Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, May 1, 2024
Official Report 698KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
That brings us to the consideration of new petitions. I realise that there might be people who have tuned in to watch our proceedings for the first time to hear how their petition might proceed or who are with us in the gallery for the first time. Therefore, as always, I will say that, in advance of considering a petition, we take two immediate actions. One is to seek from the Scottish Government an indicative initial response to the petition. The second is to seek a briefing on the issues that were raised by the petition from the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe.
As a veteran of the committee in previous parliamentary sessions, I can tell you that, before we opted to take those actions, we would meet to consider a new petition?and those actions would be the first two things that we recommended we then did. All that that did was delay our consideration.
Care Homes (Local Government Funding) (PE2074)
PE2074, which was lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care, and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.
Ms Stoddart draws our attention to research that suggests that as many as one care home a week is closing, in part due to cuts to health and social care budgets. The petition has also been prompted by proposals to close two local authority-run care homes in South Lanarkshire.
It is perhaps worth noting that, since the petition was lodged, South Lanarkshire integration joint board has passed plans to close both care homes. However, it has also written to the Scottish Government in an attempt to secure funding that would enable the closures to be reconsidered.
The SPICe briefing notes that it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to allocate funding provided by the Scottish Government based on local needs and priorities. The briefing also notes the Accounts Commission publication, “Local government in Scotland: Overview 2023”, which includes reference to a UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers that found that 44 per cent of respondents identified adult social care as a service at risk of cuts. I think that any MSP would be aware of the pressures on all health and social care partnerships in their constituencies and the particular cuts that are being imposed unless care is defined as critical or essential.
The Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has responded to the petition, stating that this is
“not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in”,
and that it is up to each democratically elected council how it manages the spending of discretionary budget allocations. In doing so, the minister notes
“record funding of over £13.9 billion”
being delivered as part of the latest local government settlement.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I am minded to say that I am inclined to write to the Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning to seek his reflections on the UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which found that 44 per cent of council chief executives and senior managers had identified adult social care as a service that was at risk of cuts due to very large gaps in local government budgets. I am not prepared to sweep the issues that are raised by this new petition under the carpet on the back of what we have heard from the Government so far. I suspect that the position has deteriorated even since the petition was lodged. Do colleagues have any views?
I agree with your suggestion, convener.
Are members content with that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we thank the petitioner, and we will pursue the aims of the petition accordingly.
Local Participation in Planning Decisions (PE2075)
Our next petition is PE2075, which was lodged by Stewart Noble, on behalf of Helensburgh community council. Stewart joins us in the gallery—welcome. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise local participation in planning decisions that affect the local area by providing a clear and unambiguous definition of the word “local”, in so far as it applies to planning legislation; giving community councils decision-making powers for planning applications in their local areas; and ensuring that the way in which decisions and planning applications are taken is compatible with the provisions and ethos of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.
In the background information on the petition, Helensburgh community council highlights the example of planning applications that affected Helensburgh being approved despite opposition from the community council and a majority of local ward councillors on the planning committee. The SPICe briefing, to which I referred a moment ago, sets out the process for determining planning applications, which includes the requirement for planning authorities to provide community councils with a weekly list of applications for developments in their areas. A planning authority must also consult community councils on proposed developments that are likely to affect the amenity of their area.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes the consultation that has taken place on “Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance”, as well as the recent amendments that were made by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to increase the opportunities for individuals and community bodies to engage in the planning process, including by preparing local place plans for their own areas.
In addition, the Scottish Government has suggested that extending powers to determine planning applications to community councils would require comprehensive revisions to existing legislation, and that the Government is not minded to consider such a fundamental change to the planning system at this time.
We have received a submission from the petitioner in response to the Scottish Government’s response, in which the community council expresses concern that the “engagement” and “participation” that are referred to are simply part of a box-ticking exercise. The petitioner has also clarified that his proposal for providing community councils with decision-making powers on planning decisions would involve a number of community councillors becoming members of local authority planning committees, with full voting powers, to assist in determining planning applications in their area.
We are joined by Jackie Baillie, as we are again considering a petition that is of interest to her community and constituents. I am happy to invite her to address the committee.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the petition.
I share many of the petitioner’s frustrations. I think that the petition is born out of frustration, given that the community council has attempted to engage meaningfully with the planning system in Argyll and Bute, sometimes to little notable effect. A useful piece of context that is noted in the petition is the fact that Helensburgh is closer to Edinburgh than it is to many other parts of Argyll and Bute. As members will know, Argyll and Bute is a very rural area that includes 20-odd islands, so it is not without its challenges.
