Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Official Report 600KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Domestic Abuse (Gender) (PE1909)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. I say to anybody who is tuning in to see their petition being considered for the first time that we seek the views of the Scottish Government on all new petitions before we formally consider them. The responses that we receive in advance form the notes that members get in their papers ahead of consideration of the petitions at the committee.
The first new petition, PE1909, which was lodged by William Wright, calls for the removal of the so-called gender-based domestic abuse narrative and for it to be made gender neutral and equal. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make domestic abuse policies, guidance, agendas and practices gender neutral; to introduce equal domestic abuse provision and funding for everyone in Scotland, regardless of any protected characteristic; and to ensure that all domestic abuse joint protocol guidance, policies and practice for Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are gender neutral.
In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government outlines a number of key statistics as evidence that domestic abuse is predominantly perpetrated by men against women. For example, women are nearly three times more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner, and 95 per cent of charges that were reported by the police to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2020-21 involved a male alleged perpetrator. However, it is acknowledged that the statistics do not mean that
“men and boys cannot be the victims of domestic abuse”.
The cabinet secretary’s submission points out that the provisions in criminal law that are used to prosecute domestic abuse are gender neutral and apply equally to all perpetrators. The submission also highlights several funded services for male victims and notes that the 2021-22 programme for government included a commitment to establishing a national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men and boys.
The petitioner suggests that the Scottish Government’s equally safe work, which describes women and girls as being higher risk, as well as the Police Scotland and COPFS guidance on domestic abuse, risk creating a bias against violence against men and boys.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
As the statistics in the cabinet secretary’s submission highlight, the causes and consequences of violence are different for men and women, as are the approaches that we need to take to prevent and—as I hope, one day, we will do—eradicate that violence.
I suggest that we press the Scottish Government by writing to it to seek further details on the national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men and boys, including a timescale for its publication. I think that it would also be helpful to write to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to seek their views on the petition. In addition, it would be helpful to hear from the services that are targeted at men and boys that are mentioned in our papers, such as the Respect men’s advice line, ASSIST and Sacro’s FearFree service.
No other member has indicated that they wish to comment—unless Mr Sweeney is indicating that he would like to come in.
I am all right, thank you, convener.
It was just a loose hand—rather than a family pet or anything—that caught my attention.
We thank Mr Wright for his petition, which we intend to keep open. We will write to the various Government bodies and organisations that Ruth Maguire identified. Does the committee agree to our following that process?
Members indicated agreement.
Council Venues (Funding) (PE1912)
PE1912, on funding for council venues, has been lodged by Wendy Dunsmore. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide councils with the necessary additional revenue to run essential services and venues.
It is worth noting that the SPICe briefing on the petition, the Scottish Government’s submission and the petitioner’s submission were all written before the Scottish Government budget 2022-23 was published, which happened on 9 December 2021. Key points from a separate SPICe briefing on local government finance that was produced following the budget’s publication include the facts that, once additional revenue and capital grants are factored in, the total local government settlement increased by £603 million, or 5.1 per cent, between 2021-22 and 2022-23; and that there will be a real-terms increase in provisional revenue allocations for all local authorities, except Western Isles Council, Shetland Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council, which all experience small real-terms reductions.
In his submission, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth highlights the 2021-22 settlement of £11.7 billion, stating that it provided “a cash increase” in local government spending. The petitioner’s submission is a collective response to the minister from Unite, Unison and the GMB. Although they recognise that local authorities make decisions about service provision and delivery, they note that those decisions are not without
“unfair challenges caused by a real terms reduction of funding”.
The petitioner’s submission also points out that, as much of the £11.7 billion settlement figure is ring fenced for Scottish Government commitments, it is therefore “not technically available” for local authority spending decisions.
I invite comments from colleagues.
The issue of council finances is a long-running one. It has been a picture of long-term decline, certainly over the past decade—I think that the overall figure is that, on average, 10p in every £1 that a council in Scotland has to spend has been cut over that period. Bearing in mind that 80 per cent of a council’s budget is set by the Scottish Government, the power in relation to council budget decisions lies largely with central Government. Only 20 per cent of a council’s finances can be raised through local charges and the council tax. Therefore, local government’s capacity to generate its own income is constrained.
Furthermore, as the SPICe report points out, there has been an increase in the level of ring fencing—that is, in the slice of a council’s budget that has strings attached, which means that it cannot be used on a discretionary basis or has to be displaced from existing budget lines and used to deliver Scottish Government-mandated projects. In effect, that is a way of funding central Government priorities indirectly through stealth, by displacing existing budget demands on local government.
