Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Polypropylene Mesh Medical Devices (PE1517)
I welcome everyone back to this meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. Technical problems mean that I am not showing up on the video, which is perhaps a bonus for everyone concerned. I will continue with the audio only, to facilitate the discussion instead of pausing it.
The first continued petition for consideration is PE1517, on polypropylene mesh medical devices, which has been lodged by Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy on behalf of the Scottish mesh survivors hear our voice campaign. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to suspend the use of polypropylene transvaginal mesh procedures; to initiate a public inquiry and/or comprehensive independent research to evaluate the safety of mesh devices using all evidence available, including evidence from around the world; to introduce mandatory reporting of all adverse incidents by health professionals; to set up a Scottish transvaginal mesh implant register, with a view to linking it up with national and international registers; to introduce a uniform approach of fully informed consent across Scotland’s health boards; and to write to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, asking it to reclassify TVM devices with heightened alert status to reflect on-going concerns worldwide.
The petition was last considered in September 2019, when the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and to Dr Veronikis, who is an obstetrician-gynaecologist based in Missouri, in the USA. The committee has received a submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and two submissions from the petitioners, which are summarised in our papers.
Since our papers were circulated, the clerks have received a subsequent submission from the petitioners, a copy of which has been provided to members. In the submission, the petitioners express how little confidence they have in the surgeons in the national mesh removal service and say that mesh-injured women should be able to see the surgeon of their choice, including Dr Veronikis. Members may wish to note that the committee has invited Dr Veronikis to make a written submission on three separate occasions; however, a submission has not been provided.
As members will know, the First Minister, in her statement earlier this week on the Scottish Government’s programme for government, announced the establishment of a patient safety commissioner. That step has been taken in response to recommendations in the Cumberlege review, which, as our papers note, was commissioned as a result of concerns about a number of treatments, including mesh implants.
We have dealt with this petition over a significant period of time. I very much welcome the decision to establish a patient safety commissioner, but the important point will be how the issues are taken forward. On so many occasions, there has been some progress with the petition—for example, in the setting up of a review—but people have then been very disappointed with the outcome.
The petitioners continue to be concerned and frustrated at the lack of progress and the lack of confidence that they feel in the process regarding the implications of what was done to women, as well as at the lack of information. They have concerns that the issue may still be on-going and about whether they can get the surgery that they need from someone in whom they have confidence.
There are further actions that we can take with regard to the petition. I ask Tom Mason to speak first.
The issue has been running since long before I entered Parliament. I am a member of the cross-party group on chronic pain, and we have heard some quite horrifying stories about the suffering that certain patients have been through. We need to make some progress and offer some assurances. We need information from the Government and assurances, but those assurances have to be given in person. I would like us to call in the cabinet secretary to give assurances that the Government will follow through on the requirements.
I would also like to ensure that the Government understands the need for patients to have confidence in the system. If confidence is not maintained, there will continue to be an issue. I leave that thought with the committee. We need to get the Government’s assurance that it has the confidence of patients. We could request that in writing, but a session with the cabinet secretary would be worth while.
As the convener and Tom Mason have said, the petition is an extremely important and long-running one.
I absolutely agree that we need more information from the Scottish Government about its response to the report of the independent medicines and medical devices safety review. It is essential that we get that feedback. I would also like to hear feedback on the establishment of a patient safety commissioner. I would like to know what the commissioner’s role and remit will be and what timescales the Government is working to. I would also like to know how the Government is continuing to work with the petitioners. Obviously, they continue to go through hell, and it is only right that they are involved in every step of the process. We should first write to the Government to get a reply on those points before we call in the cabinet secretary.
There are certainly questions to be asked about the situation with Dr Veronikis. I would like to know why the proposals relating to Dr Veronikis have not come about. I do not think that we have had an answer to that yet. It is disappointing that we have written to Dr Veronikis on three occasions and have not had anything back. That is another issue that we need to ask more about.
In the first instance, we should write to the Scottish Government on those points and then decide what to do when we have a reply.
