Institutional Child Abuse (Victims’ Forum and Compensation) (PE1351)
Our next witnesses have not yet arrived, so in the meantime we will move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of six continued petitions.
The first petition is PE1351, by Chris Daly and Helen Holland, on time for all to be heard. Members have a note by the clerk. The petition was lodged in 2010. It has taken five years to get to this point. I very much welcome the announcement of the inquiry. I hope that it will enable all victims of historical abuse to come forward and testify. I put on record my thanks to the petitioners for bringing the petition to the Parliament. I am pleased that the outcome is a formal inquiry with full powers.
I just want to check something. There is no mention in our papers of any conversations or discussions with the petitioners regarding the recommendations that have been made. A statement was made in the chamber by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and the action has been proposed, but it would have been useful to find out whether the petitioners had any comments on the issues that were raised in the ministerial statement. I am aware that there have been a number of press comments by survivors of institutionalised abuse in recent weeks, including up to the weekend. It would have been helpful to understand whether the petitioners are now happy for the petition to be closed.
I am advised that the petitioners were involved in the interaction and recent work by the Scottish Government. We have not had any contact from the petitioners.
I think that we should close the petition. If there are issues regarding the nature of the proceedings, that should be the subject of a discussion between the petitioners and those who are now charged with conducting the inquiry. I have no doubt that there will be discussions about a whole variety of issues relating to the conduct of the inquiry, such as who may attend and representation.
I think that the petitioners have achieved what they set out to do, and that we should now allow Sheriff O’Brien to enter into a discussion with them. I have no doubt that she will. Previous inquiries have always involved discussions with those with a legitimate interest.
I am happy to back Kenny MacAskill. What the petitioners asked for is now in place. The three-year time bar on civil cases will be lifted, too. Everything that the petitioners have asked for is now there so that we may move forward.
Does the committee agree to close the petition, on the basis that the inquiry with full statutory powers has been set up, with a commitment given to lift the three-year time bar on civil cases for compensation for historical child abuse?
Members indicated agreement.
Single Room Hospitals (Isolation) (PE1482)
The next petition is PE1482, by John Womersley, on isolation in single-room hospitals. Members have a note by the clerk and copies of submissions. I invite comments from members.
I am happy to suggest that we close the petition. We have written to and communicated with the Government on a number of occasions on the issue, which has also been discussed in Parliament. The Government has no plans to change its current policy, although it has said that it will keep the policy under review. That position has been widely welcomed and accepted on all sides within the Parliament. Given those circumstances, I do not see any productive reason at this time for us to maintain the petition.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
A Sunshine Act for Scotland (PE1493)
The next petition is PE1493, by Peter John Gordon, on a sunshine act for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk. I invite comments from members.
Again, we have held this petition open for some time. Interestingly, it seems to have received a fair amount of attention, and I think that the Government indicated that it was interested in some of the arguments that were being made. We are considering the petition again because it has come back to us from the cycle of committee consideration. However, it would probably be more appropriate for us to consider it more thoroughly when the consultation that the Scottish Government is undertaking has reported back and we have the feedback from that to inform our views further. I suggest that we defer consideration of the petition until that time.
Do members agree to write to the Scottish Government asking it to report back to the committee once the consultation feedback is available and to defer further consideration of the petition until that time?
Members indicated agreement.
Social Care (Charges) (PE1533)
The next petition is PE1533, by Jeff Adamson, on behalf of Scotland against the care tax, on abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. Members have a note by the clerk and copies of submissions. Do colleagues have any comments? I am quite concerned about the apparent lack of co-operation over setting up a round-table discussion and constituting a working group that includes representatives of disabled people’s organisations. I hope that the committee can encourage a more inclusive and effective dialogue on the issue and prevail on the Scottish Government to be more forthcoming and take on board the petitioner’s concerns. Do members agree that we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport and ask her to respond to the issues and concerns raised by the petitioner?
I am happy for us to do that, but I have to express a degree of frustration because I feel that the petition is now on something of a merry-go-round. There was widespread concern in the committee when the issue raised by the petition was first aired. We thought that there were actions that could be taken, but that view did not endear itself to the cabinet secretary or elicit her support and sympathy. We were told that these matters were all subject to an agreement through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to which the matters had been divested years ago without there being any progress in the interim. There was an understanding that there would be something of a boot up the backside of the process to try to at least move it along to a point where people might seek and receive some financial relief. I just feel that to then be told that there is a difficulty in getting people to even sit down and discuss the matter is deeply unsatisfactory.
