Official Report 325KB pdf
Home Loss Payment (PE988)
A number of petitions are on the go. I thank the members of the public who have attended the committee so far.
I will say a few words, if I may.
I thought that you might.
Thank you for the opportunity. We have undertaken an internal review to consider whether any changes should be made to the home loss payment system. As the committee is aware, having considered the situation, we decided not to increase the levels of payment or to change the system for calculating the amount of the home loss payment.
This may be a tangential issue, but according to my notes the maximum payment that can be made is £15,000 and the minimum is £1,500, depending on the value of the property. If a home loss payment is made for what I might describe as distress at having one's property taken away, it is not immediately obvious to me why its size should depend on how big the property is or how much it costs. Are you in a position to rationalise to me to some extent how a tenfold difference in anguish can be justified in monetary terms?
The member makes a fair point. Distress is unlikely to be related directly to the value of the house. At present, the home loss payment is set at 10 per cent of the value of the house, up to a house value of £150,000. The distress that is suffered by owners of higher-value properties should not be materially different. People also receive compensation for the financial value of their house and financial assistance in moving to a new property.
It seems unfair that the level of home loss payment is based on the value of a person's house rather than the length of time that they have spent there. If someone has lived in a house for a couple of years, it is unlikely that they have grown hugely attached to it; if they are compensated properly for the house's value, they can move on. If a home has been in a family for generations, having to move out of it might involve huge emotional trauma, even if the house is not worth very much. I am disappointed that you seemed to state that you do not intend to re-examine the issue. It would be good if you took away some of the issues that are raised in the petition and re-examined the matter, if only to give the petitioner some assurance that their concerns have been dealt with.
The member makes an interesting point that I do not seek to disregard, but the petition asks us to increase the levels of payment. I draw committee members' attention to the fact that more than 90 per cent of compulsory purchases are settled before the compulsory purchase order process has been completed. There is a high degree of acceptance of the financial compensation that is on offer to people.
So you have not closed the door to considering the other aspects.
I do not want to mislead committee members. It is not our immediate intention to reconsider the scheme. I do not disregard the point about the time that someone has spent in their house, and we will take it on board when we next consider the scheme.
Do you know how the financial compensation for loss of house in Scotland compares with the compensation in England?
In England, the ceiling is three times higher, or thereabouts, and it is incremented annually. At the moment, the compensation goes up to £47,000, which is substantially more than in Scotland. However, I return to the point that we are making different policy choices for the money. I will give you some figures. If we adopted the English model, we would spend an extra £32 million on the scheme over three years and an extra £75 million in the period to 2016. That money would be displaced from our investment in affordable housing. The policy choice that we have chosen to make, which I defend, is to put the money into social housing rather than use it to increase home loss payments, especially as the clear evidence from the behaviour of people in Scotland is that the overwhelming majority—more than 90 per cent—accept the compensation package including the compensation for distress.
I was asking not about the part of the package that compensates for distress but about the compensation that householders get anyway. Is that higher in England than in Scotland?
There are three parts to the financial settlement that people get: home loss payment, which is the subject of the petition; the purchase of the property at a fair market value, which is always the subject of some negotiation, as you would expect; and the expenses associated with moving. In the great majority of cases, the matter is settled by voluntary purchase, which is freely entered into and made, and there is no need to complete the compulsory purchase order process. Even when compulsory purchase is put in place, more than 90 per cent of purchases are completed without the order having to go through the full legal process. By and large, and in the generality, the evidence is that the system is working reasonably satisfactorily.
How many houses are involved in compulsory purchase?
It varies from year to year, but broadly there are about 5,000 demolitions per annum.
The petition raises an issue of fairness. There is possibly room for a review of the system in Scotland. I accept the minister's point that, if we moved immediately to the levels that exist in England, the spending increase would be around £35 million. However, there is a case for making a slight and perhaps incremental increase to a maximum of £20,000 and then having a review of the kind that Rhoda Grant suggested and considering basing the payment on years in the house or something else that better reflects the distress that is caused. I accept the minister's point on the policy choices that have been made and the budget within which he is working, but things can be done within the current budget that might address the petitioner's concerns.
We certainly intend to continue to monitor the situation, although, as I have said, having just completed an internal review we shall not be doing a further review immediately.
The Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee pointed out that people had to move out of their houses to make way for publicly funded projects, so it seems unfortunate that the money has to come from the social housing budget rather than one that is more closely linked to the project that is displacing people.
