and the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) Bill had been passed. The Committee concluded that it would not be able to reach a conclusion on the Bill until it was able to consider the draft Code. Consideration of the Bill will, therefore, proceed at a later date. \n\nThe Scottish Government is now setting up an ‘expert panel’ “to guide and oversee the drafting of the code in a way that would garner the support and confidence of the sector as a whole”, while no effort has been made to address ultra vires policy issues. \n\nThe Education and Skills Committee has also questioned Mr Swinney about government officials’ engagement with stakeholders before they gave oral evidence, noting that some had “altered their position on the Bill as a direct result of these discussions.”\n\nWe believe that the public interest demands a thorough investigation of the circumstances which led to the breaching of citizens’ human rights via the GIRFEC policy, including the premature implementation of the named person scheme (as legislated for in 2014) and non-consensual inter-agency information-sharing which has facilitated arbitrary interference in children and families’ private lives. \n","petitioner":"Lesley Scott and Alison Preuss on behalf of Tymes Trust and Scottish Home Education Forum","status":"closed","signature_count":1488,"created_at":"2018-05-03T13:51:00.000Z","updated_at":"2022-11-07T16:25:24.043Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2018-05-03T13:51:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2018-05-03T13:51:00.000Z","closed_at":"2022-11-07T16:25:24.042Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Lesley Scott and Alison Preuss on behalf of Tymes Trust and Scottish Home Education Forum","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1676","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1676.json"},"attributes":{"title":"The Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012, particularly with regard to i) the cadastral map and ii) the provision of supporting materials such as death certificates. \n","background_information":"I have submitted this petition after experiencing difficulties in seeking reinstatement of correct boundary on title deeds. My experience has led me to believe that there are two major flaws in the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012.\n\nSection 11 of the Act covers provision of detail to be set out on the cadastral map, in relation to unit boundaries and otherwise depicting registered rights in such a manner as the Registers of Scotland Keeper considers appropriate. The cadastral map must be based on the base map being the Ordnance map, as chosen by RoS. To avoid any inaccuracies or questions about the validity of updated Ordnance Survey maps received by the RoS, I would like it to be mandatory for the RoS to check their validity against the current cadastral map. Where maps are in dispute the RoS should arrange a re-survey (to be conducted by OS or RoS) of the property physical boundaries, and proprietors should have the opportunity to question/approve the revised cadastral plan/title deed plan. I should note that OS do not delineate boundaries on their maps, a solid line denotes a man-made feature greater than 0.3m high (eg. fences walls and hedges), and a dotted line for a feature less than 0.3m (eg. a kerb). From information provided by the Scottish Government, I became aware that there are hundreds of maptiles updated each week. This could cover a lot of property owners, and I consider that the Act needs to be reviewed to ensure that other property owners do not experience similar difficulties to those that I faced.\n\nAdditionally, where RoS receive a request to revise a title deed plan to indicate the demise of a proprietor this should in my opinion be supported by a death certificate, original or certified copy. As inaccurate information was provided by my solicitor to RoS it led to my Title Deed error, which meant that I had to seek legal assistance for RoS to correct this. Provision of a death certificate negates the possibility of error by a proprietor or solicitor and, in extreme cases, could prevent fraud. My understanding is that the submission of supporting material such as death certificates was commonplace under previous legislation that supported land registration, and the removal of that requirement from the current legislation has cretaed a major flaw in the process.\n\nIt is essential that all information on revising title deeds is accurate and that there are suitable and robust checking mechanisms in place. \n","petitioner":"Tony Rosser","status":"closed","signature_count":119,"created_at":"2017-09-10T08:52:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-01-09T14:48:37.914Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-10-09T13:54:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2017-10-09T13:54:00.000Z","closed_at":"2025-01-09T14:45:50.047Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Tony Rosser","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1668","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1668.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Improving literacy standards in schools through research-informed reading instruction","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to i) provide national guidance, support, and professional learning for teachers in research-informed reading instruction, specifically systematic synthetic phonics; ii) ensure teacher training institutions train new teachers in research-informed reading instruction, specifically systematic synthetic phonics.