Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
First-time Buyers (Financial Support) (PE1827)
Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1827, on support for first time buyers in areas with higher house inflation. The petition, which was lodged by Chloe Bird, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the help-to-buy threshold to £250,000 and extend the deadline for the first home fund.
Members will recall that the committee agreed to seek views from the Scottish Government on all new petitions in advance, before they are formally considered. Despite repeated requests for the information, however, the Scottish Government has not been forthcoming with its views on the petition.
I found the material on the petition interesting, because there is always a balance to be struck between supporting first-time buyers and recognising the challenges that particular groups face. Many young people are unable to accumulate the capital to put down a deposit, even if they could afford to buy a house. There is a question about why the threshold was reduced in order to ensure that the support was more targeted, but there are also arguments in the other direction.
It is a shame that we have not heard from the Scottish Government on the petition, because work has clearly been done in the area over a long period, but there are questions about the extent to which the intervention supports first-time buyers. Do members have comments or suggestions for action?
It is an interesting petition and, as you say, convener, the information on it is quite eye-opening. I return to a comment that I made on the previous petition that we considered. We are in very difficult economic times and I think that the matter needs to be looked at again. We must extract some information and views from the Scottish Government. I think that we should write to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning to seek his views and ask whether he will take the action that is called for in the petition.
I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. I am father to young people who are on the threshold and are looking to buy their first home or somehow acquire the money for the deposit by saving it, and I know how jolly difficult it is. I certainly believe that we need to look deeper into the matter and I recommend that we write to the minister in the first instance.
I found the petition very interesting, too. I was interested to read the information in the paper by the Scottish Parliament information centre about how the help to buy started out and the threshold, how it was brought down, and the fact that we are now looking at affordable homes being the driver.
I agree that we should write to the minister to get the Scottish Government’s views on the petition. I read in the papers that, in England, there is a capped scheme based on different areas. I found that really interesting, because I come from a rural area where houses are infinitely more affordable than they are even in Inverness, but certainly in the bigger cities. A cap of even £200,000 would buy someone a pretty good house up here in Caithness, whereas they would not get as much for their money in the bigger cities, as we have seen. I wonder whether, in our letter, we could ask the Scottish Government whether it has considered doing different things for different areas.
This is a complicated and difficult area. Like Maurice Corry, I am involved in trying to sort out purchases for my family—for my daughter—and it is very difficult. We need to explore with the Government exactly what is available at present and any possible innovations that could be introduced, because the situation remains difficult.
If local variations could be brought in, as Gail Ross mentioned, that might be suitable. There are great differences between the north-east and the central belt and between rural and urban areas. Those need to be considered and we need to have information on them. We should write to the minister and try to get him to explore the options quite widely and give his views on them.
I fully support my colleagues’ suggestion that we write to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning to seek his views.
I agree that we should write in the terms that members have described.
The point that Gail Ross made is absolutely right. Even within urban areas, there can be huge discrepancies in property values. In some parts of Glasgow, £200,000 would not buy a two-bedroom flat. I am also interested in how the Government thinks about the balance of spending within support for first-time buyers. There is a point about young people not being able to buy a house and therefore renting, which means that they are in effect paying somebody else’s mortgage for them. There are also questions about where else money is spent on housing, such as on affordable housing for rent.
We will welcome the minister’s comments on the issue that the petitioner has flagged up, which is that access to support is not matching the price of properties in some parts of Scotland. We will look forward to a response from the minister in that regard.
Employment Support (Local Authority Boundaries) (PE1828)
PE1828, on improving opportunities for employment, which was lodged by Matthew Goundry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that people who use welfare-to-work agencies that are funded by Skills Development Scotland can access employment opportunities in any area of the country.
The Scottish Government explains in its submission that employability services that are delivered by local authorities are funded by those local authorities. As a result, they are available only to residents, and there is no obligation on local authorities to widen that scope. As the decision is one for local authorities, the Scottish Government has no jurisdiction, and it states that it is unable to intervene. In his written submission, the petitioner gives his view that he has been denied opportunities based on location, explaining that he needs access to advertised jobs.
I am not sure whether there is more that we can do, but I will be interested to hear members’ views. In my view, it is really not sufficient for the Scottish Government to say that this is a matter for local authorities, which it funds, and that there is nothing that it can do. There are clearly Scotland-wide organisations and initiatives, such as the youth job guarantee. I assume that the argument is that the services are best delivered locally. Perhaps the issue is more obvious in the central belt. For example, there is a metropolitan area around Glasgow, and people who are outside Glasgow but close to it might see opportunities that are delivered by Glasgow City Council as natural employment routes for them, with easy travel.