Remember that compulsory purchase orders are available only to the public sector for a defined public benefit. The promoter of the compulsory purchase order has to pay all the costs that are associated with it, including the home loss payment, so if the overwhelming majority of home loss payments are made in the context of housing and urban refurbishment, the budgets for those activities must bear the cost of the home loss payment and the other costs that are associated with compulsory purchase orders. The budget for railway or road schemes would bear the cost of any compulsory purchase orders, because that is part of the process by which the necessary resources for such projects—the land and so on—are put in place.
Have you ever had a legal challenge on the home loss payment?
In what terms?
In terms of equity. Has anyone challenged it because a certain calculation is relevant elsewhere in the UK but not in Scotland?
We have not had a legal challenge. We raised the issue of human rights concerns, which may touch on that, and it did not come up.
The minister mentioned that, in the rest of the UK, there is an incremental figure. Does the incremental figure happen to be different in Scotland or is there none?
To be clear, Northern Ireland has a higher figure but no incremental increase. England and Wales have a higher figure that is incremented annually in line with inflation. We have a lower figure that is fixed. That is the position as of today.
The convener might mean different payment levels, as opposed to the situation in England and Wales, where the level is reviewed annually.
I have two questions. Does England have annual uprating?
Yes.
How much is that uprating and does it apply to other parts of the UK?
No annual uprating takes place in Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Is that difference of long standing or, in these complex post-devolution times, is it the product of changes since 1999?
In 2003, the system in England and Wales changed from one that was similar to ours.
That raises another question. In 2003, was a different view taken about the uprating figure? You say that England and Wales have a higher uprating figure, which you have chosen not to use in Scotland—that is your call. Is that because England and Wales uprated extensively in 2003 or have the different rates accumulated historically?
The uprating since 2003 in England and Wales is not the substantial contributor to the ceiling of £47,000. The level in Northern Ireland was amended in 2004 to £45,000, but no provision was made for annual reviews. The position is simply the result of a policy decision, to which the Government adheres. I cannot speak for what ministers might have thought about in 2003. I have—properly—no access to any advice that they might or might not have been given. The previous Administration chose not to follow England then and we do not choose to follow it now.
So we are living up to our reputation.
It was fascinating to return to an old stamping-ground.
Are you telling me that this committee is much better than previous ones?
Just as you did not wish to fall out with the Presiding Officer, I do not wish to comment on that remark.
Thank you for your time.
We heard a clear answer, so I do not think that we can pursue the matter.
There was some sophistry in the comparisons, but I leave the judgment on that to other committee members.
We have done what we should do. We have taken the issue to the appropriate authority and discussed it seriously. The minister has done what ministers do, which is make decisions, by which he will stand or fall. We have finished. We might have personal views, but it is time for the committee to close the petition, because we have done what we can. I suggest that that is it.
I agree.
I do not have a problem with that, although I have concerns about a cumulative failure. I am not talking only about the present minister—the same applies to colleagues of mine who were in government previously. I can understand that that can happen when a civil servant is pushing and saying, "No change, buddy, because it would have an effect," but we are not even taking an incremental compensation approach for ordinary punters in Scotland who find that their houses are to be taken away from them. We might have a different starting point. However, I concede Nigel Don his point. The petition has raised an issue, it has gone to the top of the tree and a policy decision has been made. We must accept that, although we might have different views on what happens after that. That is a matter for everybody around the table and beyond. Nigel Don suggests that we close the petition on the basis of the response from the minister, although the petitioner might find other ways in which to explore the issue. Are members happy to accept that recommendation?
Claire Baker has to leave because of other commitments. I thank her for her time.
Oil Depots (Public Health) (PE936)
PE936, from Simon Brogan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to review the public health implications of siting oil depots in residential areas, in light of the Buncefield oil depot explosion in December 2005. Do members have any observations on the petition, which has been in the system for some time?
Asking the Government to submit a definitive list of the improvements that have been made would not be an enormous imposition. It is reasonable to ask for that.
That is reasonable. We can then determine what to do.
The Buncefield major incident investigation board recommended that devolved Administrations should consider reforms to the major hazardous substances consents system. Could we ask whether the Government is considering that?
Okay. We will pursue those two issues on the petition.
Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999 (Revocation) (PE1003)
PE1003, by Sydney Johnson, calls on the Parliament to revoke the Shetland Islands Regulated Fishery (Scotland) Order 1999. Although the Government has decided not to revoke the order, it has issued specific recommendations to the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation and the petitioner has established a line of communication with the Government to address his concerns. In that light, do members agree to close the petition?
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Appeal Tribunal) (PE1076)
PE1076, by D W R Whittet, calls on the Parliament to set up an appeal tribunal to review final decisions of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman where any complainer so requests. We are still awaiting action arising from the Crerar review, so we could explore that issue. The petition is in its final stages, but do members agree to seek a final response from the Government on it?