That compounds the financial pressure that councils face. I accept that the latest figures from SPICe require updating but, from what I can discern, the pressure on local government has not relented. That is indicated by the recent reports that every council leader in Scotland from across the parties has written to the First Minister to request an emergency meeting to discuss council financing. That indicates that, regardless of party affiliation, this is a major issue confronting local government. Through COSLA, the leaders of all 32 councils have sought an emergency meeting with the First Minister to discuss the issue.
The acuteness of the matter has not abated, so the concerns that have been raised are valid. It would be worth while seeking information on the latest figures and impacts. We should also take a longer-term view of local government finance.
What I find problematic in the minister’s response to the committee is the fact that absolute figures in isolation do not illustrate the problem. We have to consider the percentage position relative to previous years. Also, looking at the issue in cash terms in isolation is not necessarily helpful, when we have seen an inflationary spiral in the past year and significant pressures on wages are likely in the next financial year. All those things need to be properly unpacked and considered, rather than just throwing figures at us that sound impressive on the face of it but do not give the full context.
I am not entirely convinced by the response. On that basis, I think that there is merit in continuing the petition to gather further evidence.
Thank you for that comprehensive contribution. As no other member wishes to come in, I think that we want to thank Wendy Dunsmore for her petition, which we are going to keep open. Mr Sweeney identified a series of stakeholders from whom we will seek views on the issues that are raised in the petition. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Secondary School Uniforms (PE1914)
Our penultimate new petition is PE1914, lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms in secondary schools. The petitioner sets out several reasons why he believes that that should happen, including the fact that uniforms are uncomfortable and costly and that they interfere with students’ ability to express their individuality.
The Scottish Government’s submission makes it clear that
“there is no legislative requirement in place in Scotland which legally requires the wearing of school uniform”,
and that, instead, school uniform policy is a matter for local authorities and individual schools. The Scottish Government states that it
“would not support a proposal to ban school uniforms at any school within Scotland.”
The submission sets out a number of perceived advantages to wearing school uniform, which include reducing competition between pupils in respect of expensive clothing brands; reducing bullying; creating a positive image of a school in a local community; and improving school security by allowing staff to easily identify anyone who does not belong to the school.
The Scottish Government acknowledges the petitioner’s concerns about buying school uniforms and recognises that
“this can be one of the most significant ... costs for families”
and
“can be a source of anxiety for low income families.”
The submission explains that the Scottish Government recently increased the amounts that are paid for school clothing grants.
The submission also states that the Scottish Government has
“committed to introducing statutory guidance on uniforms for schools and local authorities during the lifetime of this parliamentary session”,
which will cover the affordability of school uniforms, the consideration of equalities issues when deciding school uniform policies and considerations for physical education classes. The Scottish Government concludes by highlighting a public consultation on proposed school uniform guidance, which is due to be launched in the new year.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I would like to keep the petition open. I know that the Scottish Government submission says that it would not ban outright the wearing of school uniforms across Scotland, but there would be merit in finding out when the Scottish Government will publish its school uniform consultation, so I would like to write to the Government to ask that. I would also like to write to other relevant stakeholders such as the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the National Parent Forum of Scotland to find out their views on the petition.
11:30
I think—possibly because of my ex-Army background—that school uniform is a fine thing and it builds school identity. I will not rehearse all the arguments about it, because I think that they have been had before. A wider consideration is the financial effect of school uniform and some of the financial pressures that are faced by families. There have been some interesting innovations in that regard, particularly in Glasgow, with Glasgow’s Pre-Loved Uniform Service, which was set up by Donna Henderson. It is basically an exchange, because a lot of kids grow so fast that they outgrow clothing that is still perfectly usable. The service has been trying to reduce waste as well as addressing some issues around financial exclusion by introducing clothing rails in schools around Glasgow so that people can exchange items of uniform and refurbish uniforms.
When we are thinking about the issue of uniforms, we might want to think about how they are provided to kids and look at ways in which we can make the process more sustainable and reduce the turnover of uniform items that go to waste. It would be worth considering taking evidence from Donna Henderson, because she has done a fantastic job in Glasgow.
I take note of that. We may well come back to it.