I find the petition interesting, but I am not sure to what extent the issue is something that we can do more about.
I find the petition interesting and really quite frustrating, because there is a note in it about the petitioner wanting to apply for a job six miles away but being barred from doing that for some reason. Where I come from, in Caithness, people travel miles to get to their work, so I find that bizarre, to say the least.
I also find it frustrating that local authorities do not have a mechanism to signpost people to other local authorities. There are big distances between local authorities and there are journeys of hundreds of miles just within Highland. However, people can live on the cusp of another local authority and be unable to access jobs that are just a couple of miles away. I do not understand why that should be.
For the first time in this committee, I am quite stuck as to where to go with the petition. I think that the petitioner has a valid point. As you said, convener, there are nationwide schemes, and where I live we certainly have voluntary websites that post jobs in other places. As the petitioner points out, a lot of people have been made redundant recently, and they could be looking for employment opportunities elsewhere in Scotland.
I really do not want to close the petition, but I think that we have come up against a wall. That is frustrating, because there probably are things that can be done. I will wait to hear what other members think. I think that the petition deserves more discussion, but I am stuck as to where we could take it.
11:45
Gail Ross has summed up my thoughts as well. Essentially, the Government has come back with what is, as opposed to what should be. We need to explore the what should be.
If job opportunities are to be restricted purely to the local authority areas that they are in, we will be doomed before we start. Over the next year, a lot of people will be in the position of needing to explore other avenues, and not only within Scotland—it could well be that they have to go elsewhere in the UK to find employment.
We need to explore the petition further. For me, closing it at this stage is not an option. We should go back to the Government and say, “If that’s your answer, what should this person do to obtain a job?” Are they to live off the state for the next year and a half, with universal credit? That would be unsatisfactory. We must not put off young people—or any people—who are seeking jobs, by limiting where they can obtain that employment.
As well as writing to the Government, we should perhaps also ask some other organisations what they believe the solution is.
I am very sympathetic to the petition. I believe that we should write to COSLA, because local authorities are given funding to create jobs in their areas, and a lot of that is done in areas of deprivation. The Scottish Government has already given us its views.
I would not like us to close the petition, but I do not know where we can take it. It would be interesting to hear local authorities’ views, because they create employment in their areas. I know that, if someone is a mile away from a boundary, it can be very difficult for them to take it, but I can see where the local authorities are coming from.
I am very interested in the petition. I think that the petitioner has raised a valuable point. I note Tom Mason’s comment that the local authorities should say what should be the case and how should they deal with the issue.
I am slightly staggered because, in my experience, when I was out of work, I got support from the jobcentres in my area and I was not restricted. In fact, they offered to fund me to go down south to a job interview in London. I cannot understand why the petitioner has been prevented from looking for a job. It may be that, at a desk level, somebody has not quite got the message, but I am staggered that that has happened.
We should also write to the Department for Work and Pensions and the jobcentres. We need to get some answers from them because, if that is happening, there is something wrong here. We need more joined-up thinking in local authorities, who should work across their borders. In my experience and that of my family, people that I know and constituents who have gone through this, I have never known anybody to be restricted in this way. Something is not right somewhere.
I also agree with David Torrance that we should write to COSLA.
My sense is that the petition is about a slightly different issue, which is how people are supported in terms of employability, training and preparation for access to work, and also how they are supported to apply for jobs. That work will target people who are further from the labour market and people who need a bit more support. I do not think that it is about the DWP; it is about employability agencies at the local level.
I am quite torn about the petition because, certainly in Glasgow, I like to see resources being targeted according to need. It is true that people can still apply for jobs. Part of the problem is that the Scottish Government’s response has been to say, “Well, that’s the way it is—it’s a matter for local authorities, so it’s not a matter for us”, yet it has agencies that fund and deliver a lot of the work. Tom Mason’s characterisation is the right one—that may be the case, but should it be?
I would like us to go back to the Scottish Government and ask it to reflect on our discussion, but also to write to COSLA about how things are managed in this area. Everyone has made the point that we are facing an employment crisis in the next period and it is essential that, where public money goes in, it is used to the very best effect.