\n","background_information":"Literacy standards have been falling in Scotland since 2006. This downturn is evidenced by previous Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rounds, but is also confirmed in our own Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy data, as well as the recent teacher judgement data. Scotland’s OECD rank went from 6th in 2000 to 23rd in 2015 in reading, and we are now behind both England and Northern Ireland.\n\nWhen it comes to literacy, and in particular beginning reading instruction, other countries are getting better faster than we are. We are ‘doing what we’ve always done’, instead of ensuring our classroom practice and pedagogy is informed by the latest international research. Teachers in the main are unaware of this research because:\n\n* current advice given by Education Scotland through the benchmarks, the experiences and outcomes and the Primary One Literacy Assessment and Action Resource (POLAAR) do not draw on current international research on reading and reinforce the status quo\n\n* reading practice in primary schools is led by resources; any research used is a relic of the past (Multi-cueing, miscue analysis, running records, reading recovery, sight words and guessing, whole-language, old look and say reading books etc.)\n\n* new teachers are not trained in current, evidence-based reading pedagogy.\n\nThere is in fact a ‘teaching gap’. Teachers, through no fault of their own, lack the required pedagogical subject knowledge about the most effective way to teach reading, writing and spelling.\n\nI believe there is an obvious and logical solution to Scotland’s literacy woes. To improve reading and writing we must improve teaching and learning in the classroom. There is now ample, secure and compelling evidence available, which shows if children are taught to read, write and spell using a systematic synthetic phonics approach (as opposed to the current ‘mixed methods’ approach in Scottish schools) that the attainment gap and the gender gap can be closed.\n\nThree major international inquiries into the teaching of reading concluded that systematic phonics is the most effective way to teach children to read. (The National Reading Panel, 2000, USA; National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy, 2005, Australia; Independent review of the teaching of early reading, Final Report, Jim Rose, 2006, England.)\n\nBy providing national guidance, support, training and resources, teachers will be able to adapt their classroom practice accordingly to bring it line with research findings. I believe that adopting a systematic synthetic phonics approach for beginning readers would:\n\n* close the gap in the earliest stages of school, even / especially for those children who are considered disadvantaged or who have English as a second language\n\n* ensure all teachers have the professional subject knowledge to teach a child to read (write and spell) including children who may be experiencing difficulties at any school stage\n\n* enable us to aim for 100% of our children reading in Scotland. (It is only in 2-3% of cases where children will have profound difficulties that will mean this is not possible)\n\n* reduce the number of children being identified as dyslexic and those struggling with literacy\n\n* provide equity and a level playing field where every child can access learning, books and the curriculum.\n\nIf there are research-informed methods for the teaching of reading and basic literacy skills that can improve Scotland’s results and, more importantly, children’s lives, I believe we are morally and ethically obliged to explore them.\n","petitioner":"Anne Glennie","status":"closed","signature_count":282,"created_at":"2017-05-13T20:21:00.000Z","updated_at":"2022-11-29T16:01:02.802Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-06-28T10:45:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2017-06-28T10:45:00.000Z","closed_at":"2022-11-29T16:01:02.801Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Anne Glennie","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1662","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1662.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Improve Treatment for Patients with Lyme Disease and Associated Tick-borne Diseases","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve testing and treatment for Lyme Disease and associated tick-borne diseases by ensuring that medical professionals in Scotland are fully equipped to deal with the complexity of tick-borne infections, addressing the lack of reliability of tests, the full variety of species in Scotland, the presence of 'persister' bacteria which are difficult to eradicate, and the complexities caused by the presence of possibly multiple co-infections, and to complement this with a public awareness campaign.\n","background_information":"**Lyme Disease in Scotland**\n\nMany patients in Scotland are being failed by current medical practice regarding Lyme Disease (also known as borreliosis) and related tick-borne co-infections. \n\nIf the disease is caught early, patients recover with standard treatment. However, 10-20% of patients go on to develop a debilitating chronic condition referred to by some as Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome. Currently, many patients are then abandoned without further help, left to seek private help or self-medicate.