I agree with Gail Ross, and I support everything that she said. I also agree with Tom Mason that we should ask the cabinet secretary to come to the committee to update us, so that we can explore whether there is any resistance from the Scottish medical sector to Dr Veronikis coming here. We should also ask to have before us the Scottish Government’s clinical director, Dr Jason Leitch, because I want to get to the bottom of where the medical profession in Scotland stands on the issue. It is disappointing that we have not had a response from Dr Veronikis, so we need to push to get one. I agree with Tom Mason and Gail Ross, but I would go one step further and ask the Scottish Government’s clinical director to appear before us.
Gail Ross raised the issue of the patient safety commissioner and the timescales for introducing that. I welcome the Cumberlege review, and I am glad that the Scottish Government has paid cognisance to it. Because this is such a long-running and urgent problem, we really need to flush out the issues.
I was a member of the committee when the petition was originally brought before us, and I have watched the work that the committee has done and have seen how the petitioners have continued to raise their concerns and highlight them to the committee. I have also seen how MSPs in the previous and current sessions of Parliament have raised the issues. The committee even went to the European Parliament to give evidence on mesh implants. I am still quietly concerned and still need reassurance that the issue will be taken forward and that the petitioners will be happy with the outcomes.
I agree with other members that we need the cabinet secretary to come to the committee and that we need to write to the relevant authorities for confirmation of what has happened, because the situation seems to have dragged on and on. As one of the members who dealt with the petition initially, I would have thought that the process would have been finished by now. I feel for the mesh survivors with regard to how long this process has taken, so I am happy for the cabinet secretary to appear before us.
I think that there is a consensus that we want to hear from the Scottish Government. The question is, what is the most productive way in which we can do that? I have no hesitation in asking the cabinet secretary to come before the committee, but I think that, as Gail Ross said, it would be useful to get a report from the Government first about how the new commission will work, what other work is being done around it and what contact the Government has had with Dr Veronikis. I know that there is a great deal of unhappiness about the fact that that has not been progressed.
At some point, I think that we would want the cabinet secretary and the clinical director, or whoever might be appropriate, to come to the committee to answer the questions that Maurice Corry has raised.
On the point about Dr Veronikis, in a sense, he has no responsibility to respond to us although he has been engaged with the Scottish Government. It would be interesting to know where that work has got to, but we must recognise that he is a busy man who might not necessarily feel that he has a responsibility to deal with the issue, even though it is a huge one in Scotland and elsewhere.
A compromise position might be to write to the Scottish Government to get a detailed response from the cabinet secretary about what precisely the programme is and how it will be taken forward, to clarify what progress has been made in discussions with Dr Veronikis and to flag up that, at some point, we will want to hear from the cabinet secretary. If the Scottish Government has made progress and a patient safety commissioner is to be established, we would want to know the timescales for that. That would be a good news story for the Government to tell the committee and might give the petitioners some confidence.
We all recognise that we want to continue petition, and we want the Scottish Government to give us a detailed response to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review report that includes a timescale for the establishment of a patient safety commissioner and what that post would look like. We also want the Government to tell us, as Gail Ross has said, how it will engage with the petitioners, who clearly remain, at best, cynical about what is happening, given their circumstances.
Are members content to seek that response, with a view to having the cabinet secretary appear before the committee at a later stage? As no one is indicating that they disagree with that suggestion, I will take that as assent.
As David Torrance said, we recognise that the Public Petitions Committee has engaged in this work over a long time and that there is global recognition that it is a health scandal.
Housing Legislation (Review) (PE1756)
The next continued petition for consideration is PE1756, lodged by James Mackie, on a review of housing legislation to protect people experiencing domestic or elder abuse. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to review current housing legislation in circumstances in which a non-tenant has been responsible for domestic or elder abuse.
We have received submissions from Shelter Scotland, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Scottish Government, as well as two further submissions from the petitioner. All of them are summarised in the clerk’s note. The submissions from stakeholders focus on domestic abuse and highlight work that has been undertaken by CIH Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Shelter Scotland and ALACHO.