Like you, I wore a school uniform—more than half a century ago now. I do not know whether it fell out of fashion, but my own experience was that there was an active facilitation of second-hand school uniforms at that time. In fact, there were even retail outlets that organised the sale and receipt of second-hand uniforms. You are absolutely right—very often, there is still a long shelf life left in a school uniform item, as it has only become available because the young person has grown out of it very quickly.
In the first instance, Mr Torrance recommends that we keep the petition open and that we write to the various agencies as he described. We will then hear what they have to say and consider the petition again on receipt of their submissions. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Rest and Be Thankful Project (PE1916)
Our last new petition is PE1916, which requests a public inquiry into the management of the Rest and Be Thankful project and was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly.
As promised, I am delighted to welcome back Rhoda Grant for the final petition this morning. I will come to her shortly.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which is to provide a permanent solution for the route.
Transport Scotland explains in its submission that, following a number of landslides across Scotland in 2004, a nationwide Scottish road network landslides study was carried out. The study concluded that the A83 Ardgartan to Rest and Be Thankful is one of the most highly ranked debris flow hazard sites in Scotland.
In 2012, Transport Scotland commissioned a study to identify and appraise potential options to minimise the effects of road closures. The final A83 route study, which was published in February 2013, explains that the decision was made to progress with the red option, as it was considered at that time to offer the best performance and the most cost-effective way of meeting the study’s objectives. Those objectives included maintaining the existing alignment of the A83 with a range of landslide mitigation measures such as additional debris flow barriers at locations where the landslide hazard was considered highest; the improvement of hillside drainage adjacent to and under the road; and the introduction of vegetation and planting on the slope.
In its submission, Transport Scotland provided a range of data that shows the number of days on which the various stretches of road in and around the A83 were closed due to landslides. The data shows that the events that occurred in 2020 and 2021 were significantly larger in scale than any of the previous events.
Following that, several new measures were introduced to make it quicker, easier and safer to open the road should it be closed by a landslide. In 2020, a consultation exercise was carried out to consider 11 route corridor options to address issues at the Rest and Be Thankful route. More than 650 people provided feedback, and the Glen Croe corridor was chosen as the preferred route.
The Transport Scotland submission advises that
“timescales for completion of a long term solution to the issues at the Rest and Be Thankful range from 7–10 years”.
In the interim, Transport Scotland advises that work is progressing
“to look at a medium term resilient route through Glen Croe”
and that
“that work will seek to develop a finalised proposal by Autumn”
this year. The submission states:
“Since the A83 Taskforce was set up in 2012, meetings have been held every 6 months”
and that “a substantial project update” is due
“at the next Taskforce meeting in early 2022”.
A project-specific web page has also been launched on the Transport Scotland website.
Against that background, I am happy to invite comments from Rhoda Grant.
As you have said, convener, over the past 14 years, the Rest and Be Thankful has been closed on quite a number of occasions, and it has cost over £87 million in efforts to keep it open and keep traffic safe.
You referred to the large landslide in August 2020, in which 10,000 tonnes of debris fell on the A83 and the old military road. The old military road, which sits in the valley below, is used as a temporary route when the A83 is closed. In that situation, the traffic could not use the A83 or the old military road, and there was a 60-mile additional journey over the A82 because of the closure. Another landslide occurred in September, only six days after the A83 reopened. That led to the A83 being open for less than 50 per cent of the time in the four months at the end of 2020.
It has been estimated that £5.5 million was lost to the local economy between August 2020 and March 2021. That does not take account of potential economic development that has gone elsewhere because of the uncertainty over the route. Depopulation is also a big issue in the area, and it will get worse because of that uncertainty.
As you said, convener, options were consulted on, and there is a preferred solution that follows a similar route. However, that requires quite a lot of work to examine rerouting and building a viaduct or tunnel. A medium-term solution through Glen Croe is also being discussed. There is real frustration locally about the length of time that that is taking and the money that it is costing.
We know that 100,000 tonnes of unstable material is risking lives and livelihoods in Argyll. Given the impact that was caused by 10,000 tonnes, we can imagine what 100,000 tonnes would do. Despite all the time that has passed, there is no clear indication of when a solution will be in place. We need a clear timetable for emergency measures and for medium and long-term solutions, and we need to know whether finance will be available to carry out that work. Hence the petitioners’ call for a public inquiry.
I remember standing there on a site investigation with the previous committee. You are absolutely right that the military road sits in the shadow of the principal route. It is hardly a wonderful alternative, but at least it was an alternative, although not when there was a significant landslide. The route in the valley opposite was regarded as being far too steep to be developed for heavy goods vehicles or other larger vehicles. It has been a significant on-going problem.