The petitioner’s experience has been that the very reasonable suggestions that the community council has made have been considered by committees of councillors who simply do not have any relationship with or understanding of the community of Helensburgh. Often, those councillors are representatives of rural and island areas, whereas Helensburgh is predominantly an urban population whose travel-to-work area is in greater Glasgow, so there is a different context there.
Let me give you some of the examples where the community council has engaged and that engagement has resulted in absolutely nothing happening. In all the examples that I will give you, the community council did not oppose the application but suggested a different way of doing it or some conditions that should be applied based on its local knowledge.
10:30In the first case, the community council was clear that housing could go ahead on the former Ardencaple garden centre site but that the number of houses was well in excess of the number specified in the local development plan. That was a case of the community council saying “Yes, by all means, put houses there, but not in the quantity that is being squeezed into a very tight site.”
The second example is a care home in the former works depot of Hermitage park, for which one of the community council’s concerns was the scale of the development, which might have impacted on a war memorial that was right next door to it.
The third example is the leisure centre, which is beautiful but is on the pier at Helensburgh on infilled land, which is prone to flooding. The community council therefore had an eminently sensible suggestion of moving the centre away from that area, but it was completely dismissed.
The petitioner is proposing not that community councils take all these decisions over but that their local knowledge is somehow inserted into the planning system, so that we get better decisions that are not about stopping development but about ensuring that it is right for the right place in their community.
I am sure that the committee will have ideas. Writing to the Royal Town Planning Institute or Planning Aid, which will have experience of these types of applications, might be an option.
Thank you, Ms Baillie. We have a suggestion to write to the Royal Town Planning Institute. Do colleagues have any other suggestions to make?
It is good to see Jackie Baillie back at the committee.
I suggest that the committee writes to the Royal Town Planning Institute, Heads of Planning Scotland, Planning Democracy, Built Environment Forum Scotland, and the Scottish Forum of Community Councils to seek their views on the actions that are called for in the petition. Would the committee also consider writing to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the progress to finalise the guidance on effective community engagement in the local development planning process?
We have suggestions there. Are committee members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We will thank the petitioner and keep the petition open. We will now embark on our quest to receive further comment and evidence. Thank you very much to Jackie Baillie, as well.
Wills (Safe Custody) (PE2076)
PE2076, which has been lodged by Maurice Frank, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require original wills made outside of Scotland to be accepted into safe custody by Registers of Scotland, or other safe custody providers, without prior mailing around, removing their power first to require an opinion on the validity of the will from a lawyer in the jurisdiction of origin.
The SPICe briefing explains that
“prior to a person’s death, there is no requirement in Scotland to register a will with a public body. However, a person might choose to register their will for safekeeping in the Register of Deeds ... A document whose formal validity is governed by a law other than Scots law can be registered if the Keeper is satisfied that the document is formally valid according to the law governing such validity”,
and the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 makes that provision.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that due to the resources involved in obtaining such confirmation, the responsibility for providing the necessary evidence test rests with the applicant. The response further states:
“This provision is consistent with the principle that as the Register of Deeds is a Scottish public register, members of the public in Scotland (who are not familiar with the laws governing documents in other jurisdictions) should be able to view the register with confidence that the documents registered therein are formally valid.”
Where an individual chooses to lodge a will in the register, it might be possible for evidence to be obtained electronically rather than by mailing the document to the relevant jurisdiction, depending on the requirements of that jurisdiction.
It is quite a technical request and quite a technical response. Do members have any suggestions or comments?
I suggest that, in view of the detailed and helpful response of 22 January 2024 from the Scottish Government civil law and legal system division—aided and abetted, I suspect, by the keeper of the Registers of Scotland—we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on three bases: first, the requirement to validate documents is because the register of deeds is a Scottish public register, so members of the public in Scotland, who might not be familiar with the laws that govern documents in other jurisdictions, should be able to view the register with confidence that the documents that are registered therein are valid; secondly, where an individual chooses to lodge a will in the register of deeds, the requirement to confirm the document’s validity lies with the applicant; and, thirdly and finally, it might be possible for confirmation of validity to be obtained electronically rather than by posting the physical documents to the relevant jurisdiction, which deals with the question that the petitioner reasonably raised initially about what happens if original documents get lost in the post.
Given the technical nature of the issue, the responses that we have received and, as has been said, the quite helpful summary of procedure from the Government—which partly addresses the aims of the petition and the question of the petitioner—Mr Ewing has proposed that we close the petition on that basis. Are members content to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, and I hope that they have drawn some comfort from the response from the Government.
