Official Report 670KB pdf
Taxi Trade (PE1856)
Under agenda item 2, we have five continued petitions to consider, the first of which is PE1856, lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite the union. The petition calls on the Parliament to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support to taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-emission standards and implementation dates.
Transport Scotland has confirmed that a meeting was initiated and facilitated by Glasgow City Council with Unite, the Energy Saving Trust and Transport Scotland. Colleagues will remember that we held an evidence session with representatives from the Scottish Taxi Federation in relation to the issues raised in this petition and, I think, another one that we had at the same time.
Glasgow City Council’s recent written submission states that it received 776 applications for a temporary exemption to the enforcement of the low-emission zone. All 776 requests were granted. In short, all taxi operators who applied received the requested exemption. In February this year, conditions were agreed for those who may require an extension beyond the agreed year. Glasgow City Council granted 225 extensions to the exemption and notes that it will continue to show flexibility to operators who are making efforts towards compliance, should that be required.
In relation to the issues that we discussed, I think that a reasonably pragmatic approach was secured. In light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
In light of the evidence and the collaboration between Glasgow City Council and the taxi trade, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government outlined a number of funding options available to support drivers in the taxi trade; that grace periods where the LEZ restrictions are in place but penalties are not applied have been implemented in Glasgow and could be applied by other local authorities if they wish to do so; that Glasgow City Council has developed a mechanism for eligible taxi operators to receive a temporary exemption to the LEZ in order to provide more time to comply; and that Transport Scotland has been engaging with Unite the union to discuss issues pertaining to the taxi trade, particularly in relation to the LEZ.
Unless members have any alternative or additional suggestions, are we content to close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Pat Rafferty and Unite and I hope that the action and the pragmatic approach that have been taken offer the taxi trade in Glasgow the comfort and support that it requires.
Looked-after Young People (Aftercare) (PE1958)
The second of our continued petitions is PE1958, on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The committee has taken considerable interest in the petition during this session of Parliament. It was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling—who I note is with us in the public gallery again, along with colleagues—on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, again on the basis again of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.
We last considered the petition on 22 November last year, at which time we heard from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise and agreed to follow that up by writing to the minister and to the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum. We have subsequently received a response from the Scottish Government referencing the support that is in place to support care-experienced people and the on-going collaboration with The Promise Scotland and other stakeholders to improve the package of support that is available to care-experienced young people.
The Scottish Government’s response also restates its commitment to introduce the proposed Promise bill by the end of the current parliamentary session. Members will have noted that a consultation is now under way, aimed at ensuring that young people who are leaving care and moving into adulthood have the right scaffolding of support available to ensure that they thrive. The Scottish Government consultation will remain open until next Thursday, which is 3 October.
The Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum response sets out its support for the aspirations of the petition, including the removal of arbitrary age criteria, and highlights the focus of the 100 days of listening on identifying solutions to ensure delivery of the Promise for all those who move on from care.
We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, the first of which responds to the detailed information that the Scottish Government provided. That submission raises further concerns about the varying levels of current support being provided to young people who leave care across Scotland. Jasmin has also included a practical list of suggestions for improving this scaffold of support that is available to people who are moving on through care or from care. In her most recent submission, Jasmin provides an overview of the themes that were raised during the 100 days of listening, which in her view reaffirm the need for the action that is called for in the petition.
We have expressed considerable interest in the petition and taken evidence on it, and the Government now indicates that it is taking action on the petition. The question for the committee is what more we think we can achieve in the time that is left to us in this session, which, of course, is now more limited. We had previously considered a parliamentary debate, but it is open to members to consider whether we have enough of an argument for that, given the Government’s response.
Considering the Government’s response and the commitment to a Promise bill before the end of the parliamentary session, I wonder whether the committee could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is currently consulting on the change required to ensure that young people leaving care and moving into adulthood have the right scaffolding support available to meet their needs; and that it has committed to introducing a Promise bill before the end of the current parliamentary session. In closing the petition, the committee could highlight to the petitioner that, if that is not achieved by the end of the parliamentary session, they can bring a new petition in the next parliamentary session.
The difficulty that we have is that the Government is making plain that it proposes to bring forward the legislation before the end of the session, which is the aim of the petition.
Mr Ewing, do you have any thoughts?
I do not think that there is much more that we can do. We have already made pretty clear our view that the current situation is arbitrary and basically impossible to support. The abrupt cessation of care at a random age must be arbitrary and, therefore, given the Scottish Government’s statement of intention, it is now up to it to deliver. Should it fail to do so or should there be feet dragging, I would certainly hope that the matter will come before the committee again in the form of a new petition.
Yes. Are there any other comments? Are colleagues agreed? I think that that is the position we are in. The Government has made various commitments as to what it plans to do, but it has set the timeline as being the end of the parliamentary session, which limits our ability to progress things, given that it has said and will continue to say that that is its intention. However, if we find that that is not happening, there will be a new petitions committee sitting here at the start of the next session and any fresh petition, of course, can refer to the current one and the work that was done. I hope that we will have achieved the ambitions of the petition but, if we have not, a fresh petition could be raised at that time.