I was struck by the number of responses that we got. That suggests to me that those organisations regard the issue as important and serious and as being worthy of further action. I would like the committee to take the petition forward partly because it has clearly tapped into something that organisations already recognise as an important issue. It might be that we can work through some ways in which it can be addressed.
I, too, was struck by the depth and the amount of the submissions that we received, all of which were helpful. It was interesting to see that the Scottish Government has asked CIH Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid to chair a working group on the improvement of housing outcomes for women and children who are at risk of domestic abuse. It is hoped that that group will report later this year.
10:30Work is also being done to review how local authorities might use current tenancy agreements as a means of removing perpetrators rather than victims from the family home. There is a lot of information to get through and a lot of work is still under way, so I agree that we need to find out more. For example, it would be important for us to find out from the Scottish Government whether existing legislation could be extended to provide the protection that the petitioner seeks. Are legislative steps needed to end joint tenancies in which both the victim and the perpetrator are named in tenancy agreements?
Given the elder abuse aspect, I would also like the committee to write to Age Concern Scotland and Action on Elder Abuse to seek their views on the proposed action on that point.
I suggest that we thank the petitioner for raising this important subject and that we agree to take the petition forward in the light of the work that is on-going.
I fully support what my colleague Gail Ross has said on taking the petition forward.
The subject is quite complicated. I was a guardian in a situation in which this problem existed. The person was in her own house rather than a tenanted one, but the issues were similar. It proved very difficult to remove the perpetrator, which eventually happened only because he tried to assault a carer and was physically removed from the property by the police. We had an awful job trying to get the process done through the local authority and the care support organisations.
I agree that the issue is serious, and I also think that what the petition mentions represents only the tip of the iceberg. I therefore back what has been said about the committee’s writing to the Scottish Government and to Fife Council for further information as well as to key stakeholders such as Age Concern Scotland, Age Scotland and Action on Elder Abuse.
Such issues really need to be examined—not only in the context of tenancies but also in private home settings. In the case of which I had experience, the local authority was involved but, frankly, acted very badly in the time that it took to sort the problem out.
I agree with other committee members. I have nothing else to add, because they have covered all the avenues. I was taken aback by the number of responses to the petition and was impressed with their quality. I am therefore happy to agree with everything that has been proposed so far.
I have nothing to add. It is a complex issue on which we need to make progress. I agree with other members that the committee should seek more information from the various stakeholders and from the Government to enable us to make informed decisions.
I think that we have consensus that the issue is an important one and that we have been struck by the quality of the submissions that we have received.
We also agree that we should write to the parties that other members have indicated and that we should seek examples of good practice from bodies such as Fife Council, recognising that not only domestic abuse but elder abuse has been highlighted. We look forward to receiving responses in that regard.
Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme (Actuarial Reductions) (PE1757)
The next petition for consideration is PE1757, which seeks a reduction in the level of actuarial reductions to the Scottish local government pension scheme. Lodged by Liz Maguire, it calls on the Scottish Government to significantly reduce the levels of reduction to the Scottish local government pension scheme to ensure that today’s low-paid workers do not become even poorer pensioners.
Since our previous consideration of the petition, we have received submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner. In its submission, the Scottish Government notes that the Scottish ministers
“adopt the principle of ‘financial neutrality’ when setting the actuarial factors used to work out the reduced pension payable by the Scottish LGPS on early retirement.”
The petitioner notes that that does not explain why the Scottish ministers
“take the view that the advice of the actuary is to be adopted without question. It also fails to make any reference to the fair and just society which Scotland seeks to have.”
She goes on to note that the Government’s response
“fails to acknowledge that the rise in the State Pension Age has effectively increased the level of reductions which were in place prior to the new regulations introduced in 2015.”
The petition deals with the complicated issue of pensions, which I do not pretend to understand terribly well. However, I am struck by the fact that women in low-paid work—which is often heavy, physically demanding work—might want to take early retirement. The argument is made cogently that they are disadvantaged as a result of the deductions that are made in order to ensure financial neutrality.