\n\nOn average, 5% of ticks in Scotland are infected with borrelia. The number of cases of Lyme Disease in humans has increased in the last decade: in 1996 there were fewer than 30 new cases in Scotland; in 2015 there were around 220. However, GPs estimate that only 20-40% of cases are referred, and so the numbers are likely to be much higher. Analyses are very rough because the real figures are unknown.\n\nTests in donated blood have concluded that 4.2% of blood donors have positive borrelia serology. With the estimated 2015 mid-year population of Scotland standing at 5.373 million, that equates to 225,666 blood donors of Scotland having been infected. The number of infected people is likely to be higher as those who are ill are less likely to give blood. Not everyone who is infected has current symptoms.\n\nWe want to see significant improvements in treatment for Lyme Disease, particularly addressing the needs of those with chronic illness. \n\n**Improve and extend testing**\n\nThere are numerous issues with testing and diagnosis. Current practice is to rely on diagnostic tests, but these are unreliable. According to Lyme Disease Action, “there are no conclusive tests for Lyme Disease currently in routine use in the UK that will accurately diagnose Lyme Disease or distinguish from past infection”. The National Lyme Disease Reference Laboratory at Raigmore acknowledges that \"traditional testing is expensive, lacks sensitivity, cannot distinguish between current and past infection and cannot be used as a marker for treatment response\".\n\nWe wish to see guidelines produced which ensure doctors are aware of the lack of reliability of tests and the lack of markers of current infection, which provide clarity about the testing procedures for all tick-borne diseases, and which require all forms of borreliosis and emerging co-infections to be notifiable.\n\nCurrently there are no tests which cover all tick-borne infections found in Scotland. For example, there are at least two species of borrelia which are found in Scotland but not tested for. We want to see testing extended to cover all borrelia species found in Scotland. As some patients have no detectable antibodies, we wish tests to be introduced which do not rely on antibody response. Testing for co-infections should also be comprehensive and include multiple species of the common co-infections bartonella and babesia.\n\n**Improve treatment**\n\nThe current guidelines used for treatment in Scotland were developed in 2006 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). These guidelines have been removed from the US National Guidance Clearinghouse because they are considered out of date.\n\nRecent research has shown that the bacterium which causes Lyme Disease forms dormant ‘persister’ cells, which are known to evade antibiotics. Borrelia has been described as \"one of the most complex bacteria known to man\". Treatment protocols need to be modified to address the complexity of borrelia infection. \n\nCurrent treatment, based on these outdated IDSA guidelines, normally involves antibiotics for up to one month, but this regime does not acknowledge persistence of borrelia infection, or the presence of possibly multiple co-infections. Patients with continued symptoms should be followed up regularly and not abandoned as at present. Treatment, which could include IV, high dose, pulsed, combination or long-term antibiotics, should be extended for as long as symptoms persist. Also, until tick-borne diseases are clearly understood and up-to-date guidelines developed, where uncertainties exist doctors should be professionally supported in decisions they take to prescribe unlicensed medication to their patients.\n\nA Scottish vector-borne illness treatment centre should be established to deal with complex cases, involving a multi-disciplinary team of specialists in infectious diseases, immunotherapy, functional medicine and nutrition. This should be supported by full training of staff in the most up-to-date clinical methods for dealing with persistence and the associated complexities of co-infections, along with the provision of resources for research and development into the treatment of chronic tick-borne infections in Scotland.\n\n**Improve education**\n\nDoctors need to be taught to recognise a collection of symptoms of Lyme disease, many of which mimic other illnesses, irrespective of the presence of the characteristic rash or positive blood test. Education should be improved to ensure that consultants are fully up-to-date on the complexity and persistence of borrelia, including the added complexity when co-infections are involved. GPs and medical students also must be aware of the complexities of the illness, and the urgent need for prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment. \n\nEducation should extend to the public, so that they are aware of the dangers and have information on how to protect themselves. This can be achieved partly by landowners being required to display suitable warning notices at, for example, visitor centres and car parks.