Wind Farm Developments (PE1104)<br />Wind Farms (Moratorium) (PE1178)
We said that we would consider PE1104 alongside PE1178, both of which are by Dixie Dean. PE1104 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to consider the impact of mechanical vibrations that are transmitted through wind turbine installations on peat, soils and various other aspects of the base of the food chain when considering applications for onshore wind farms. The Government recently commissioned research on the matter, which found that vibrations from wind farms do not pose a threat and that sufficient regulation exists, in the form of environmental impact assessment, to take such matters into account. That is for members' information. What to do with the petitions is members' call.
Close them.
Okay. We have a recommendation to close the petitions. Do members agree?
Both petitions will be closed in the light of that investigation.
Lion of Scotland Statue (PE1117)
PE1117, by Rosalind Newlands, president of the World Federation of Tourist Guide Associations, asks the Parliament and the Government permanently to secure for the people of Scotland the sculpture by Ronald Rae that is known as the lion of Scotland, which was temporarily exhibited in Holyrood Park until March 2008.
Commissioner—I mean convener—
I like that title.
I should remove myself from the discussion as I am convener of the Parliament's art advisory group.
I understand. How should we address the petition?
We cannot take the petition any further. We have had a clear decision from the corporate body and the art advisory group, and we have to accept that decision.
Do we accept Nanette Milne's recommendation? We should note that the statue will still be in its current position until 2010 for those who enjoy the sculpture, and I am sure that there will be more discussions about the appropriate recipient.
Some of us might want to note our regret at the decision. I quite like the statue, but we have done our job, and we need to be clear that we are sticking to our job, rather than making other people's decisions for them.
Okay. We will say in writing that we regret the cultural vandalism—[Laughter.] Sorry. We will say that we regret the decision that was taken but recognise that it is the role of the SPCB to make such decisions.
Animal Slaughter (PE1118)
Petition PE1118, by Josey Rowan, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to ban the killing of animals through methods that are mentioned in the petition—I can never pronounce them—and to require the stunning of all animals before slaughter. Do members have any views about the issues raised in the petition? I presume that Bashir Ahmad wants to make a contribution.
Nowadays, new methods are being used to get chickens to grow. I know that most of the chickens that are slaughtered never see daylight. They are kept in the dark and given special food that makes their meat grow quickly. Most of, if not all, the chickens that we get in the shops nowadays have never seen daylight and do not get a chance to grow properly.
Do members have any other comments or observations to make on the petition?
It is a question of what the committee can do. It is difficult for us to counter a judgment—in fact, I am not sure whether that is our job. It is for the Government to decide between the competing interests. However, the very least that we could do is ask the Government to state its position clearly and indicate what investigations it has carried out, or will carry out, into each of the recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Specifically, we can ask it to respond to each of the recommendations, detailing what action it will take—if any—and why.
The Government has been quite clear about the action that it is taking and its reaction to the petition. Therefore, I do not think that there is a lot to be gained from writing to it again—that would just keep the petition going. I do not see anything in the correspondence that we have received to indicate that there has been any change of view. I therefore suggest that we close the petition, as I do not think that we are going to get anywhere with it.
I agree.
We have two options: to close the petition or to refer the matter for further discussion of, or observations on, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations.
A human being should come first, then an animal—if at all. If a human being is given—
I do not know about that. In our house, the dog gets better treatment than I do, at times. The kids like the dog better.
Can we make sure that we are not eating the meat of animals that died before they were properly slaughtered?
Essentially, we have to decide whether we want to refer on issues from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Robin Harper has indicated his support for that course of action. However, the comment has been made that we have gone as far as we can with the petition. Is the committee agreed that the petition should be closed? [Interruption.] I see that although Robin Harper wishes to keep the petition open, the majority is in favour of closing it. We cannot really take the petition much further.
Road Haulage Industry (Fuel Prices) (PE1119)
PE1119, by Philip Flanders, on behalf of the Road Haulage Association, raises issues that are related to fuel price increases and the idea of a fuel duty regulator. The committee has two options. The matter has been amplified in the chamber both here and at the House of Commons. It will not necessarily go away, but there are many different voices and perspectives on the matter. I think that we have gone as far as we can with the petition, given the responses that have been received so far. Do members share that view?
I think that we should close the petition.
I agree. However, in his letter Philip Flanders suggests that the Scottish Government could offset the increased costs by, for example, funding training courses to teach hauliers how to achieve greater fuel efficiency. In closing the petition, could we suggest that the Government should consider such action?