I pay tribute to the MSPs who have worked tirelessly on the issue in the past and those who are working on it presently, because it is an enormous issue for the local area. As the convener indicated, the previous committee visited the site and saw it at first hand. Having been an MSP in the previous parliamentary session, I am aware of how many times the issue has been discussed in the chamber through oral questions and of how the situation has progressed.
I look at where we are objectively, but I am not sure where we can go as a committee on the issue. A public inquiry would in some ways exacerbate the situation, because it would take time. There is already a huge amount of frustration in the community, and people want a solution to the problem. We have heard that proposals are coming forward that might cover that. They may not please everybody, but at this stage I do not know what else can be done to facilitate and ensure a solution, because everybody, including Transport Scotland and local members, has worked tirelessly. The council has participated and 600 people gave feedback, so there has been a big involvement from the community.
Could a public inquiry find a solution? I suggest that that might not be the most effective way forward. I have concerns about how we take forward the issue, so it would be useful to hear other members’ opinions.
Like Alexander Stewart, I doubt that we could take forward an inquiry, because I do not think that the Government would agree to one. If we include the previous Public Petitions Committee, we have taken evidence on the issue over more than six years. The convener and I have been on site visits and seen how difficult the environment and terrain are. There is no easy fix and Transport Scotland has worked tirelessly and engaged with the local community to try to find solutions, but it is a difficult task to make the road stable and ensure that landslides do not continue in the area. Measures have been put in place to catch a lot of the debris that comes down. The old military road is an alternative.
Transport Scotland is trying to find solutions and work with the community. There is no place for the petition to go, so I am happy to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders.
It is a difficult situation. I understand the underpinning motivations of those who have lodged the petition, and I sense that they want the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee to keep the issue alive in the mind of Parliament, notwithstanding the intractable issues that sit around it. The Scottish Government indicated that there would be a substantial A83 project update in early course. I note Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to find out when that update might be and what is said in relation to that, and to keep the petition open meanwhile.
We cannot keep the petition open for a further six years in the way that the previous committee did with the earlier petition, because I am not sure what that would achieve. However, we are in a new parliamentary session and it would useful for us to at least see what the position is and whether we can shed any further light on the situation. I sympathise with Mr Stewart’s view that a public inquiry may not ultimately be a suitable way forward.
The suggestion of a public inquiry is the principal difference between the petition and, as David Torrance mentioned, the previous petition on which the committee heard extensive evidence over a number of years. Notwithstanding Mr Torrance’s recommendation, I am minded to hold the petition open while we clarify when Transport Scotland will give its strategic update and hear what it has to say.
I indicate to the petitioners, who might be watching, that, on the basis of the submissions that we have heard and the engagement that is already in place, I do not know whether the committee is altogether persuaded by the public inquiry route.
Does that approach have the support of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
11:45
Before I close the meeting, I will come back to Mr Sweeney on an issue relating to PE1912, on funding for council venues. When you said that you wanted one of the stakeholders to be contacted on the points that you made, the clerks were not entirely clear which stakeholder you meant. Can you confirm who you want us to contact with the concerns that you highlighted?
I think that I was referring to the 32 council leaders, who have written en masse to the Scottish Government in recent weeks to express their concern about the latest budget round. It would be helpful to understand their collective position.
Thank you.
I thank Rhoda Grant for joining us and for her contribution. As she will have heard, we will keep PE1916 open for the time being and see what response we get. I understand that there are considerable issues, and she highlighted the considerable costs that have been associated with simply trying to make do in relation to the existing facility.
I thank everybody for their forbearance with the remote format and for their contributions, and I look forward to future meetings.
Having said that, I gather that David Torrance wishes to contribute further on the points that we have been discussing.
On PE1916, I was happy to agree with you about writing to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on the project update. However, the petition requests a public inquiry into the management of the Rest and Be Thankful project. Can we also ask the Scottish Government whether such an inquiry will go ahead, because we will then get a definitive answer for the petitioners?
I am happy for us to do that. For the reasons that Mr Stewart articulated, I think that a public inquiry is unlikely—that is my expectation—because it might prolong the more detailed discussions that are required and might exacerbate things. However, we can do what Mr Torrance suggests. Nothing that we have said diminishes the importance of progressing a solution, because we have been wrestling with the issue for a very long time.
Again, I thank everybody for their contributions.
Meeting closed at 11:48.Previous
Continued Petitions