\n","petitioner":"Janey Cringean and Lorraine Murray on behalf of Tick-borne Illness Campaign Scotland","status":"closed","signature_count":1764,"created_at":"2017-04-16T16:23:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-06-18T08:18:06.542Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-05-17T09:45:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2017-05-17T09:45:00.000Z","closed_at":"2021-11-17T00:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Janey Cringean and Lorraine Murray on behalf of Tick-borne Illness Campaign Scotland","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1657","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1657.json"},"attributes":{"title":"A77 upgrade","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr Whitlett’s Roundabout south to the two ferry ports located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75. \n","background_information":"Background\n\nThe A77 is the main arterial route from the central belt to the south west of Scotland. On the way it also provides connections to a number of towns and villages. It also provides the road connection between our capital city Edinburgh via Glasgow to Northern Ireland’s capital city Belfast and the Republic of Ireland’s capital city Dublin beyond that. So from an economic perspective, as well as a cultural view point, the A77 is a strategic road, nationally and internationally.\n\nThe line of the road often reflects its design history harking back centuries to the days of coach and horses. From Edinburgh to the notorious Whitlett’s roundabout at Ayr the journey is relatively straight forward on motorway or dual carriageway. From this point south the road not only narrows to a single carriageway, it also passes through eight communities all with urban speed limits ranging from 40mph to 20mph. It has very few dedicated safe passing places to overtake slower moving vehicle types that use this road.\n\nWe as a country need to build on the investments already implemented in the area, such as the £77 million, spent on the A77 & A75 from 2008 (the A77 improvements being the Symington and Bogend Toll improvements relating to safety improvements and on sections of dual carriageway north of Ayr). The design work and planning of Maybole’s bypass that is scheduled to commence August 2018 is also included in this figure.\n\nExisting pressure on the road\n\n- The pulse of vehicle numbers associated with the HGV traffic coming off the ferries results in long convoyed queues in a platoon effect travelling along the road, making passing these vehicles dangerous. \n\n- There is a large proportion of tourist traffic, which is unfamiliar with the snaking, twisting nature of the road. \n\n- There is a mix of slow (agricultural vehicles) and fast-moving traffic (cars and motorcyclists), which can cause delays and lead to driver impatience in the form of rash and often near fatal errors of judgement. \n\n- In some places the road width does not allow two HGVs to safely pass each other without one giving way to the other. \n\n- The road width also does not allow road work to be carried out in a safe way without closing the road (eleven closures occurred for this reason in 2016/17), which results in lengthy diversion routes on even more unsuitable roads. \n\n- There is increased traffic travelling south via the A77 south of Ayr to get to the North Channel ferries operating out of Loch Ryan as a result of the withdrawal of the Troon to Larne ferry service.\n\nPotential benefits of an upgrade\n\nThe National Planning Framework Strategy Map unequivocally demonstrates the economic and social significance of both A77 and that of A75 to Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in equal measure. The local and national economy would benefit by being more accessible to tourists, commerce and improve the links between Scotland and Northern Ireland and its neighbour and EU country the Republic of Ireland. \n\nThe A77 Truck Road had nine road closures south of Whitlett’s roundabout at Ayr in 2016/17 alone due to road traffic incidents. If the road was wider and upgraded, then these closures would be less frequent, so the communities along the diversionary routes could be left without the thundering traffic disturbing their idyllic settings.\n\nThe bypasses and improvements we seek are not that dissimilar to the project benefits of the A737 Dalry bypass in that these upgrades it would serve to separate local from strategic traffic. This in turn would encourage improved economic & employment opportunities through better journey time reliability for both motorists and businesses along the length of the A77.\n\nAn independent study commissioned by South Ayrshire Council stated that the benefit to Scotland of events, such as the 145th Golf Open that was held at Royal Troon, was £110m as a whole. The world famous golf course and holiday complex at Turnberry owned by President Trump is being starved of such events due to the lack of investment in the road structure. The action called for in the petition could therefore have positive economic implications for Scotland as a whole.\n\nConclusion\n\nSouth West Scotland needs a fit for purpose road infrastructure in order to sustain and grow with the greater community of Scotland, the United Kingdom and within whatever relationship it has with Europe.\n\nThe A77 Action Group is not alone in holding these opinions, as many people use the A77 every single day for work, or for social and domestic purposes, and have supported this campaign. \n","petitioner":"Donald McHarrie on behalf of A77 Action Group","status":"closed","signature_count":3309,"created_at":"2017-04-24T17:55:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-04-28T12:28:42.854Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2017-05-08T14:00:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2017-05-08T14:00:00.000Z","closed_at":"2025-04-22T23:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Donald McHarrie on behalf of A77 Action Group","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1610","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1610.