Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
New Petitions
Access to Piers and Harbours (PE1792)
Good morning and welcome, everyone, to the 10th meeting in 2020 of the Public Petitions Committee, which is being held virtually.
The first petition for consideration is PE1792, on access to Scottish piers and harbours, which was lodged by Thomas Butler. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities and service providers provide access for those with disabilities to public facilities such as piers and harbours.
We have received a written submission from the Scottish Government stating that, as ports are a commercial interest, it is not for the Scottish Government to decide how they should operate, including in relation to accessibility issues. The submission also states that a port could be said to provide a public function under the Equality Act 2010. Compliance with the act rests with individual organisations—in this case, Highland Council, which owns Uig port. Responsibility for oversight of compliance with the 2010 act rests with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I think that there is an issue here. I am not sure that it is good enough for the Scottish Government to say that ports are commercial propositions, because all businesses have to comply with the law. There are important issues relating to accessibility and the rights of people with disabilities, so I think that we want to look at the issue further.
I ask members for their comments.
It is important that we get access to piers and harbours correct. After all, Network Rail has to enable disabled passengers to travel on our railways, and it certainly provides access to trains and stations throughout the United Kingdom by means of lifts and ramps. There is clear guidance in building regulations to ensure that sufficient access is provided for those with disabilities—indeed, the Equality Act 2010 requires it.
We must also consider issues relating to private and public ownership of our piers and how such measures will be implemented. It is not just the state or the local authorities that deal with such issues; it is incumbent on owners of harbours and piers around Scotland to do so, too.
I suggest that we write to Highland Council to ask for its reaction to the issue that the petitioner has raised in relation to Uig port. It is clear that there are some fundamental issues that we need to consider.
I agree with Maurice Corry about writing to Highland Council. We should also write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ask for its stance on the issue.
It is certainly very important that we get access right. The issue is more to do with enforcement than with the regulations. It is clear who is responsible and what has to be done. We need to get views from Highland Council and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that we get all the information together. If enforcement is required, that will be the outcome of the petition.
I agree with everything that has been said so far. It is worth stating that the petitioner is trying to highlight access to the water, rather than to the ferry. The new pier is being built to accommodate the new ferry. A quote in our papers says that there will continue to be gangway access, and that people who cannot use that can access the vessel through the car doors. That is a separate issue from what the petitioner is asking for, which is for there to be a ramp, rather than steps, to the water. He is absolutely right to ask why on earth, if there is to be a £60 million investment in a new pier, we not letting disabled people access the water for things such as water tourism, which, as he correctly states, is big business now.
Coming from the coast, I know that access to water, boats and various things connected to water tourism can be extremely important to people. We should write to Highland Council and to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. I would also like to know whether an equality impact assessment has been done, because I think that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face by not putting in a ramp with access to the water, given that we are spending so much money. I would like to see answers to the question why that is not happening.
I think that there is general consensus that we should write to the EHRC and Highland Council. Who do you envisage being involved in conducting an equality impact assessment, Gail? I was quite struck by the fact that, in its response, the Scottish Government said it did not think that it was its job to opine on equality issues—I would have thought that it might be.
This is an infrastructure project of scale, and it is owned by Highland Council, so I imagine that Highland Council would have to carry out an equality impact assessment. From my experience as a councillor, I know that there is always an equality impact assessment at the end of various papers to do with a project. Unfortunately, it nearly always says that the project has no adverse impacts on equalities. I think that that is not good enough, and that we need to start thinking about what positive impacts these things have on equalities. It might be for the Scottish Government and Highland Council to fight that one out with regards to who is responsible for the equality impact assessment but I would say that is probably the council’s responsibility.
As I said, I think that there is a general consensus that we should write to Highland Council, including in our letter the question that has been raised by Gail Ross, and to the EHRC to ask its view on the matter. We should note the fact that the issue concerns not only access to the pier but access to the water.
As no members are indicating that they disagree with that approach, I confirm that that will be the action that we take. We will consider the responses when they are received.
Small Business Bonus Scheme (PE1794)
The second new petition for consideration is PE1794, on new eligibility criteria for the small business bonus scheme, lodged by Christopher Walls. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to expand the eligibility criteria for the small business bonus scheme to ensure that small businesses can benefit from it, no matter their location.
We have received submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner, which are included in the clerk’s note. The Scottish Government’s submission explains that it has commissioned the Fraser of Allander institute to carry out an independent review of the scheme. The institute is set to report in spring 2021 and the Government advises that it would be inappropriate to introduce significant reforms in advance of that report.
There is quite an interesting issue here. I am not sure whether this particular petition addresses a lot of the questions that are in my mind but, during the pandemic, I have been struck by what businesses that have contacted me have said about the fact that they are not eligible for loans or grants because, although they are a small business, they are operating out of an area where the rates are high. The petition perhaps flags up a bigger issue. I understand that the Scottish Government is agreeing to review the small business bonus scheme, and we might want to flag up to it that we think that this issue is one that it should consider in that context. Do members have any comments?