On that point, convener, may I expand on what I said before? Skills Development Scotland offers some very good support and help, and I have witnessed that on several occasions in relation to young people in my region. Just to confirm, I note that, in the case that I talked about, support for travel to job opportunities was given by the DWP and jobcentres. In relation to training and skills development, services are in place, but SDS is a national body, so the Scottish Government has responsibility for it, and I think that the Scottish Government has some questions to answer.
I think that there is recognition that, in these times, we want to make sure that we are asking the right questions about people’s ability to access employment opportunities. There will be rules for reasons, but I think that we as a committee are looking for reassurance, particularly because we are in unchartered waters and people are facing really quite frightening circumstances and feeling a great sense of fragility in their employment.
We agree to write to Scottish Government and to COSLA to reflect the discussion we have had.
Intensive Care Wards (Designated Visitors) (PE1829)
The next new petition is PE1829, on allowing a designated visitor into intensive care wards. The petition, which was lodged by Tracy Phillips, calls on the Scottish Government to allow a designated carer or family member into intensive care wards to visit, support and care for their loved ones.
In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport explained that hospital visiting restrictions were put in place in response to the coronavirus outbreak, but patients could receive visitors from 13 July. The cabinet secretary went on to state that additional visiting restrictions have been reimposed in areas that have had increases in cases, but essential visits have always been permitted. That covers situations such as
“A parent accompanying a child or a birth partner supporting a woman during hospital visits.
• When someone has reached the end of their life.
• When people have a mental health issue such as dementia, autism or a learning disability, and not seeing a loved one would cause distress.”
The cabinet secretary further explained that
“guidance makes it clear that other people who are in attendance to support the needs of the person in hospital, such as a carer/supporter/personal assistant, should not be counted as an additional visitor.”
Since the publication of our meeting papers, the petitioner has provided a written submission, which was circulated to members ahead of our meeting. In her submission, she explained that her sister has, sadly, passed away since the publication of the petition. She described how difficult it is when loved ones cannot visit patients who are in an intensive care unit for both the loved ones and—more important—the patients. She also explained the positive impact that face-to-face visits had on her sister in making her happy and allowing her to make clear her wishes.
The committee as a whole expresses our condolences to the petitioner. We recognise how difficult and personal the situation has been to her and her family, and we can only imagine the impact that it has had on them.
The petitioner has highlighted a really important issue that all too many of us are aware of in these very difficult times.
The issue is very important, and my condolences go to the petitioner. It must be a very sad time for her.
We need to explore the issue a bit further. Writing to NHS Scotland about how consistently the guidance is being applied is important. That would establish exactly what it believes the guidance is and deal with any misguided perceptions in order to ensure that the matter is dealt with in a timely and sensible manner. We certainly cannot continue in the way that we are, which comes through in the news in various places. It is important to write to the NHS.
I agree with Tom Mason. We should write to NHS Scotland to ask how consistently the guidance on visiting is being applied in our hospitals. I do not think that I can add anything else to that.
I agree with my colleagues Tom Mason and David Torrance. We should write to NHS Scotland and find out how the guidance is being applied and whether it is being applied consistently throughout the care network.
I agree with that course of action and have nothing further to add, apart from my sincere thanks to the petitioner. I echo the convener’s comments.
We recognise that there is an issue and that it has touched a lot of people. The issue is not just the guidance on visiting, but how consistently it is being applied. We agree to write to NHS Scotland about that. I wonder whether, given the circumstances that we are in and even if the guidance says one thing, people at the local level are risk averse as a consequence of the publicity around the issue. How local care settings are given the confidence to apply the guidance might be an issue. I think that we want to take forward that issue.
I again record our thanks to the petitioner.
Hospitality Venues (Background Music) (PE1831)
PE1831 is on ending the ban on background music. The petition, which was lodged by Michael Grieve, calls on the Scottish Government to end the ban on background music in hospitality venues.
The Scottish Government has advised that an expert advisory group is taking forward the task of looking at how guidance can be developed for the hospitality sector for the safe management of low-level background sound. That work is on-going, and the Scottish Government will provide further updates in due course.
Since the publication of our papers, the petitioner has provided a written submission, which was provided to members ahead of our meeting. That submission highlights the results of a report that was prepared in response to the publication of the statutory guidance. The petitioner has stated that that report reflects
“the results of other relevant published studies and”
provides
“a clear indication that well-managed background amplified audio can be safely reintroduced to hospitality settings without increasing the risk of significantly increased vocal effort, or breaching physical distancing requirements.”