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Upgrade the A75","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 Euro-route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible.\n","background_information":"The A75 is not only the road to Stranraer and the ferry ports of Cairnryan but, as such, is also the road to Belfast, one of the UK's capital cities.\n\nDue to the current design of the road and previous fact, it is a road where many differing vehicle types are thrown together often at highly differential speeds. The volume of HGVs in convoy travelling east when the ferries dock combined with the 40mph limit for those vehicles causes very high level of congestion upon the A75, a volume of traffic that was never envisioned when the current road was designed.\n\nThrow in even slower moving agricultural vehicles, faster moving traffic, such as cars and motorcycles, and a large amount of tourist traffic unfamiliar with the vagaries of the A75, and it is easy to see how frustration can brew carelessness on the road. A change to dual carriageway would help negate the causes of this while also preventing a conflict between vehicles travelling east with those travelling west.\n\nFor the same reasons, the local economy would benefit by being more accessible to tourists, commerce and improved links with Northern Ireland and England. This is not to mention the benefits to the local populace in improved safety and reduced journey times, especially when there is more centralisation of health services to Dumfries resulting in journeys of up to 90 miles for some in the west of Dumfries & Galloway.\n\nI have come to these conclusions as a regular user of the A75 and I know for a fact that I am not alone in holding these opinions.\n","petitioner":"Matt Halliday","status":"closed","signature_count":2871,"created_at":"2016-05-31T18:20:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-04-28T12:28:19.533Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2016-05-31T20:15:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2016-05-31T20:15:00.000Z","closed_at":"2025-04-22T23:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Matt Halliday","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1548","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1548.json"},"attributes":{"title":"National Guidance on Restraint and Seclusion in Schools","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to \r\n\r\n1. Introduce National Guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in all schools; this guidance should support the principles of:\r\n    - Last resort - where it is deemed necessary, restraint should be the minimum required to deal with the agreed risk, for the minimum amount of time\r\n    - Appropriate supervision of the child at all times, including during “time out” or seclusion.\r\n    - Reducing the use of solitary exclusion and limiting the time it is used for (e.g. maximum time limits)\r\n    - No use of restraints that are cruel, humiliating, painful and unnecessary or not in line with trained techniques.\r\n    - Accountability of teaching and support staff for their actions; this should include recording every incident leading to the use of seclusion or restraint and monitoring of this by the local authority.\r\n    - Regular training for staff in how to avoid the use of restraint\r\n    - Where restraint is unavoidable training in appropriate restraint techniques by British Institute of Learning Disability accredited providers and no use of restraint by untrained staff.\r\n\r\n2. Appoint a specific agency (either Education Scotland or possibly the Care Inspectorate) to monitor the support and care given in non-educational areas including the evaluation of the use of restraint and seclusion of children with special needs in local authority, voluntary sector or private special schools.\r\n","background_information":"No national guidance on the use of seclusion and restraint for children in local authority day schools exists in Scotland. Such policies exist for some other groups of young people. For example, a policy exists for looked after children in the care of local authorities; however there currently is no government policy that provides protection for children with special needs who attend local authority education or care facilities on a daily basis.\r\n\r\nThis is a particularly acute problem for children with complex additional support needs who may attend either special or mainstream schools. A number of them have communicative behaviours that are unfamiliar to staff and without clear guidance then an inappropriate response may occur.\r\n\r\nOver the last 4 years, some parents in Scotland have become increasing concerned at what appears to be the inappropriate use of physical and other forms of restraint techniques at special schools attended by their children. Incidents have been reported in a number of areas.\r\n\r\nSuch incidents include prone restraint, inappropriate wheelchair restraint, and children being kept in seclusion with no monitoring of the length of time they spend alone / no risk assessment done of the effect this might have on them. On some occasions this is alleged to have resulted in injury and considerable distress for the children and young people involved in the incidents.\r\n\r\nSome of these incidents have been the subject of the investigation by the police. There have been both internal reports by Dundee City Council and a further commissioned independent report by Alistair F Marquis, MBE, BA, MEd, DipCollEd, FCollP i\r\n\r\nThese confirmed that a number of “the injuries sustained had been caused as a result of the restraint techniques used.”