Okay. We can ask the Government to liaise with the petitioner on that. That is a good suggestion. With that, do members agree to close the petition?
Family Mediation Services (Funding) (PE1120)
PE1120, by Brian McNair, asks the Scottish Government to review its family law policies and spending levels to ensure that greater emphasis is attached to family mediation services and to the provision of more focused family support to children.
Many of the issues that are raised in the petition will be addressed in Thursday evening's members' business debate, which is on a motion in my name. We could ask the Government about legal aid, in particular. This is one area where spending a bit more on legal aid would save a great deal of money in the courts. We need to support mediation services and to encourage people to use them. If services are not adequately funded, we need to encourage the Government to fund them, in one way or another.
Do members accept those recommendations?
Plastic Bags (Environmental Levy) (PE1121)
Petition PE1121, from James Bell, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate the reintroduction of the Environmental Levy on Plastic Bags (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the member in charge of the bill has taken other measures, in conjunction with key stakeholders, to address the issues raised in the bill. Given that those issues are being explored by different means, do members agree to close the petition?
Diabetes (Self-management Plans) (PE1123)
PE1123 is from Stephen Fyfe—he is here, and I thank him for being patient all afternoon—on behalf of Diabetes UK Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that all NHS boards provide the necessary resources to promote and deliver diabetes self-management plans to all people with diabetes.
The audit that the petitioner suggests would be particularly useful, as it would enable us to see how diabetes education is being rolled out in different health boards.
We will leave the petitioner's three suggestions with the clerk. We will place a strong emphasis on auditing and identifying what has been done. It would also be helpful if boards could provide us with a timescale for delivery. We accept the petitioner's recommendations and thank him for his contribution.
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (Snares) (PE1124)
Petition PE1124, from Louise Robertson, on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports, Advocates for Animals, the International Otter Survival Fund and Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to amend the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to introduce provisions to ban the manufacture, sale, possession and use of all snares. Do members have suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?
The Minister for Environment made a substantial statement to the Parliament on the Government's views on the future of snaring. Perhaps we should write to him again to seek information on the current situation and to ask whether the Government intends to implement the suggestions that he made in his statement.
I agree with that suggestion. Recently I met the Grampian wildlife crime officer, who made it clear that snares are key to the management of predators in the countryside. However, they must be used properly and legally, so as not to cause undue distress to the animals that are caught in them.
The last time I inquired, there was confusion about the number of wildlife crime officers in full-time posts. I would like us to put a specific question on that to the Government, along with the more general questions.
The minister said that the design of snares was to be amended to make them more humane—if that is the right word. Legislation suggests that those setting the snares have to examine them again within 24 hours, but that has never been enforced. More should be made of the legislation to ensure that such re-examination takes place. We should find out from the minister what the current situation is and when the Government is likely to introduce legislation.
We should also ask how the Government will review the legislation. As Robin Harper and Nanette Mine have said, very few wildlife officers are in post to track how the new legislation is working. I would be keen to hear how the Government plans to review the legislation, and I would be keen to hear whether the legislation has had the desired effect.
Issues arise on monitoring and implementation, but also on alternatives to snaring—differing views exist on whether to snare or not to snare. Let us get some responses from the Government.
Advocacy Services (PE1126)
PE1126 by Lesley Learmonth and Joan Mulroy, on behalf of Enable Scotland, is on dealing with legislation in order to ensure that people with learning disabilities have an enforceable right to the services of an independent advocate, and that such services are adequately funded.
Rather than going through the Government, might we write to one or two NHS boards and ask them what their approach is, so that we can get a view on what is going on?
The issue was debated during the festival of politics. It is a serious issue.
Okay, we will take all those recommendations on board.
Witchcraft Act 1735 (Posthumous Pardons) (PE1128)
PE1128, by Ewan Irvine, on behalf of Full Moon Investigations, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to take the necessary action to grant a posthumous pardon to all persons convicted in Scotland under all witchcraft legislation.
It is regrettable, but we have come to the end of the line with the petition. We have asked for a response and we have received a pretty definitive response. Some of us are disappointed, but I do not think that we can do anything else with the petition.
We will recommend the closure of the petition.
Funeral Costs (PE1129)
Our final petition today is PE1129, by Paul Dowsland, on behalf of Rights Advice Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that adequate resources are made available to local authorities to ensure that no family is driven into poverty as a consequence of meeting the cost of arranging a funeral, and to urge the Scottish Government to make representations to the UK Government on the funding levels and eligibility criteria under the social fund funeral payments scheme.
Previous
New Petitions