Official Report 585KB pdf
Item 2 is the consideration of continued petitions. I should start by offering apologies from two of our colleagues. David Torrance, the deputy convener, and Fergus Ewing are both unwell and not able to be with us. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party substitute is not available to be with us, either, so there are just three of us considering the petitions this morning. However, our colleagues have obviously received the papers and have had an opportunity to contribute any thinking that they might have to our deliberations.
Taxi Trade (PE1856)
Our first continued petition is PE1856, which was lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support for taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-emission standards and their implementation dates.
It was some time ago but, since our last consideration of the petition, we have received a written submission from Transport Scotland in response to our question about synchronising the roll-out of low-emission zones across Scotland, which taxi drivers were particularly concerned about. The submission states that local authorities are responsible for deciding the timing for introduction and enforcement. It states that LEZ enforcement began in Glasgow city centre on 1 June, which I think is well known by the public now, and that the council had introduced a grace period of one year for all and two years for residents within the zone. The council also developed a mechanism for taxi operators to apply for a temporary exemption beyond the June 2023 enforcement date.
In consequence, Transport Scotland is not minded to mandate a transition to electric vehicles at one point in time as an alternative to offering support with retrofitting. Its view is that it is for operators to decide how to meet the LEZ standards.
According to the submission, 250 taxis have now been retrofitted as a result of Government funding. It states that there are no plans to adapt LEZs beyond their current size or scope or to introduce new LEZs in other parts of Scotland.
Do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?
Could we write to Transport Scotland about having a department that recognises taxis as a form of public transport? We are not considering them as public transport and we are not giving taxi drivers the chance to speak.
We have put the petitioner in touch with Transport Scotland, but it would be useful to follow up. We want to support the petitioner in that objective, because it seems that taxis were the one form of public transport that was excluded from the formal process. We could write to ask how those conversations have gone—or whether they have gone at all yet—and what the outcome was.
We might also write to the petitioner. Now that the LEZ has been running since June, we could write to ask what the impact of it on Glasgow taxi drivers has proved to be in practice. That would be useful to know. Do members have any other suggestions?
It is important to hear from Glasgow City Council, because Transport Scotland has referenced it significantly with regard to how many applications have been received from taxi operators for a temporary exemption, how many exemptions have been granted, what criteria there are for receiving a temporary exemption to the LEZ and how long such exemptions will last.
I am happy to include that, as well.
It depends how long it takes the taxi drivers to get in touch with the council. They have to go back to get MOTs and other things done, and it could end up taking two or three months, so, if the exemption is only for a year, they have already lost three months.
That is a fair point. Are we content with following up, keeping the petition open and taking it forward with those further lines of inquiry?
Members indicated agreement.
High-caffeine Products (PE1919)
Our next continued petition, PE1919, which was lodged by Ted Gourley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under-18s for performance enhancement, due to the risk of serious harm.
We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and UK Athletics.
The Scottish Government responded in April saying that it intended to publish its analysis of the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people before the summer. It duly did so in May 2023, at which point the minister confirmed that the Government would not take forward mandatory measures in that area. The Scottish Government response states that it will consider commissioning further research into the effects of fast-release caffeine products on children and young people, which would be part of its wider considerations of public health research.
In the first of three submissions to the committee, the petitioner welcomed that news and drew our attention to a study that concluded that caffeinated chewing gum acutely increases central arterial stiffness and aortic blood pressure in young healthy men.
The UK Athletics response notes that, although caffeine is not a prohibited substance, it is on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s monitoring programme, which includes substances that it wishes to monitor to identify potential patterns of misuse in sport.
UK Athletics advocates a “food first” approach to nutrition and recommends that, if an athlete decides to take a supplement, they only use products that have been tested as part of the Informed Sport risk reduction programme. The petitioner has responded to that information concerned that a consistent approach is not being taken to child safeguarding and protection on the use of stimulants, particularly where fast-release caffeine gum has been handed out at licensed events. The petitioner has also raised concerns about how incidents involving the use of fast-release caffeine gum are recorded and reported by athletics bodies.
Therefore, we still have rather uncomfortable background information here. Do members have any comments or suggestions?
If the Government is going to be releasing something, can we ask whether there is a timeline for that?
We could write to the Government drawing its attention to the petitioner’s submissions in relation to the concerns about fast-release caffeine gum, and we could ask when it might consider that as part of its public health considerations, given that it is an on-going issue and that UK Athletics is concerned and is monitoring these matters, as well. Is the committee content with something along those lines?