I am not comfortable with that, but I am not sure, given our ability to act, that there is any more that I can positively see us doing at this stage.
I think that you are right, convener. However, in closing the petition, perhaps we could write to the minister indicating our strong view that there is now a duty on the Government to bring forward the legislation as quickly as possible. It is not that complicated so, basically, the Government should get on with it. If we sent that message very clearly, there is a written record for the petitioner and those who have an interest in the issue. It is a very serious topic. We have given a clear steer as a committee of Parliament that we think that this should happen quickly.
Are colleagues content for us to write to the minister on the basis that we have considered the petition afresh and come reluctantly to the view that there is no more that the committee can do, but that is in the light of the specific commitments that we have received from the Scottish Government and the committee’s unanimous view that those commitments should be fulfilled during this session of Parliament?
What are the chances of asking for a parliamentary debate as well, as you mentioned?
I am not sure what that would achieve at the moment. The Government will say that that is what it intends to do, so that is the difficulty. There is no debate about the substance of the issue. If we were in a dispute and we were advocating a course of action that the Government was rejecting, there would be the basis for us to argue that case in the Parliament. However, we are not arguing against the Government; we are supporting what the Government wants to do, but we want it to do it. I am not sure that that gives us the basis, with the limited amount of debating chamber time that there is, to construct a narrative that would justify having a debate.
Are colleagues content that we write to the minister on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling and the others who have been involved in the petition. Their focus and the evidence that they gave us persuaded the committee of the case. In closing the petition, we will write to the minister in the terms that we have suggested to ensure that the commitment that we have received is fulfilled. Given the limited time that we now have in this parliamentary session, we will emphasise in writing again to the petitioner that, if that does not happen, as part of the legacy from this session to the next, we hope that a fresh petition can be raised with reference to the work that was done.
Are colleagues content to act on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (Funded Places for Scottish Ballet Dancers) (PE1982)
PE1982, which was lodged by Gary McKay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding that is provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland to enable more places to be made available to Scottish students pursuing ballet at that level. We previously considered the petition on 23 September 2023.
The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland’s written submission—which is much more substantial than the one that was provided the first time around, with which the committee was less than impressed—provides detail about its approach to data collection and dissemination. The submission emphasises that Scottish applicants do not compete for places with applicants from the rest of the United Kingdom or with international students. The submissions states that Scottish applicants
“are viewed as an entirely separate category and audition only in a pool consisting of other Scottish applicants.”
09:45We have received a further submission from the petitioner, who continues to be concerned about the ability of Scottish students to secure places. He believes that there are other criteria that are not entirely consistent with rejection notices that say that the applicant has not reached the right standard, because some people who have received such notices have, apparently, been accepted at ballet schools elsewhere, particularly the Central School of Ballet in London. The slight difficulty is that different schools will have different criteria, so it is a bit subjective.
The Royal Conservatoire’s more substantive response, which committee members have before them, goes into a lot more detail and satisfies my disappointment about its previous submission. However, I emphasise to the Royal Conservatoire and the committee that we want Scottish students to get the best possible opportunities from national institutions in Scotland.
Mr Ewing, do you wish to make any comments?
I agree that the Royal Conservatoire’s response is much more detailed. To be fair, it has responded to many of the points that you raised in the previous meeting. In practical terms, with reluctance, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not decide how many funded places individual universities should make available for eligible students in subjects that are not controlled subjects. The Scottish Government and Scottish ministers are unable to intervene in internal institutional matters. It is for the university to decide which courses it offers and how many funded places are available for each course. In making that recommendation, I am conscious of the Scottish Government’s limited scope to do what the petitioner wishes.
Having said all that, I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioner’s cause. Some years ago, one of my constituents had virtually the same concern. It seems to me that the Royal Conservatoire should look very carefully at its processes to ensure that children and young people from Scotland are given the opportunity to pursue that specialist education and training.
Although the table shows that the numbers of applicants from Scotland who accept places are perhaps greater than I had realised, they are, nonetheless, still very small. There were six in 2023, but there were only three in 2022, so we are talking about very small numbers. The issue is not going to go away, so I wanted to put that on the record. I hope that the Royal Conservatoire will agree that we have been reasonable in considering its case, but we are still slightly uneasy about the apparent paucity of places available for Scottish students in a Scottish institution.
I think that Mr Ewing sums up well the feelings of the committee. We appreciate the depth of the Royal Conservatoire’s response, but it would be useful to use the word “uneasy”—which is the word that Mr Ewing used—in any final letter that we send to the Royal Conservatoire. Is it the committee’s view that, in the light of everything that we have received, we should close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
A fresh petition could be lodged within a year. Is that right, or is it six months?
It is 12 months.