Personal and Social Education (PE2077)
PE2077, which was lodged by Thomas Ross, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove personal and social education—often referred to as PSE—PSE from the curriculum for excellence and for it to stop being taught in secondary schools. The petitioner notes that, in their view, PSE is “a useless subject” that takes up secondary school pupils’ learning time.
The SPICe briefing notes that health and wellbeing is a key area of curriculum for excellence and that PSE is one of the ways in which schools support the health and wellbeing curriculum. The briefing also notes that PSE lessons can cover aspects of planning for choices and changes, substance misuse, relationships, sexual health and parenthood and financial literacy, as well as aspects of physical activity, sport and health.
In her response to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills notes that
“PSE offers us an opportunity to ensure children and young people are prepared for the issues and challenges that life may bring”,
and makes the key point that
“The Scottish Government has no plans to remove PSE from the national curriculum.”
The cabinet secretary also highlights the Education and Skills Committee 2017 report, which noted
“how valuable good PSE is to young people”,
and says that the Scottish Government continues to take forward the recommendations of that report.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the Government’s response, I recommend we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans to remove PSE from the curriculum, continues to take forward the recommendations of the Education and Skills Committee’s 2017 review of personal and social education, and views PSE as an opportunity to ensure that children and young people are prepared for the issues and challenges that lie in front of them.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. I will make an additional suggestion. The cabinet secretary notes that the Education and Skills Committee’s 2017 report noted how valuable good PSE is to young people. Therein rests an issue of how contemporary the content of PSE is at any given point in time. From my constituents, I know that there is, at times, a feeling that the content has not been updated regularly enough to reflect current circumstances, and that the range of cultural and social issues affecting young people move apace, so what might have been relevant two or three years ago needs to be looked at again. Therefore, although the value of good PSE is there to be seen, students should not be questioning the value of the item in the curriculum, because they should feel that its content is relevant to their concerns and considerations. The content should not be speaking to something that is aged in relation to their personal experience.
Are members content that we proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I say to Mr Ross that we are going to close the petition on the basis that the Government has no plans to do away with the subject. However, there is an issue at the heart of what he has said about the contemporary relevance of the subject at any given point, and we will draw that to the Government’s attention.
Private Ambulance Service Providers (Licensing and Inspection) (PE2078)
PE2078 is the last of our new petitions today. It was lodged by Ryan McNaughton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a new body to be responsible for the mandatory inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers, or to encompass the clinical governance management of private companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland.
The SPICe briefing that we have received explains that the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 includes independent ambulance services in the definition of an “independent healthcare service”. The act sets out that Scottish ministers must
“prepare and publish standards and outcomes applicable”
to independent health care services and that Healthcare Improvement Scotland may inspect
“any independent health care service.”
However, HIS has confirmed that regulation of those services has not yet been commenced and that it is unable to undertake any regulatory activity in respect of that type of service.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the next step is for officials to continue engagement with stakeholders to explore whether the definition of “independent ambulance services” should be amended before the provision is commenced, in order to ensure that any regulation adequately reflects services today and in the future. The response also states that the commencement of HIS’s functions in relation to the regulation of independent ambulance service provision will be considered and prioritised as part of a suite of proposals regarding the regulation of independent healthcare.
The act was passed in 2010, but it seems that we have not yet commenced its provisions, which is certainly some lead time by any standard.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action??
The committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to ask: how, in the absence of regulation, he can be assured that independent ambulances are operating safely; how long he expects it will take to explore—and, if necessary, update—the definition of an independent ambulance service; how the regulation of independent ambulance services will be prioritised to suit other proposals for the regulation of healthcare; and for details, including a timeline, of the commencement of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s functions in relation to the regulation of independent ambulance service provision. Lastly, the committee should ask the cabinet secretary why, after making provision for the regulation of independent ambulance services in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, the Scottish Government decided not to commence the relevant provisions to ensure at least some regulation while additional exploratory work is undertaken.
Are members content with that suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.
That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will, unusually, meet next Wednesday, when we will hear evidence from the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, about the A9 dualling project.
I know that we are due to take evidence from Nicola Sturgeon a bit later—I think, towards the end of May. Do we have any information about whether she has indicated that she still plans to attend on that date?
We have had no suggestion that that session will not take place.
I asked because she cancelled an engagement to give evidence elsewhere.
That was in London. At this point, we have had no suggestion to that effect.
We now move into private session.
10:43 Meeting continued in private until 10:48.Air ais
Continued Petitions