Members indicated agreement.
Local Knowledge (Conservation Policy) (PE1966)
The third new petition is PE1966, which was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally recognise local knowledge and ensure that it is given full consideration alongside scientific knowledge throughout consultation, decision-making processes and in policy development, specifically within the conservation arena.
Members will recall that we were curious as to whether NatureScot would appoint a representative from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to its board. NatureScot’s recent submission explains that members are appointed by Scottish ministers through a regulated public appointments process and that members are appointed individually and not as representatives of organisations.
The Scottish Government’s submission outlines its approach to consultations, saying that consultations seeking public opinion may prioritise local knowledge, while those specifically requesting scientific evidence will be assessed based on their scientific validity. In response to that point, the petitioner feels that scientific knowledge is recognised for its merits while local knowledge is
“given no greater credence than that of public opinion.”
On issues of internet connectivity, the Scottish Government points to alternative methods of gathering evidence such as face-to-face events and notes that only basic internet access is required to use its consultation platform.
The petitioner argues that the importance of local knowledge is recognised by the convention on biodiversity and points to NatureScot research on indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, according to which local and experiential knowledge tends to be undervalued in decision making and should be included in governance structures.
There is a bit of a stalemate in the responses that we have received so far. Given everything that the petitioner has said, we could write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will revise or consider revising its consultation guidance to ensure that, at the very least, it is consistent with the convention on biodiversity. Is there anything else that we might suggest?
Is it worth following up with NatureScot, in the light of its recent report on indirect drivers of biodiversity loss? We could ask what action it intends to take on recommendations pertaining to local knowledge.
That would be useful. In addition, if it is the case that all members of the NatureScot board are appointed through a public appointments process, we might ask the Scottish Government what weight is given to local knowledge in the determination of any appointment that is made. Perhaps, in fact, that does not count and, therefore, the petitioner’s underlying concern about the absence of it might have some validity. Do we agree to keep the petition open and act accordingly?
Members indicated agreement.
People with Dementia (Council Tax Discounts) (PE1976)
The next petition is PE1976, which was lodged by Derek James Brown. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person is certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.
The Scottish Government’s recent submission acknowledges the differing approaches to the administration of council tax disregard and says that officials are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to encourage local authorities to adopt a common approach. Colleagues will remember that we established that it was quite different depending on where you lived in Scotland whether you got that benefit redress. The submission was sent in May and said that the COSLA leadership was scheduled to consider the proposal “in the coming weeks.”
According to Alzheimer Scotland, the Scottish ministers have the power, through secondary legislation, to amend or remove the statutory test that requires applicants for council tax discount who have severe mental impairment to be eligible for a qualifying state benefit. Alzheimer Scotland considers that the requirement is unnecessary and adds unfairness to the application process, particularly for individuals who have dementia. Alzheimer Scotland wants entitlement to a discount or exemption to be uniform across Scotland and wants guidance to be developed to ensure the fair application of the legislation.
The petitioner’s most recent written submission draws attention to his petition to the United Kingdom Parliament, as well as to a UK Government response that states that councils can apply discretionary council tax discounts or exemptions in circumstances where individuals with a severe mental impairment have not demonstrated entitlement to a qualifying benefit. There has been a move in that direction in the rest of the UK, where people obviously feel that the legislation allows that to take place. What might we further do, colleagues? Are there any suggestions?
Did the Government look into COSLA’s consideration? Did we have any correspondence regarding that?
We could write to the Government asking what the outcome of any of that was. That would be perfectly reasonable, particularly in relation to this point. Is there anything else that we could do?
As you said in a previous meeting, convener, there is still some way to go on the issue, and we do not have an adequate response. With Alzheimer Scotland’s recent written submission, it is worth following up with the Scottish Government about its intentions to amend or remove the legislative test requiring severely mentally impaired people to be eligible for a qualifying benefit to obtain a council tax disregard.
09:45
That would be reasonable. We could point out that it appears from the petitioner’s submission that the UK Government has indicated that it has moved in that direction—or, if it has not moved in that direction, it has clarified that it is possible for that to happen in the rest of the UK—and, therefore, the Scottish Government might want to consider following suit. Does the committee agree to keep the petition open and move forward on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Biological Fathers (Right to be Informed of Welfare Concerns) (PE1977)
The next petition is PE1977, which was lodged by Helen Duncan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the “National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2021” to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children.