I imagine that the petitioner and others who have an interest will consider the matter each year, so it is possible that, if matters deteriorate or do not improve, the petitioner and others who have a similar concern could bring the issue back to the Parliament in the light of the decisions that the Royal Conservatoire makes this year. That might focus minds a little bit.
That is reasonable. We have agreed to close the petition on that basis. We will send a letter to the Royal Conservatoire explaining that we appreciated the depth of its response, which allowed the committee to close the petition. Nonetheless, we will say that there is still unease about the relatively low number of Scottish students and that we hope that it will continue to review the situation and encourage the best possible talent to apply from within Scotland, with the entry criteria being satisfied, so that more Scottish students can be accommodated.
Braille Food Labelling (PE1997)
PE1997, which was lodged by Fiona McDonald on behalf of Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce new legal requirements on retailers to provide Braille labelling on food products detailing the name of the item and its use-by or sell-by date.
We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 22 November. We agreed to write to the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—which is more commonly known as DEFRA—and to Food Standards Scotland. The latter has told us that it is
“looking to use all available relevant science, evidence and research to inform our thinking on the matter”.
Food Standards Scotland’s response highlights that no timescale has been set to carry out that work but that it will continue to discuss issues relating to Braille food labelling on a UK basis, in line with the common framework for food composition, standards and labelling. It says that it will continue to keep in touch with the petitioner as its plans develop.
In its response to the committee, DEFRA states that there are
“no immediate plans to initiate a public consultation on ... the introduction of mandatory braille labelling on food products.”
It notes that factors such as
“practical viability of braille labelling on a diverse range of packaging formats, and the costs and effectiveness of the use of braille labelling relative to that of using different methods”
would have to be considered before a public consultation was launched.
We have subsequently received two submissions from the petitioner, who has raised concerns that “current practices fall short” of UK standards for food labelling and is seeking clarification on how compliance with existing standards is monitored.
We were interested in the petition when we first heard about it, and we have had quite interesting and comprehensive responses from the organisations and bodies to which we wrote. How do members think we should proceed?
Considering the evidence that the committee has received, I think that we should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that Food Standards Scotland intends to build further evidence on and knowledge of the practicalities and costs before developing potential options for Braille food labelling. As part of that work, it will discuss issues on a UK basis through the common framework for food composition, standards and labelling.
In closing the petition, we could highlight to the petitioner that they can bring back a petition in a year’s time if they are not happy with the results. Given that there is a UK-wide approach to food labelling, the petitioner might wish to consider raising the issue through the UK Parliament’s petition system.
As there are no other suggestions from colleagues, is the committee content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
I emphasise that this will be an on-going issue. Although there was an acceptance of the issues that have been raised, the responses that we received were not exactly a call to action at this stage, albeit that there was an indicative suggestion that action might follow at some point. The issue could well be considered afresh in the next parliamentary session.
Forestry and Land Scotland (Car Parking Charges) (PE2042)
The final continued petition—PE2042—which was lodged by Undine Achilles-Day on behalf of Taynuilt community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish car parking charges at all Forestry and Land Scotland sites to promote access to forests and green spaces across Scotland.
The petition was previously considered at our meeting on 22 November. We agreed to seek more information from Forestry and Land Scotland, and I am pleased to note that we received a response from it that sets out the rationale for car parking charges at specific sites. The response provides details of the revenue that is received from the charges and of the management costs of maintaining its trails and car parks. The response states that the management of trails and car parks costs Forestry and Land Scotland £5.8 million annually, whereas the income that it receives from car parks is about £1 million.
We have a detailed submission with interesting information about the costs and the sums that are raised. Do any colleagues wish to comment or make suggestions on how to proceed?
Mr Ewing, you looked as though you were bursting to say something, or were you just bursting to say something but thinking better of it?
I do not think that “bursting” is the word that I would use. I think that Mr Torrance was planning to say something.
As somebody who uses forestry car parks quite a lot in Aviemore and other places, I know that there are additional pressures as a result of the numbers of people who are turning up to the beautiful locations and trails. We know that £5.8 million is spent on repairing or restoring the car parks, but they bring in only £1 million in revenue.
I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that car parking charges have been in place at popular Forestry and Land Scotland sites for more than 20 years. The decision to increase the number of Forestry and Land Scotland sites where car parking charges apply followed the Scottish Government’s challenge to public bodies to actively seek to increase income from visitors in order to offset the increasing costs of managing visitor pressures. Abolishing parking charges at Forestry and Land Scotland sites would have a substantial impact on its finances. Forestry and Land Scotland highlights that the cost of managing trails and car parks is considerably more than the income that it receives from parking charges and that two thirds of its car parks will remain free for use by the public.
If only the same dedication was shown to filling potholes in our roads.
I agree.
We considered a petition on that subject at our previous meeting, and I wrote to the minister—or, at least, I wrote to somebody—with Mr Ewing’s suggestion about how funds could usefully be transferred from elsewhere.
Does Mr Torrance’s proposal meet the acceptance of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
New Petitions