I think that we should pursue the petition by seeking an explanation from the Government of why it has not acknowledged that the field of pensions has changed since the state pension age changed.
I invite views from members, starting with Maurice Corry.
This is an interesting petition that deals with an issue that has been bubbling away for a little while. I think that we should write to the Minister for Public Finance and Migration to ask whether any consideration has been given to changing the calculations for the local government pension scheme, given that the state pension age has risen since the regulations were introduced in 2015. We should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, too. It is important that we obtain its view so that we get a balanced picture.
We should also ask the minister whether the Government agrees that women are disproportionately affected. I agree with what the convener said about those who do heavy work perhaps wanting to retire a bit earlier. We need to get a balanced picture. As part of that, we might want to look at what happened with the recent parity of pay case involving Glasgow City Council, which will obviously affect pensions.
There are several responses that we need to get before we can come to a considered view on the petition, but those are my views at the moment. We should definitely involve COSLA.
Like the convener, I think that the area of pensions is a minefield and I do not pretend to understand it all. However, I think that the concerns that have been raised are just. I feel for low-paid workers, who might end up as low-paid pensioners.
I agree that we should write to the Minister for Public Finance and Migration to raise our concerns with him.
I have nothing to add—I agree with what has been said so far. There are gaps in the information that we have received, which need to be closed. At this stage, writing to the Government and COSLA is the right idea.
I have nothing more to add; everything has been covered. There is an anomaly there. We need to find out why the levels of reduction to the Scottish local government pension scheme have not changed, given that the state pension age has risen. I agree that we should send the two letters that have been suggested.
I have an additional suggestion to make. We could ask the Government whether it has looked at the fact that the scheme operates on a unisex basis, whereby men and women are assumed to have been affected in the same way. We could ask whether it has carried out an equality impact assessment, given the disproportionate number of women in local government in low-paid, physically demanding jobs. It might be the case that everything balances out, but it would be worth our asking that.
I think that we are agreed that we want to write to the Minister for Public Finance and Migration and COSLA, and that we should ask the question that I raised. As no one disagrees, that course of action is agreed to.
Primary Schools (Equal Teaching Hours) (PE1759)
The next continued petition is PE1759, on equal school hours for all children in Scotland, which was lodged by Susan Crookes. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all children in Scotland receive the same teaching hours.
We have received written submissions from the Scottish Government and COSLA. Both make the point that local authorities have responsibility for the delivery of education services that are relevant to their local area, resources and circumstances. They also discuss the resourcing of authorities, which is even more pertinent now, given the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Scottish Government has highlighted that there are legislative parameters within which local authorities must operate, such as the requirement for each local authority to provide 190 days of schooling per year, with discretion over the length of the school day.
COSLA states that it is more important to focus on outcomes than inputs and outputs, such as learning hours, and that there is no evidence that draws a link between a longer school week and better educational attainment.
It is an interesting issue. Both the Scottish Government and COSLA say that there is nothing to see here. However, are we seriously saying that schools can provide 190 days of schooling without defining what a school day is? Could schools end up offering education only in the mornings because resources do not allow for anything different?
Although I accept that there might not be a direct link between a two-hour difference in school days and differing levels of educational attainment, surely it cannot be argued that providing only a couple of hours of school per day would be sufficient and would have no impact.
I am interested in whether there might be a disproportionate impact on children in disadvantaged areas if they ended up with reduced hours, given the importance and stability of school for some young people. That is my sense of it—it is not so much about the particular issue of two hours’ difference. The argument that was made in response to the petition was not as substantial as I would have wanted.
I welcome comments from members.
I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, because the Scottish Government and COSLA do not support the actions that are called for in the petition and they stated that local authorities should have the flexibility to make appropriate local decisions. That is key for me. There are different circumstances across all local authorities. In addition, the Scottish Government said that it would enact legislation to require longer days, if there was sufficient evidence that that was necessary.
I am happy to close the petition.