You made an important point about what has come out of the Covid emergency, because I too have had questions raised with me by small businesses in my region. It is good news to hear that a Fraser of Allander report is being prepared. We need to await the outcome of that, but we also need to feed in the new factors that you and I have discussed about the Covid emergency. Those are new things that local authorities need to be aware of.
I am also keen that localism is very important. Local authorities know their own areas best and should obviously be applying nuances to what needs to be done. However, we need first to wait for the result of the Fraser of Allander report and, secondly, to find a way in which the committee can suggest to that review and to the Scottish Government that they take cognisance of the points that have been raised so far.
We must be very careful that we do not get into a position in which the Scottish Government looks at the result of that report and then talks about a one-size-fits-all approach for all areas around Scotland. That is wrong. We need to take a lot of cognisance of localism and the situations of local authorities.
I have sympathy with the petitioner. However, like Maurice, I think that we have to wait on the results of the Fraser of Allander report. Until that comes, I do not think that we can do anything. I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7, because the Scottish Government will not change the criteria for the scheme now. I would also like to let the petitioner know that if he is unhappy with the report and any changes that come up in the spring, he is allowed to come back to the committee and resubmit his petition.
Remember that although it is called the small business bonus scheme, it is in fact a taxation scheme. It is a reduction in taxation, not a bonus. As such, it affects companies differently in different parts of the country. In areas of high rental value, it could jeopardise marginal businesses in important areas. However, if a review is taking place we must wait on that before taking action.
The overall view is that, as there is a review already under way, any action that we ask for could be subsumed when it comes out. I was interested to hear Maurice Corry say that one size does not fit all. We have been pushing for different approaches in the Highlands for a lot of things for a lot of years; I agree with him on that.
We need to wait and see what the Fraser of Allander review comes up with for terms for reference. I wonder whether the petitioner could feed into that? The convener mentioned that they could put forward some views and flag them up to the review, and I think that that would be very useful.
I agree with David that we should move to close the petition, thank the petitioner and invite their views in a year’s time if they feel that the issue has not been addressed.
I think that there is consensus that there is an issue around the functioning of the small business bonus scheme. The particular issue that is flagged up by the petitioner is about having a small business in the context of a large shopping centre. I am not sure whether the small business bonus scheme in itself will address that, so my sense is that there is an issue here.
However, the question is whether holding the petition open until the review is complete adds anything. I think that it is more important to ensure that the petitioner is aware that they could feed into the review. We hope that, in its consideration of what the review says, the Scottish Government is aware that there are some people who end up being excluded from the scheme when, perhaps, they are in a group that the scheme was originally intended to address.
My sense is that members recognise an issue here but want to close the petition because the review is under way and the Scottish Government will respond to it in due course. At that point, we would hope that the Scottish Government would be aware of a lot of the issues that have been highlighted by the pandemic.
09:45We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition forward and highlighting the issue. We emphasise that they will be able to resubmit the petition in September 2021 if they want to focus on the issue again, and the Public Petitions Committee could make a decision at that stage about how to take it forward.
I propose that we close the petition, but recognise that there will be routes for the petitioner to take it forward subsequent to the review by Fraser of Allander. Does anybody disagree with that course of action? As no one does, that is agreed.
We thank the petitioner, recognise the issue that has been highlighted and assure the petitioner that there will be an opportunity in the future to bring the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee if that were seen to be useful and, of course, in the meantime to engage the Scottish Government in order to highlight the issue.
Spòrs Gàidhlig Funding (PE1795)
The next petition for consideration is PE1795, on funding for Spòrs Gàidhlig. The petition, which was lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh on behalf of Misneachd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to meet Bòrd na Gàidhlig to discuss longer-term and sustainable funding for Spòrs Gàidhlig, which is a social enterprise that delivers outdoor learning to young people through the medium of Gaelic.
The written submission that we have received from the Scottish Government highlights that Spòrs Gàidhlig did not realise sufficient interest from local authorities, which it had hoped to do, and that that led to the financial problems that are discussed in the petition. Bòrd na Gàidhlig agreed to an additional funding package for the period up to March 2021 once it had received income projections from Spòrs Gàidhlig that demonstrated viability. The board plans to support the Spòrs team in discussions with sportscotland to seek other funders for longer-term sustainability.
I recognise that, for any group that is trying to do such work in the current circumstances, relying on local government is going to be very difficult, because funding is so stretched. Personally, I feel that the Scottish Government is being a bit hands-off, and perhaps Bòrd na Gàidhlig too, in that it is saying that the group has to find a way to make itself viable.