I am interested in what other members think about the petition. It is clear that the Scottish Government is doing a bit of work on the issue, but it worries me that that work is very slow and that an expert advisory group will keep looking forward. Where I live, we are not going to hospitality settings at the moment, and we know how badly they have been affected. I have been told anecdotally by people who work in the sector that having no music or background sound means that, in order to avoid being heard, people lean into each other more and are in closer contact with each other. I have also been told that that does not make things quieter, that there is still a lot of noise, and that it is a different kind of noise.
I recognise that an expert advisory group is looking at the issue, but I have not seen evidence that shows that the approach is effective. Maybe we could get that. I am torn on whether we can realistically do anything more about the issue, because it is being considered elsewhere, but I am concerned by the pace at which the Scottish Government is working on it.
12:00
The petitioner’s phrase “well-managed” is key. Can it be guaranteed that the sound would be well managed in those circumstances?
The Scottish Government is working on the issue. An expert advisory group is developing guidance for the sector for the safe management of low-level background noise. I know that it has been a wee bit slow to report, but I am quite happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is doing work in the area and there will be a report back.
As David Torrance said and the convener has alluded to, this is a difficult petition. I am torn between two ships. The expert advisory group’s work has been delayed by the coronavirus constraints and various restriction levels in areas and, obviously, it has not been able to proceed at pace as it uses discretion. However, I am keen to see the outcome of that work. Maybe the committee could put some pressure on the Government to increase that pace or get the work back on to the rails again. I would want an assurance about that in closing the petition.
To be clear, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that we will write to the Scottish Government about the pace of the advisory group’s work and ensure that we get confirmation of that to develop guidance for the sector for the safe management of low-level background noise.
The petitioner has quite rightly said:
“Music is vital to mental health and wellbeing”.
Somebody who goes into a place on their own might just want to listen to music while they are having a meal or a drink such as coffee, rather than communicate with other people. As I have said, I would like assurances from the Scottish Government if we are to close the petition.
I was really interested in the additional evidence that we received after we received our papers. The study raises quite a lot of questions in my mind. The background music is different in different places; it can be quite easy listening, or it can tend to be a little louder. If the Scottish Government brought that back in through regulations, how loud would it be allowed to be? There are a lot of different things to consider, and I think that the working group is looking at all those things.
I, too, am conflicted. I love music, and I love listening to it in different settings and environments, but the action has been taken for a reason. We have never had to do that before, so it is really difficult to know what the right thing to do is. I am glad that I am not the person who is making the decisions, but I trust that the expert group is looking at all those things. The work could possibly be done a little bit quicker.
Although I am really sympathetic to the point that the petitioner has made, I am happy enough to close the petition and to agree that we should write to the Scottish Government to reiterate all the things that we have discussed and that the petitioner has brought to our attention.
I agree with Maurice Corry and Gail Ross. We should close the petition, but we need information about whether the scope of the—[Inaudible.]—and that it will be done in a reasonably timely manner to get some fairly early answers. We should close the petition but get assurances on progress.
My own feeling is that we should close the petition but highlight to the Scottish Government how much evidence matters in this regard and the impact on the hospitality sector of not being able to have background music. Someone whom I know who works in the sector said to me that going for a meal with no music and hearing only the waiters and serving staff scraping about in the background is a very different experience. People in the hospitality sector have flagged that up.
Again, we are up against parliamentary timetables in our consideration of the petition and, realistically, we would not be able to do more than has been suggested. The Scottish Government is acting as we would want it to in respect of flagging up serious concerns about a policy that has a significant impact. There is a question mark about the health benefits of the policy and the evidence.
We agree to close the petition and to write to the Scottish Government to reflect our discussion. We recognise that the issue is really important, and we give the petitioner the reassurance that it is a live subject in the Parliament and that a number of members have been making the case very strongly. Therefore, the argument will not stop here.
We thank the petitioner for his engagement with the committee.