I would like some more information on what the drivers are for outcomes, and on whether it is appropriate to give flexibility or whether there has to be more direction. We do not have information on what the drivers are, so we could write to the Scottish Government to find out where its evidence to determine the number of hours comes from. More information is required.
The petitioner mentions the Highland Council, which is my council area. I remember that when the change was made, it was specifically stated that it is difficult for younger children, such as those in primary 1 to 3, to concentrate for a large number of hours. The issue depends on what people think young people are actually missing out on. There is a school of thought that says it could be more influential for kids to have more play time than sit-down lessons at that age.
10:45Our transport system—the petition says this as well—is different from a lot of other local authorities’ transport systems. At the time when the change was made, parents raised questions about childcare, which was a big issue. If a parent has a young child who finishes at half past 2 and another child in a different age group who finishes at 3 o’clock, the disparity means that they have to pick up one child and then go back to pick up the other one. A lot of schools started offering after-school clubs so that the younger children could stay on and get involved in play, which solved a lot of the childcare issues.
As noted in our papers, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the children in Highland who are getting 22.5 hours as opposed to 25 hours are missing out on anything. In fact, there seems to be a great deal of agreement that they may actually benefit because they do not have to concentrate for such a long time.
We have the information that we need. If other members feel that we need to get more information by writing to whoever, I am happy enough with that. Nevertheless, I think that we have enough information to enable us to close the petition. I am satisfied that what is happening in Highland is not disadvantaging our children.
This is an interesting issue. Having been a councillor in a rural area—Argyll and Bute—I am familiar with the issues that Highland Council has been experiencing, in particular the need to allow time for children to be transported back to the islands and more remote rural communities.
I take the convener’s point about the disadvantage to children who may not have an opportunity to get the full hours of education—that is an issue to be looked at. I agree with Tom Mason that we need some more evidence. We may close the petition in due course, but I feel that we are a little bit short of information. We can perhaps get more information from other local authorities, both municipal and rural; I know that there is an issue in my former council area.
I accept that the Scottish Government wants to allow local authorities the flexibility to make appropriate local decisions. I am all for localism—there is no question about that. However, there is an issue here. I am interested to hear the convener’s comments on the matter, given that she has been a teacher. I would support the idea of getting some more evidence, and we may need to discuss how we do that.
My feeling is that, although there may be an argument for a level of flexibility—I hear what Gail Ross says about differing circumstances in different local authorities—that has not been addressed in the submissions. They say that there is no evidence that there has been a change in education or attainment levels, but at what point would there be? How short would the school day need to be before that became a problem?
I am all in favour of local flexibility and decision making, but if decisions are made because of financial constraints, which has been flagged up as an issue, that can begin to build in disadvantage. A local authority that is under massive financial pressure may say, “Well, we can always reduce hours.”
For some families, the childcare aspect matters, although it is clearly not the primary role of education. In Highland—Gail Ross will know this better than many—and in some of our other more remote areas, there will be only one bus going. Even if a child finishes early, they will have to wait, along with their siblings, for the one bus home.
No one is suggesting that children should always be sitting at a desk and learning in that way—there is a lot of flexibility around play learning and so on. I understand the argument in the submissions that there has been no detriment and that flexibility is needed. However, I fear that that approach could be taken to its logical conclusion, and what is to stop a gap opening up? I would like to ask that question.
On that point, perhaps we can write to the Highland Council to ask for the specific paper that went to council members when the decision was made. I think that we would get a lot of information from that.
I want to put on record the fact that teachers are contracted on the basis of 22.5 hours of face-to-face teaching time a week. The argument that if we left it up to local authorities, we might only get however many days of teaching therefore does not stand up. That would not be a worry.
It may be that I am just a bit more sceptical that the 22.5 hours could be stretched over more children. Nobody is intending to do that, but I am thinking about the logic of the argument. I would like to know where the balance is between local decision making and the basic standards that parents or carers can expect. That is really my only question.
I entirely agree with what you have just said. We need to be very careful that a one-size-fits-all approach is not taken. There are very different dynamics in each area. I would be much more comfortable if we could get more evidence and more information about the issue.