I think that we need to decide whether supporting Gaelic through sport is something that we value and, if so, whether we should look to support it, although we recognise that short-term funding has been provided. The longer-term question is how to provide sustainability. Is that down to Spòrs Gàidhlig or does it fit into the context of an approach to Gaelic to be taken by local government and the Scottish Government?
Perhaps I should declare an interest as someone whose family are Gaelic speakers, although it has been lost to me. I also have family who are young enough to engage in sport through the medium of Gaelic.
I will be interested to hear members’ views.
As it is such a specialised subject, I think that we need to get more information from the Gaelic board to see exactly where it wants to go with this. I am very keen on involving young people, sport and the traditions of the Gaelic community, and I would hate to see that lost. Asking for more information from the board will put us in a better position to decide how to take the petition forward, so I ask that we write to the board. There might also be things that we should ask for from the local authorities in the Gaelic-speaking areas; if we feel that it is appropriate, that might not be a bad thing to do.
I agree with everything that Maurice Corry said. Funding is difficult for any group to find at this time. I think that we should seek the Scottish Government’s views as well and write to it to ask whether it is going to meet Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
I have difficulty understanding the connection between outdoor sport and Gaelic, not having any detailed information on that. The petition is essentially a request for funding. If there is no interest from local authorities, Spòrs Gàidhlig will have some difficulties, because local authorities determine what happens in their localities.
We need more information. The Government should be asked whether the initiative fits in with its overall policy on Gaelic. It is essential that, before we move forward, we write to Spòrs Gàidhlig, the Gaelic board and the Government.
It is a shame that the uptake from local authorities has been low, although Spòrs Gàidhlig is open to other groups and individuals coming forward.
We need to write to Bòrd na Gàidhlig. From our papers, it seems that there are on-going meetings, as the Scottish Government meets the board regularly, and sportscotland is also involved. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to meet the board, which it is already doing.
We should keep the petition open and seek comments from Bòrd na Gàidhlig to find out what the lie of the land is. It might also be beneficial to write to the local authorities that have an interest to find out what level of engagement they have had with Spòrs Gàidhlig.
I think that we agree that there is an issue. We also recognise the context with regard to whether local authorities have any funding to make available. We want to write to Bòrd na Gàidhlig and Spòrs Gàidhlig, and to the Scottish Government to ask whether it has a role in the context of its commitment to the language.
On the question of which local authorities we should write to, we should perhaps write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because it will have the best idea of where the relevant areas are. There are Gaelic-speaking areas, but there are also Gaelic schools and Gaelic-medium education in places such as Glasgow. I suppose the issue would be the extent to which there is an understanding of the value of what is being offered.
My sense is that we agree that there is an issue and that we should write, as I highlighted, to Bòrd na Gàidhlig and Spòrs Gàidhlig, and perhaps to COSLA. Does any member disagree with that approach?
I see that no member disagrees. In that case, it is agreed, and we will look forward to the responses to our letters.
Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 (PE1796)
The next new petition for consideration is PE1796, on equality, inclusion and minority languages, which has also been lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh on behalf of Misneachd. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review whether public bodies are complying with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and ensuring that the Gaelic language and therefore linguistic diversity are fully recognised and promoted in Scotland.
We have received a written submission from the Scottish Government, which states that Bòrd na Gàidhlig monitors the
“delivery and effectiveness of Gaelic Language Plans”,
which it supports public authorities to deliver under the 2005 act. The submission notes that the 2005 act includes a requirement for authorities
“to submit an annual monitoring report”,
and that that process is now under way. It goes on to state that
“The Bòrd ... commissioned independent research on some of the Gaelic Language Plans”
and that it did not indicate that there were any issues.
The submission also reflects on the challenge of resources for both the board and the authorities. It notes that the Scottish Government has responded by bringing relevant
“organisations together ... under the initiative Faster Rate of Progress for Gaelic”,
with the aim of ensuring that Gaelic is more efficiently embedded in policy developments.
The issue is about monitoring and understanding trends to get a sense of whether the 2005 act is effective. I ask members for their comments.
This interesting petition follows on from the previous one. The main issue is that the Scottish Government, to be fair, has recognised the challenge and has really backed the 2005 act.
I cannot see any further work that can be done by keeping the petition open. The Scottish Government has confirmed that it is monitoring the situation with the Gaelic board and the respective bodies to ensure that there is linguistic diversity and that Gaelic is fully recognised and promoted in Scotland, as we all know it is. We need to let the Scottish Government’s actions take effect.
We should certainly suggest that, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the closing of the petition, he should come back in due course to see what progress the Scottish Government has made.
I agree with everything that Maurice Corry said. We should probably close the petition, because the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns that were raised and it is monitoring progress. The Scottish Government is doing everything that it can do at this time.