\r\n\r\nParents report that serious problems can occur in local authority schools that operate without such national guidance.\r\n\r\nLack of a clear and appropriate guidance prevents a consistent approach to recording and dealing with such incidents appropriately. It would appear that currently local authorities are under no obligation to have such a policy and currently there is no national guidance on how local councils should design such policies.\r\n\r\nThe emphasis in responding to behaviours that challenge must always be on prevention where appropriate based on a functional assessment that informs an active support plan delivered by adequately trained staff reflecting an underlying whole school approach. Physical restraint should always be the last resort to clearly define and identify best practice in the use of restraint, time out and seclusion with specific reference to schools. If this is not the case then it may be that local authorities who do not have adequate policies in place are breaching the government’s statutory duties under human rights legislation to promote and protect children and children with disabilities human rights.\r\n\r\nThe United Nations United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) requires that states (Article 16) ensure “guaranteed freedom from torture and from cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 15). If adequate policies and guidance are not in place in many Scottish Schools regarding whether staff can touch children, when such touch may constitute restraint and when such restraint may be required in order to exercise their duty of care or conversely constitute abuse then this would appear to represent a failure to guarantee such rights.\r\n\r\nThis example highlights the urgent need for national guidance on the appropriate use of seclusion and restraint in schools as well as robust recording procedures and regular staff training.\r\n\r\nENABLE Scotland’s position statement on the appropriate use of restraint and seclusion in schools could be a starting point for the development of new national guidance, along with the existing guidance ii for the appropriate use of restraint with looked after children in the care of local authorities and Mental Welfare Commission guidance iii on the appropriate use of restraint with adults with mental illness, learning disability and related conditions.\r\n\r\nThe British Institute of Learning Disability also has guidance available “BILD Code of Practice for minimising the use of restrictive physical interventions: planning, developing and delivering training.” However like all the other guidance and statements above, it is not mandatory.\r\n\r\nWe are calling on the Scottish Government to address this policy gap as a matter of urgency to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all school children.\r\n\r\nHowever to be effective guidance must be monitored and there is currently a gap in protection for some of the most vulnerable children and young people in Scotland. Whilst Education Scotland has a role in inspecting special schools, they do not have a specific role in looking at matters of care and dignity (beyond in an educational sense). So, for example, if there was a concern about children's toileting needs not being met, then this wouldn't fall under their remit.\r\n\r\nThere may be an assumption that the Care Inspectorate would pick this up, in fact, unless the school is a registered care provider, they would currently have not remit to become involved. Most local authority special schools are not registered with the Care Inspectorate.\r\n\r\nThis is a serious gap. Meaning even where guidance exists there is no clear way of ensuring its implementation. Subsequently there is no independent body with which to raise concerns about poor practice, neglect or abuse. This can be even more serious where such concerns are on about institution- wide practice where it is impossible to bypass line management in making complaints or concerns known.\r\n\r\ni The Marquis Report, http://www.everybodysjob.co.uk/documents/52bReportforFamilies.pdf\r\n\r\nii Holding Safely (The Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, 2005).\r\n\r\niii Rights, Risks and Limits to Freedom (Mental Welfare Commission, 2013).\r\n","petitioner":"Mrs Beth Morrison","status":"closed","signature_count":4670,"created_at":"2014-12-19T14:24:00.000Z","updated_at":"2022-11-07T16:25:06.880Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2015-01-06T17:00:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2015-01-06T17:00:00.000Z","closed_at":"2022-11-07T16:25:06.879Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Mrs Beth Morrison","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1517","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1517.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to:\n\n1. Suspend use of polypropylene Transvaginal Mesh (TVM) procedures; \n\n2. Initiate a Public Inquiry and/or comprehensive independent research to evaluate the safety of mesh devices using all evidence available, including that from across the world; \n\n3. Introduce mandatory reporting of all adverse incidents by health professionals; \n\n4. Set up a Scottish Transvaginal Mesh implant register with view to linking this up with national and international registers; \n\n5. Introduce fully Informed Consent with uniformity throughout Scotland’s Health Boards; and \n\n6. Write to the MHRA and ask that they reclassify TVM devices to heightened alert status to reflect ongoing concerns worldwide.