Okay. What Gail Ross suggested is interesting and important. It is clear that there was a thought-through argument and discussion, and people were content with that. It would be useful to see that information. We could write to Highland Council, but we may want to write to other rural and remote local authorities that might have a view on the matter. I am sure that what happens in Shetland and Orkney, given the transport constraints, will be quite difficult, as well.
I would like us to go back to the Scottish Government and ask what the constraints on flexibility are. That is not to suggest in any way whatsoever that local authorities would do anything other than what they have to do with the resources that they have. We recognise that.
We are conscious that, although the issue has been flagged up as a Highland one, we want to examine the more general issues. It is clear from what Gail Ross has said that the policy was thought through.
Do members agree to the approach that I outlined? Any member who disagrees should so indicate. No member disagrees, so we will proceed with that approach.
Rail Fares (Pricing) (PE1760)
The next continued petition for consideration is PE1760, on clear pricing for train fares, which was lodged by George Eckton. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers, as a matter of course, be given information on the cheapest possible fare.
Since the petition was last considered, in December 2019, the committee has received written submissions from the Scottish Government, the Office of Rail and Road, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Rail Delivery Group and ScotRail. A written submission has also been received from the petitioner. Those submissions are summarised in the clerk’s note.
I would be interested to hear what the other committee members have to say, but I think that an issue remains. There should be full transparency. I was quite taken by the comments of the petitioner, who talked about the example that had been given to show that it is all very complicated and that people are constrained by timetabling challenges; the example missed the point, which is that it is possible to travel from point A to point B and have quite disparate fares for the same journey.
I think that we can close the petition, because it looks like the Scottish Government is going to address the issue in future rail contracts. However, I am interested in what colleagues have to say.
The situation has been taken on board. Issues have arisen from the pandemic, and transport has been in a bit of a mess. We need to see what transpires. I suspect that there will be reviews of various contracts as a result of that.
At this stage, closing the petition is appropriate—otherwise it would be open for several years. When the situation has steadied itself, the petitioner can take an additional view if he thinks that that is appropriate.
I agree. I was struck by the statement from the Rail Delivery Group. It said that the current fare system is
“complex and in need of drastic reform.”
There is a good couple of examples of how people could get from A to B with different stops on different trains. You might end up getting there 10 or 15 minutes later, but you would save quite a considerable amount of money. I suppose that it depends on whether your priority is pricing or timing.
It will be interesting to see the findings and recommendations of the Williams rail review, but the Scottish Government has said that it is looking at ways of ensuring fairer pricing, so I am content to close this petition.
I am minded to close the petition but, to pick up on Gail Ross’s point about the Williams rail review, it is important that we feel that that issue will be addressed across the United Kingdom. In relation to customer experience, the Rail Delivery Group managing director commented that there are about 60 million different train fares. That is horrendous. I tested it out some time ago down in the south of England, and I got four different tickets. I saved money—about £12—but it was a bit of a carry-on trying to get the tickets organised. Staff at the local office said that they wished they had a simple system. The issues are endemic and we need to get this right.
I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders and I hope that the Williams rail review will highlight the issues and we will get the amendments written into the new rail contract, because, frankly, at the moment it is a farce.
I agree with my fellow committee members that we should close the petition. I have nothing else to add.
Thank you. I was quite struck by the defensive approach—“It’s all very complicated. You might want a cheaper fare, but then you might miss your train,” and so on. There should be a more proactive approach to making ticketing easier for people. We have to get people back on to public transport and often one of the reasons why people will choose to fly rather than go by train for long journeys is that it is all so complicated. I got the sense that people were trying to justify the current system when the petition has made a clear case for why it is not justifiable.
However, I think that, as a committee, we are looking to close the petition, given that the Scottish Government has indicated that, in future rail contracts, there should be
“an obligation placed on the operator to provide customers with clear, straightforward information on all fares’ options”.
I would like to go a wee bit further and say that it should look at why the fares have to be complicated in the first place.