Again, it is about ensuring that funds are going in this direction. It seems that enough monitoring and assessment are going on, so we should not interfere with that process at the moment. Closing the petition would be advantageous in this case.
I agree. I do not have much to add. Monitoring is in place. I thank the petitioner, and we should close the petition. The petitioner is free to come back if he feels that the monitoring that is in place is insufficient.
I wondered what prompted the petition. There seems to be something about emphasising the right to invest in Gaelic. I do not know whether the petitioner is concerned that there is some suggestion that the approach is excluding other people.
We want to confirm that we support an approach that supports Gaelic and that the Scottish Government is taking such an approach. People recognise the importance of Gaelic and a petition that highlights the issue. Monitoring needs to be effective.
We could agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, given that the Scottish Government has said that public bodies are complying with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, which is what the petition asks for. If there are issues that suggest that that is not happening, the petitioner will have the opportunity to bring a petition back in a year’s time to ensure that the matter is considered further.
Does any member disagree with that approach? It seems not, so we agree to close the petition. We thank the petitioner for highlighting the issue and we recognise the importance of on-going monitoring of work to support Gaelic.
Live Chick Culling (PE1797)
The final new petition for consideration today is PE1797, from Kirsten MacQuarrie, on an end to live chick culling in the egg industry. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the maceration of newborn male chicks and set a deadline to end all live chick culling in the egg industry.
According to our papers for the meeting,
“there are currently no hatcheries located in Scotland producing laying hens for egg production; therefore there is no maceration of newborn male chicks.”
Since our meeting papers were circulated, we have received a written submission in support of the petition from Dr Lizzie Rowe, who is a research associate in farm animal welfare at the University of Bristol veterinary school. The submission was sent to committee members separately, for our information.
The petition raises interesting issues. They say that every day is a school day, and I have learned more than I expected to learn about what is happening in the egg industry. I am very sympathetic to the petitioner’s wish to find a way of feeding people that does not involve animal cruelty.
I am struck by the benefits of our getting an early response from the Scottish Government. The response flags up that there are currently no such hatcheries in Scotland. I invite comments from members.
It is interesting that other countries have moved to ban the maceration of male chicks. The paper from the Scottish Government is helpful. As there are currently no hatcheries in Scotland that produce laying hens for egg production and there is therefore no maceration of newborn male chicks, I suggest that we close the petition. There is no point in carrying on with it, given the information that we have from the Scottish Government.
I, too, think that we should close the petition, given the information from the Scottish Government.
10:00
I agree. If there is not an actual problem here in Scotland, there is no point in keeping the petition open. If the Government continues to monitor developments in other places in determining the sex of eggs—if that is the way to describe it—that will be good, and I hope that that will be achieved in due course. It is appropriate to close the petition at this stage.
I think that the Scottish Government is aware of the situation. I was pleased to note from its submission that it will work towards a more humane solution. The fact that no maceration is taking place in Scotland is important, but the petitioner’s point is that it is still referred to in guidance and it is still permissible, even if the method is not actually being used.
I am happy that the Scottish Government is working on the matter. I hate to think of maceration happening, but various organisations say that it is instantaneous and a humane way to dispatch male chicks. I am not sure that I entirely agree, but I am not going to argue against the professionals. The situation is monitored by various organisations and I know that the cross-party group on animal welfare has been looking into the matter, too. It is not just a single issue.
I have much sympathy for the petition, but I have to consider where the Public Petitions Committee is on the matter, and I do not think that there would be any benefit in our keeping the petition open. I completely understand where the petitioner is coming from and where she seeks to go, but I think that we need to close the petition. Many people will keep monitoring where we are with the in-ovo sexing of eggs, and the industry is aware of the matter.
I agree with our closing the petition, but I thank the petitioner.
Based on our discussion, I think that we recognise that there is an issue here. We are reassured by the fact that there are no such hatcheries in Scotland, but we recognise that the practice is still something that could happen.
I note the points that Gail Ross made about the Scottish Government’s role and its understanding that there is an issue, and other bits of the parliamentary system are aware of the matter, such as the cross-party group and so on. I hope that that will reassure the petitioner that the issue is recognised as being important and that there are ways to deal with the matter, and options available. It is not a question of the process just continuing; there is recognition that people want to move away from it, given concerns about animal welfare.
Nevertheless, it seems that we agree to close the petition on the basis that there are currently no such hatcheries located in Scotland, so there is no maceration of newborn male chicks. We hope that the Scottish Government will continue to monitor developments in this area of research.
As there is no disagreement, that course of action is agreed. We again thank the petitioner for highlighting the issue. In considering the matter, the Public Petitions Committee has perhaps created a bit of general awareness of something that some of us did not know about before.
10:04 Meeting suspended.10:11 On resuming—
Previous
AttendanceNext
Continued Petitions