Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 9, 2022
Official Report 714KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Higher-rate Tax Threshold (PE1923)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1923, which was lodged by Peter Watson. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the Scottish higher-rate tax threshold to £37,501, aligning it with the rest of the UK—it invites the committee to set the Government’s budget, in part. That threshold was correct at the time when the petition was submitted.
The petitioner believes that that alignment should happen due to the recent uplift in the block grant for Scotland. He notes:
“the increased revenue to the individuals and families will be recycled through the economy creating growth, whilst rewarding hardworking people.”
The Scottish Government explains in its submission that, although the UK Government announced what was described as a significant increase in the block grant for Scotland, it believes that there has been a real-terms cut in day-to-day funding in each year of the spending review.?The Scottish Government goes on to state that it does not support the action that is called for in the petition as it believes that it would provide a tax break to higher-income earners while disproportionately affecting those on lower incomes.
Do members have views on the petition?
The Scottish Government highlights in its submission that it would lose £552 million to invest in public services. It says that it does not support what the petition calls for, so I do not think that there is anywhere for the committee to take the matter. I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
I might take issue with the Scottish Government’s justification for not taking the action that is called for, but it is clear that it does not intend to take it. In the absence of any willingness on the Government’s part to consider the petition’s aims, I am minded to endorse the suggestion that we close it. Does that have the committee’s support?
Members indicated agreement.
Women’s Health Services (Caithness and Sutherland) (PE1924)
PE1924, which was lodged by Rebecca Wymer, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to complete an emergency in-depth review of women’s health services in Caithness and Sutherland.
The petitioner believes that there is a Highland gynaecology crisis that predates Covid, with funding
“funnelled into Orkney or Inverness.”
She believes that serious conditions such as ovarian cancer are potentially being missed due to a lack of specialist training for general practitioners, and she notes that there are currently no miscarriage, menopause or fertility services available in the area. She highlights the logistical difficulties that are associated with patients from Caithness having to travel to Raigmore hospital for help along roads that are often closed or dangerous to drive.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care explains in his submission that the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport is actively engaging with her constituents on the issues that the petition raises. She has now arranged to meet NHS Highland senior management and clinicians to discuss the delivery of gynaecological services and she will feed back to her constituents on progress.
The cabinet secretary’s submission also provides further information on? scoping work for the creation of a centre of excellence for rural and remote medicine and social care; a community midwifery unit that is being built at Caithness general hospital; improvements to maternity and neonatal units at Raigmore hospital in Inverness; and co-ordination between transport and other agencies to explore how access to healthcare can be improved, specifically in relation to the A9 and A99.
In her submission, the petitioner reiterates that all women need access to a gynaecologist, but she says that, to her knowledge, no in-person gynaecology appointments have taken place at Caithness general hospital since 2019. She is concerned that the cabinet secretary is unaware of how bad the situation with the roads is. She states that the rural unit framework has been incredibly successful for MRI machines, breast screening, cancer screening and, more recently, vaccination clinics. She suggests that it might include appointments with a gynaecology nurse or consultant to filter out who needs to be on a surgical list and who could be treated in the short term to reduce waiting lists across the board.
Do members have comments or suggestions on the petition?
In a future evidence session, we will discuss a number of petitions on healthcare in Caithness. I suggest that we invite the petitioner to join us at that meeting and that we examine all the petitions in that evidence session. Although they are all important individually and they are distinct, they are all part of the same theme and it would be helpful to speak to everyone together.
Indeed. We have three petitions—PE1845, PE1890 and PE1915—that touch on parallel issues, so that is a sensible suggestion. Are we content to combine consideration of the petition with the others that we have in relation to Caithness?
Members indicated agreement.
Heavy Goods Vehicle Speed Limit (PE1925)
Our final new petition today is PE1925, which is on changing the heavy goods vehicle speed limit on major trunk roads to 50mph, in line with other parts of the UK. The petition was lodged by David Singleton, who points out that that speed limit is 40mph in Scotland. He urges us to urge the Scottish Government to increase it to 50mph so that there is consistency.
The Scottish Government has stated that, in 2018, it conducted its
“own evaluation of the potential impacts of increasing speed limits for HGVs in Scotland”,
and it found that there would be
“small safety benefits and marginal environmental impacts”
in doing so. A pilot scheme that increased the speed limit for HGVs to 50mph on the A9
“showed positive road safety benefits”.
The Scottish Government is considering its policy on HGV speed limits as part of the national speed management review. That review, which has commenced, will consider appropriate vehicle speeds for Scotland’s roads and will include stakeholder and public consultation.
However, the petitioner remains unconvinced that the Scottish Government is planning to increase the HGV speed limit on major trunk roads. He urges Scottish Government officials
“to travel with a driver of an HGV on the 100 mile A75 trunk road in both directions on the same day”,
going
“One way at the 40 mph limit and the other way at a higher speed when and where it is safe to do so.”
The petitioner believes that doing that
“would give them some idea of the problems caused by slow moving traffic”
and some comfort in relation to an increase in the speed limit.
The petition is interesting, as the petitioner has highlighted something that the Scottish Government is looking at. However, he is not convinced that that will necessarily lead to anything.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The Scottish Government says that it is having a review. We might reasonably ask for some clarity on when it thinks that that might come to fruition. Maybe we should ask whether there is any way in which the petitioner or others can engage with the Scottish Government in relation to the underlying issues. I am not sure that the Scottish Government will want to take up the offer of an HGV lift up and down the A75, but I am sure that we would be happy to draw that to its attention.
Are colleagues content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
It has been a long meeting but a great one, too, with our youngest-ever petitioner, a very sensible and worthwhile discussion about woodlands, and the consideration of a number of important petitions. I thank everybody for their participation and confirm that the committee’s next meeting will take place on 23 March.
We have one item to discuss briefly in private. I close the public part of the meeting.
12:32 Meeting continued in private until 12:34.Previous
Continued Petitions