We previously considered PE1977 at our meeting on 18 January—although it seems to be fresher in my mind than that; the year has gone in—when we agreed to seek views from a number of stakeholders.
We have received responses from Shared Parenting Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, The Promise Scotland, and CELCIS—Scotland’s Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection. Many of the responses highlight the need for discretion and flexibility in relation to informing parents about welfare concerns, and note that there are some circumstances in which an obligation to inform a father risks undermining efforts to protect the safety and wellbeing of the child or children.
Shared Parenting Scotland suggests that there is already an obligation on social work and other agencies to inform both parents of concerns about their children, and questions why that is not happening in practice.
According to CELCIS, existing legislation and guidance are sufficient to support best practice, and a more effective way to address the issues that are raised by the petition would be through improvements to workforce learning, knowledge and skills in this area.
In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions?
We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the “National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2021” sets out general principles on how practitioners should involve children and families in child protection processes, and the written evidence suggests that introducing an automatic requirement to inform biological fathers would remove flexibility and discretion from the child welfare process and could have the unintended consequence of putting the child at further risk.
I agree with that. Such a requirement could open up a lot of negative avenues.
We thank the petitioner for the PE1977. There appears to be national protection guidance in place, so we thank them for raising the issue with us. Obviously, it is open to the petitioner to lodge another petition later, if we feel that the matter is still not being acted upon.
Members indicated agreement.
Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (Funded Places for Scottish Ballet Dancers) (PE1982)
The next petition is PE1982, which has been lodged by Gary McKay. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding that is provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and to help to enable more places to be made available to Scottish students who pursue ballet at that level. This is about funding from the Scottish Government—the Scottish taxpayer—for Scottish ballet.
The committee has received a response from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, which begins by challenging the petitioner’s claim that there is a five-person cap on places for Scotland-domiciled dancers. The response explains that the figure 5 appears in data sets because standard rounding methodology has been used, whereby numbers have been rounded to the nearest five in order to avoid identifying individuals.
The conservatoire also challenges the petitioner’s view that its process for awarding places discriminates against Scottish applicants, and states that Scottish dancers who present for audition and who meet the required standard have been offered places.
The petitioner’s response highlights the subjective nature of auditions as a means of assessment and raises questions about five dancers who, he says, were rejected by the conservatoire despite having been offered places by a number of other dance schools.
I have to say that I found some of the responses that we have received quite intriguing. Do colleagues have any thoughts on the petition?
I am surprised to see that we have only five Scottish students in the years from 2009 to 2022. We should write to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland to find out the exact figure for how many Scottish students have received funding, and whether there is a cap. I know that the conservatoire is saying that there is no cap, but it is surprising that there are only five every year.
I am not clear about whether the rationale regarding the rounding to five or 10 is appropriate.
I have to say to the Royal Conservatoire that I think that its response is disappointing. I felt almost as though it was designed on the basis that if we read it we would not take much more interest in the petition and we would be fobbed off with what, to my mind, is a very generalised and not terribly constructive response.
As I said, this is about funding—as the petitioner points out—that comes from the Scottish taxpayer and the Scottish Government. I think that the response that the RCS has given almost validates the concerns of the petitioner. It might well be that, in due course, we will take evidence on the petition if we do not get something slightly more satisfactory by way of a written response. Of course, in consequence we will make our own recommendations to the Scottish Government in relation to Royal Conservatoire funding.
We will get back to the Royal Conservatoire, if members are content to do so. I found its argument to be odd. I presume that all the people within any aggregated number are receiving funding, so I am not quite sure what the confidentiality issue is. If everybody is getting it, who would we be naming in particular, in consequence? If that is an argument that the RCS wishes to maintain because it is bound by a protocol, at the very least it is perfectly possible for us to ask it how many Scotland-domiciled students in, say, the past five years aggregated, were offered places. That would allow sufficient anonymity for us to have a handle on the number who were involved and how many then took up the offer, in case there is variation in that respect.
We could ask how many applied for the funding as well.
Yes, we could do three things: ask how many people applied, ask how many were offered places and ask how many took them up, aggregated in five-year increments. We might highlight that we were a bit disappointed with the response, that we take the petition very seriously and that it might well be that we will consider taking evidence on PE1982, before we make recommendations to the Government in relation to funding matters. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
New Petitions