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (Repeal) (PE1832)
The final new petition is PE1832, on repealing the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA—which has been lodged by Jacqueline Shaw. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to request that the UK Government repeals the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
In its submission, the Scottish Government is confident that NHS Scotland’s whistleblowing measures build on and go further than the current PIDA legislation and address the requirements that are outlined in the petition. Those measures include the role of non-executive whistleblowing champions, who have a direct escalation route to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport; the new role of independent national whistleblowing officer—INWO—which will be undertaken by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman; and a confidential advice line, which is available to anyone who works for NHS Scotland to discuss a whistleblowing concern. Concerns can also be raised with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which has a duty to respond to potential concerns that are raised by NHS staff about patient safety or quality of care within NHS boards.
The issue of whistleblowing and the confidence that people can have in the process is one that we have looked at in the past, and I read the committee papers with interest. I would be interested to hear the views of members, starting with Maurice Corry.
This is another petition that falls into two areas. Although the Scottish Government has strengthened the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 through additional whistleblowing measures, such as the role of the non-executive whistleblowing champions and the confidential advice line, the petitioner has raised some very valid issues. The petitioner says that no route has been identified directly to the whistleblower, whereas there is a direct escalation route to the health secretary. There is an imbalance there, which I would like to be resolved.
Sir Robert Francis QC has said that the confidential advice line is extremely important, as is the role of an independent assessor. I think that we should give the Government a chance, because the role of the independent national whistleblowing officer is coming into effect in 2021. We need to ensure that that works, but we must give the Government a chance to put it in place.
Therefore, I would be minded to recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but on the basis that we write to the Scottish Government to ensure that the direct escalation route that is available to the health secretary also applies to the whistleblower. I would like that to be done and the independent status of the confidential advice line to be well implemented.
I think that we should close the petition, but we should also write to the Government to ensure that those two aspects are put in place.
Thank you for that. I should have flagged up the fact that, since our papers were published, we have received a written submission from the petitioner, which refutes much of what the Scottish Government says in its submission. I think that that has informed some of the conversation so far.
The additional evidence was enlightening. It is not the first time that we have had such polarised views on what is happening and the perception of what should be happening.
I think that Maurice Corry is absolutely right. We should flag up the discrepancies that are apparent, but I do not know whether there is anything else that we can do in our role as the Public Petitions Committee.
Having said that, it might well be worth while flagging up in our legacy paper the extra evidence that has been provided so that another committee can look at it in the next session, because a lot of important points have been made that I would not like to see being lost. It is obvious that the petitioner has spent a lot of time on this, and I would like to thank them very much for that.
If there was a way to flag that up in our legacy paper, I would be happy for us to close the petition, on the basis that we also do what Maurice Corry said and again flag up the matter to the health secretary.
Thank you. I should say that Tom Mason has had to leave the meeting for another urgent meeting. I want to acknowledge his contributions today.
I agree with my colleagues that, if we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we should still write to the Scottish Government. I know that measures will be put in place next year, and the petitioner has the opportunity to come back in a year’s time if they do not feel that those measures are sufficient.
Thank you very much.
I think that the committee is reflecting the dilemma that we face. The petitioner has highlighted concerns about the way in which the new system will be implemented, but we are trying to be honest about whether we can progress the big issues that have been flagged up in the time that we have left between now and next April.
The suggestion has been made that we could flag up the matter by including it in our legacy paper, which would enable thought to be given to where this may go. However, the point that was made about the fact that the petitioner can return with their petition might be the most reassuring one. Because it will be a new session of Parliament, the year’s limit would not apply to them, so they would be able to do that. That will, of course, be subject to the amount of time that the Public Petitions Committee is able to give to any individual petition. We are always wrestling with the balance between considering what we have in front of us and recognising that there are other people who have to have their petitions heard, too.
My sense is—members can disagree with me if this is not the case—that we are agreeing to close the petition, but that we will look to our legacy paper as a mechanism for flagging up the issue. We thank the petitioner for their engagement and hope that the fact that they can return to this question in the new session of Parliament gives them some reassurance.
If that is agreed—I see no dissent—I think that we have reached the conclusion of our meeting. I want to thank everybody—in particular, I thank the deputy convener for stepping in when my wi-fi let me down yet again. We have had a really important discussion on a whole range of issues.
I repeat that the willingness of petitioners to bring forward their direct experience has a huge impact on all of us. No matter what our decisions on individual petitions are, I am sure that people recognise that we want to take all of them seriously, because the issues that they deal with have been sufficiently serious for petitioners to bring them to our attention.
I again thank broadcasting and the clerking team for managing a process that is much more complex than it is when we are all in a committee room.
With that, I thank everyone for their attendance and close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:14.Previous
Continued Petitions