\n","background_information":"The wholesale use of polypropylene mesh medical implants to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has been described as one of the biggest medical disasters of all time, with ongoing litigation in countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and the UK. Australian media report that mesh litigation could become the biggest class action in Australian legal history. In just two US courts there are 59,561 legal cases pending, including over 21,695 against Ethicon, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson – with thousands more throughout the US. In a number of US cases manufacturers have been ordered to pay millions of dollars in compensation.\n\nWith surgeons able to perform as many as six mesh operations compared to one using natural tissue, mesh has become the “gold standard” for treating stress urinary incontinence in NHS hospitals. However, while the majority of operations appear successful, the life-changing complications when mesh procedures go wrong can be devastating, leaving many women facing a life on, or fighting for, disability benefits and facing multiple operations.\n\nGlobally, tens of thousands of victims have suffered life-changing side effects, with many ending up in wheelchairs, enduring multiple organ trauma and extensive nerve damage. Mesh implants are meant to be permanent. They are designed to encourage tissue growth through and around the mesh structure. Surgeons warn attempts at removal can cause further nerve damage and liken it to “removing chewing gum from hair”. Yet many Scottish patients were unaware the mesh implants they were treated with are permanent. Many Scots victims have already been subjected to a dozen or more operations as surgeons battle to remove it from inside their bodies.\n\nOne of the main reasons our petition is asking for the immediate suspension of mesh procedures, to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, is the wildly differing ‘official’ figures charting how many patients have actually had the procedure and how many have had to undergo corrective surgeries.\n\nFigures relating to TVM implants obtained from NHS Information and Statistics Division (ISD) reveal that 2915 women have received mesh implants since 2007 while other data from the same ISD source shows inconsistency.\n\nHowever, figures from individual health boards, obtained through Freedom of Information requests, show three times as many women - over 10,700 - have had Transvaginal Mesh devices implanted. With no time limit on mesh going wrong, many women describe implants as a “ticking time bomb” inside them.\n\nOfficial figures for those suffering adverse effects or serious complications are also full of discrepancies. Initially the Cabinet Secretary Alex Neil reported that six ‘adverse incidents’ had been reported but Parliamentary Answer (S4W-18274) detailed that 101 women had devices partially or fully removed.\n\nHowever, information from individual health boards, obtained through FOI, shows that 328 women have had mesh removed. Because of the impending implications and the unacceptable discrepancies between ‘official’ figures, we are calling for the Scottish Government to suspend these procedures until such times as independent and comprehensive research and/or a public inquiry is undertaken and completed to give the true scale of the problem.\n\nAlex Neil has publicly stated that the current consent system “is not working” and that he wishes patients to be given all available information some time before they undertake any mesh procedure and that they should be offered alternatives. Until accurate data is available and there is uniformity throughout Scotland’s Health Boards we cannot achieve informed consent. Until we are able to provide patients with accurate data, we ask that mesh procedures are suspended.\n\nOne of the key factors in achieving accurate data is to ensure every doctor is compelled to report adverse incidents. At present, it is not mandatory for doctors to report such matters. Because of this, official figures state just six adverse incidents have been reported from Scotland. This glaring failure has allowed mesh manufacturers to continue to insist their products are safe, despite the hundreds or thousands of women suffering adverse incidents and complications worldwide. Anything less than mandatory reporting represents a failure by doctors in their duty of care.\n\nIt is documented that as long as accurate coding is used in theatre then the data would provide an accurate reflection of procedures undertaken but the use of operation codes are not specific enough to identify a particular mesh device or indeed specific organs in some operating procedures.\n\nTo monitor the safety of implants, along with mandatory reporting, we urge the Scottish Government to establish a register of devices detailing the patient, manufacturer, batch and serial numbers and when and where it was made and used. Currently, and unlike cars or electrical devices, there is no Scottish Register for TVM devices to follow up patient progress or recall devices if potential problems arise.