Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, here in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

At our last meeting, the committee agreed to review its policy on written submissions. Our first agenda item is a decision on whether the committee’s consideration of the policy should be taken in private at a future meeting. As colleagues will recall, we expect to have a paper shortly on our policy about receiving submissions once a petition is actively under consideration. I suggest that we publish the paper but that, other than that, the item is conducted, as normal, in private. Are members content to consider the item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That would be useful. In addition, if it is the case that all members of the NatureScot board are appointed through a public appointments process, we might ask the Scottish Government what weight is given to local knowledge in the determination of any appointment that is made. Perhaps, in fact, that does not count and, therefore, the petitioner’s underlying concern about the absence of it might have some validity. Do we agree to keep the petition open and act accordingly?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. I know that you are not here to give evidence, but I was going to ask a question about the number of people who might be involved, and you have answered it. I think that you have quantified that at around 6,000.

I suppose that the other potential reason, which you did not volunteer, is that this request has been blended in with other requests for extension to the scheme and, therefore, rather than moving on any, the Government moves on none, in case it is then used as the basis for an argument in another area of extension. I am not arguing that that would be the right thing to do, but I wonder whether that is also in the minds of people who have not taken this issue forward.

The next petition is PE1982, which has been lodged by Gary McKay. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding that is provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and to help to enable more places to be made available to Scottish students who pursue ballet at that level. This is about funding from the Scottish Government—the Scottish taxpayer—for Scottish ballet.

The committee has received a response from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, which begins by challenging the petitioner’s claim that there is a five-person cap on places for Scotland-domiciled dancers. The response explains that the figure 5 appears in data sets because standard rounding methodology has been used, whereby numbers have been rounded to the nearest five in order to avoid identifying individuals.

The conservatoire also challenges the petitioner’s view that its process for awarding places discriminates against Scottish applicants, and states that Scottish dancers who present for audition and who meet the required standard have been offered places.

The petitioner’s response highlights the subjective nature of auditions as a means of assessment and raises questions about five dancers who, he says, were rejected by the conservatoire despite having been offered places by a number of other dance schools.

I have to say that I found some of the responses that we have received quite intriguing. Do colleagues have any thoughts on the petition?

I have to say to the Royal Conservatoire that I think that its response is disappointing. I felt almost as though it was designed on the basis that if we read it we would not take much more interest in the petition and we would be fobbed off with what, to my mind, is a very generalised and not terribly constructive response.

As I said, this is about funding—as the petitioner points out—that comes from the Scottish taxpayer and the Scottish Government. I think that the response that the RCS has given almost validates the concerns of the petitioner. It might well be that, in due course, we will take evidence on the petition if we do not get something slightly more satisfactory by way of a written response. Of course, in consequence we will make our own recommendations to the Scottish Government in relation to Royal Conservatoire funding.

We will get back to the Royal Conservatoire, if members are content to do so. I found its argument to be odd. I presume that all the people within any aggregated number are receiving funding, so I am not quite sure what the confidentiality issue is. If everybody is getting it, who would we be naming in particular, in consequence? If that is an argument that the RCS wishes to maintain because it is bound by a protocol, at the very least it is perfectly possible for us to ask it how many Scotland-domiciled students in, say, the past five years aggregated, were offered places. That would allow sufficient anonymity for us to have a handle on the number who were involved and how many then took up the offer, in case there is variation in that respect.

That would be reasonable. We could point out that it appears from the petitioner’s submission that the UK Government has indicated that it has moved in that direction—or, if it has not moved in that direction, it has clarified that it is possible for that to happen in the rest of the UK—and, therefore, the Scottish Government might want to consider following suit. Does the committee agree to keep the petition open and move forward on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first new petition this morning, PE2028, has been lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer on behalf of the Voices Network. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of their age.

We are joined in our consideration of PE2028 by our MSP colleagues Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell. Mr Sweeney is a veteran of our proceedings, of course, and I believe that Mr Ruskell has also been with us to consider petitions previously. I wish a very warm welcome to you both.

The petitioners highlight the challenging financial circumstances that asylum seekers face, and suggest that extending the concessionary bus travel scheme would support asylum seekers, as a group, becoming much more integrated in our communities.

As the SPICe briefing notes, people who seek asylum in the UK are usually ineligible for most welfare benefits. They have, to use the term that many of us are familiar with, “no recourse to public funds”. However, the Scottish national concessionary travel schemes are not listed by the UK Government as benefits that rely on public funds, which means that some asylum seekers can already benefit from free bus and coach travel.

Scottish Government officials estimate that around one third of people who are seeking asylum in Scotland are already eligible for concessionary bus travel under the existing schemes—that is, people who are under 22, are over 60 or are disabled. The Scottish Government response has also provided information about a pilot to provide travel support to asylum seekers in Glasgow, which ran from January to July this year.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners drawing our attention to pilots that have taken place in Aberdeen and Falkirk, and encouraging the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to continue to engage constructively on the matter.

Before I ask colleagues how we might proceed in relation to PE2028, I invite both of our visiting colleagues to speak. Mr Ruskell, would you like to offer a contribution?

I think that this is an important petition that has quite a specific and deliverable ask. Do colleagues have any thoughts, having heard from Mr Ruskell and Mr Sweeney?

We thank the petitioner for the PE1977. There appears to be national protection guidance in place, so we thank them for raising the issue with us. Obviously, it is open to the petitioner to lodge another petition later, if we feel that the matter is still not being acted upon.

Members indicated agreement.

Our first continued petition is PE1856, which was lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support for taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-emission standards and their implementation dates.

It was some time ago but, since our last consideration of the petition, we have received a written submission from Transport Scotland in response to our question about synchronising the roll-out of low-emission zones across Scotland, which taxi drivers were particularly concerned about. The submission states that local authorities are responsible for deciding the timing for introduction and enforcement. It states that LEZ enforcement began in Glasgow city centre on 1 June, which I think is well known by the public now, and that the council had introduced a grace period of one year for all and two years for residents within the zone. The council also developed a mechanism for taxi operators to apply for a temporary exemption beyond the June 2023 enforcement date.

In consequence, Transport Scotland is not minded to mandate a transition to electric vehicles at one point in time as an alternative to offering support with retrofitting. Its view is that it is for operators to decide how to meet the LEZ standards.

According to the submission, 250 taxis have now been retrofitted as a result of Government funding. It states that there are no plans to adapt LEZs beyond their current size or scope or to introduce new LEZs in other parts of Scotland.

Do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?