I am happy for the matter to have been divested to COSLA by the Scottish Government, but only if COSLA intends to do something about it. However, it is within the Government’s ability to be more direct in its guidance or to evolve a more emphatic policy. When we write to the cabinet secretary, we should say that we accept the process but that, if it does not have an end, we want her to tell us what alternatives there would be to it so that something can be done to advance the concern of people who pay care charges at a level that many of us think is inappropriate and unacceptable.
There is clearly an issue, or the petitioners would not have lodged the petition. The point of principle is that, if people are not charged for national health service care but are charged for social care, there is an issue of equity and fairness.
The Scottish Government has said that it wishes to achieve a more consistent and fairer approach to charging. We should recognise that that commitment exists. It should be implemented by the charging guidance working group. The committee should seek further clarity on the timescales for that process and for when we can expect the working group to make recommendations to the Scottish Government and the Government to produce proposals on the matter.
Like Jackson Carlaw, I have concerns about the way in which the Scottish Government has handled the matter. I am concerned about the third paragraph in the cabinet secretary’s letter, which says:
“COSLA’s Charging Guidance Working Group already provides a round table forum where COSLA, Scottish Government, local authorities and third sector organisations are able to discuss the issues around charging.”
When we write to the Scottish Government, I am keen to find out exactly what its position on the matter is. It was all well and good for the Government to leave it to COSLA’s charging guidance working group to work on the matter, but the Government is involved in that working group, so it would be useful to know what input its officials have in it and what the direction of travel is towards a conclusion on the charging regimes that local authorities apply.
An issue that the petitioners have raised in the past is that there is a postcode lottery. Some local authorities charge for social care while others do not and the charging regimes that are applied vary throughout the country. I would like to know what the Scottish Government’s input into the debate is and what advice it is giving local authorities throughout Scotland on charging for social care at present and in future.
I am being unhelpful in taking a second bite at the cherry, but what concerned many of us when the petition was initially heard was that the threshold at which people pay income tax has now increased to more than £10,500—and the Westminster Government has said that, in due course, it will increase to £12,500—but the level at which people pay care charges has not moved and continues to be applied at something like £6,500, which means that many people who are now exempt from paying income tax or other taxes are now being hit with that tax, which has not been reviewed in the interim. Many people wanted some progressive policy to be attached to that. The delay on that means that many people are being charged when the committee felt that there was a good argument for an equalisation of the basis for the charge.
Do we agree to try to encapsulate most of the points that have been raised in our letter to the cabinet secretary and tell her of our frustration that we seem to be going round and round in one giant circle with no end in sight?
Members indicated agreement.
We will come up with a form of words and write to the cabinet secretary.
Concessionary Travel (War Veterans) (PE1549)
The next petition is PE1549, by Alan Clark Young, on concessionary travel passes for war veterans. Members have a note from the clerk and the submissions. I invite contributions from members.
I think that it would be worth inquiring of Transport Scotland what its position is on Transport for London’s eligibility criteria. It seems that there are differences between them. Some of the reasoning put forward by Transport Scotland may apply to London as well, so asking it to comment on that—to see whether there is an opportunity for some parity—would be worth while.
I feel strongly about the issue. I have raised it in Parliament as well, where I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities to explore the possibility of free transport for veterans. I am very supportive of that idea. I think that we should write to the cabinet secretary to say that we now have a petition on the issue, in order to reinforce the case for him to re-examine the possibility of free transport for veterans. I think that that would be helpful.
I note the comments from Eric Fraser, the Scottish veterans commissioner, who says that it is not an issue that has been raised with him and that he has some concerns about the petition itself. That should at least give us pause for thought in any further discussion that we have.
I am happy to hear the views of those to whom we might write in the interim, but I was struck by the slightly different approach being taken by a number of the organisations that represent veterans. They obviously seek to advance the interests of veterans, but at the same time they want to ensure that it is done fairly and equitably and that there is not something that would lead to the veterans being divorced in some way from the wider community. I was impressed by those remarks too.
As there are no other comments, is the committee agreed that we will write to Transport Scotland to consider replicating Transport for London’s eligibility criteria for concessionary travel for veterans, and to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities?
Members indicated agreement.
Disabled-friendly Housing (PE1554)
The final continued petition today is PE1554, by Jacq Kelly, on behalf of Leonard Cheshire Disability, on improving the provision of disabled-friendly housing. Members have a note from the clerk and submissions.
As there are no contributions from members, I ask that we write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it considers that local authorities are provided with adequate guidance about how to assess accessible housing demand in the private as well the public housing sector, whether it views the action taken by some local authorities to develop voluntary targets as a positive development and whether it considers that more could be done to promote the benefits of taking action on both of those issues. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
10:43 Meeting suspended.Previous
New PetitionNext
New Petition