\n","petitioner":"Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy on behalf of Scottish Mesh Survivors - \"Hear Our Voice\" campaign","status":"closed","signature_count":1745,"created_at":"2014-03-13T14:41:00.000Z","updated_at":"2021-09-28T13:23:20.957Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2014-03-21T14:46:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2014-03-21T14:46:00.000Z","closed_at":"2021-09-28T13:23:20.955Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy on behalf of Scottish Mesh Survivors - \"Hear Our Voice\" campaign","rejection":null,"topics":[]}},{"type":"petition","pe_number":"PE1490","links":{"self":"https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1490.json"},"attributes":{"title":"Control of wild goose numbers","summary":"Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the problems created by increasing populations of wild geese in the crofting areas as a matter of priority; reassess its decision to stop funding existing goose management programmes, and assign additional resources to Crop Protection and Adaptive Management programmes to ensure this threat to the future of crofting is averted.\n","background_information":"The Scottish Crofting Federation (SCF) is the only member-led organisation dedicated to promoting crofting and is the largest association of small-scale food producers in the UK. Its mission is to safeguard and promote the rights, livelihoods and culture of crofters and their communities.\n\nThe National Goose Management Review Group (NGMRG) was set up in May 2000 to implement the national policy framework and to advise Scottish Ministers on goose management in Scotland. Since then the wild goose populations have increased unchecked and are out of control.\n\nAsk any crofter in the inner or outer Hebrides what the bane of their lives is and they will say “geese”. Many believe geese to be the biggest single threat to the continuation of island crofting.\n\nCrofters’ complaints about the goose problem are not new but it is now reaching devastating proportions in Tiree, Islay and the Uists, and is fast becoming the same in the rest of the Western Isles, the Northern Isles and parts of the mainland – a significant proportion of the crofting counties.\n\nThe 1986 report of an independent evaluation of the Integrated Development Programme (IDP) said that, as a breeding bird the Greylag goose could be considered rare in British terms; it was estimated that there were around 700-800 breeding pairs in the UK, of which around 150 were breeding in the Outer Hebrides. At that time, North Uist crofters were seeking to control the spread of Greylag geese, an annual visitor, which they claimed were causing them substantial agricultural losses. Now the Uists are year-round home to more than 10,000 greylag geese and that population is growing. This is the same in Orkney; other areas dont have accurate numbers.\n\nYet despite these vast numbers, geese are still protected by law. Crofters are told they can shoot marauding deer on their crofts but not geese, except at certain times of the year and at the will of the landlord who has the shooting rights and dictates whether crofters can shoot or not. Crofters can't even sell wild goose meat. With the robust annual counts and the cooperation of all parties on the islands in supplying shot figures, there seems no reason to not change the law so that geese can be controlled year-round, decoys can be used in August and wild goose meat and products can be sold.\n\nCrofting agriculture is very important to the Uists, much of which is designated ‘High Nature Value’. But crops of cereal and grass are being ruined by the grazing and fouling of geese.\n\nSNH have an ‘Adaptive Management’ 4 year trial that controls goose numbers in the Uists but this alone will not reduce the population to manageable levels as it needs to work alongside a crop protection scheme. But cuts are likely to halt the good work. There was a review of existing goose management schemes in 2011 (most of the effected areas have no management schemes) which concluded that against the background of pressure on public expenditure, there would have to be substantive savings in the costs of goose management in Scotland. The report also concluded that control schemes for greylag geese were a lower priority than those for other species.\n\nIt is clear that if the Scottish Government do not provide more funding for effective initiatives it will not be possible to keep the flood at bay. We cannot afford to lose a year as we are not even keeping the population stable now. If we lose a year of the joint crop protection and adaptive management work, greylags will definitely threaten the growing of corn and, therefore, the raising of cattle on the Uists. And the picture is similar elsewhere in the crofting counties.\n\nBiodiversity is of course important, but the key to this is to safeguard the livelihoods of the people who live in the crofting areas; without them working the land the protection of biodiversity cannot happen. We need to continue protecting crops and we need to change the law regarding geese control and meat sales. There is a catastrophe unfolding and officialdom appears to have failed to recognise this and to take action. Crofters and their families are now the endangered ones. \n","petitioner":"Patrick Krause on behalf of Scottish Crofting Federation","status":"closed","signature_count":863,"created_at":"2013-04-18T20:15:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-17T09:42:10.247Z","rejected_at":null,"opened_at":"2013-07-16T09:30:00.000Z","under_consideration_at":"2013-07-16T09:30:00.000Z","closed_at":"2026-03-11T00:00:00.000Z","archived_at":null,"submitted_on_paper":false,"submitted_on":null,"creator_name":"Patrick Krause on behalf of Scottish Crofting Federation","rejection":null,"topics":[]}}]}