In closing the petition, I think that we want to acknowledge the importance of the issue that the petitioner has highlighted. If there is no progress over the next year, the petitioner may want to bring back the petition. There are other options such as lobbying individual parliamentarians, particularly as elections get nearer, to concentrate people’s minds.
This issue is important and we have probably done as much as we can to add value to it. We may, in closing the petition, flag up to the Scottish Government that we want it to be quite strong about the issue, because the language about aiming to ensure that there will be an obligation may be a bit more flexible than we would want.
I think that the committee is agreed to close the petition on that basis, while recognising that there is an issue. We thank the petitioner for the work that has been done and highlight his right to come back to the committee if he feels that the issue has not been addressed properly within the next year.
Housing Regulations (PE1761)
The final continued petition for consideration today is PE1761, on new housing regulations, lodged by David Murphy Shaw, which calls on the Scottish Government to establish new housing regulations by
“Replacing current planning regulations with a regulatory framework governing prefabrication properties and companies”
and
“Allowing property taxes to take account of the property location, size of plot and number of children living at the property.”
Since the petition was last considered in November 2019, the committee has received a written submission from the Scottish Government. The submission is summarised in our meeting papers.
Again, there are interesting issues here. I am reflecting on whether there is anything further that we could do. Part of the issue is that the Scottish Government has indicated that it does not think that this would be the right approach and it is clear on that. The question is whether that is something that we can address through this committee or whether this will be a matter for public debate at a later stage.
11:00
This is a difficult one, because the Scottish Government does not agree with most of the points that the petitioner has made. It is difficult to see another avenue that the committee can go down on the petitioner’s behalf.
I agree that the petition raises a lot of issues for debate, not least the subject of the council tax and a possible land tax. As we know, that has been on people’s minds for a number of years. Unfortunately, as you suggested, convener, interesting though the petition is, we have probably taken it as far as we can. I thank the petitioner for bringing up a lot of points that I had never even considered before. Obviously, the petitioner has the chance to bring the petition back in a year’s time if they feel that the issues are on-going. We should close the petition under rule 15.7.
I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that my colleague Gail Ross has set out. The issue might come back in a year’s time, and the petitioner is certainly welcome to bring it back.
A lot of movement is going on in relation to the whole business of buildings. We have had a proposal by Graham Simpson MSP for a member’s bill to better address the issues for purchasers of new-build homes. The aim was to extend the developers’ guarantee so that people have assurance that their houses are of a certain quality and meet design and technical specifications. There is an issue at the moment because there are more kit-built houses, and the petitioner has made a fair comment on that. However, we should close the petition at this stage, although I expect that it might come back.
I support closing the petition at this stage. If the Scottish Government does not agree with the actions that the petition calls for, it will not go anywhere, so I am happy to close it.
To me, the petition is rather confusing, in that it mixes up planning with taxation and tries to link taxation to how people use a property rather than the style of the property. I note that there was no further submission from the petitioner after the Government made its comments. Such a submission would have helped us to interpret some of the issues. On balance, I think that we should close the petition.
There are issues here. The whole question of a land value tax will be interrogated during the election next year, and I am sure that the complexities of taxation and housing regulation will be part of the more general political debate over the next few years. Therefore, the question will not disappear simply because the committee is not going to debate it further.
I think that the committee is agreeing to close the petition, given how near we are to an election, and the fact that the Scottish Government does not agree with the actions that it calls for. That means that the petition will not be progressed in the current session of Parliament, although the issues might be discussed further during the election and of course the petitioner can bring back the petition at a later stage if he feels that that is worth while.
I think that we are agreeing to close the petition. We again thank the petitioner very much for highlighting significant issues to do with housing regulation.
We have now reached the end of our agenda. I thank everyone for participating. It is always a bit of a challenge to have a meeting virtually. I apologise for the weakness of my link, which meant that I was just a voice for the last part of the meeting. I hope that members of the public will understand that.
Meeting closed at 11:04.Previous
New Petitions