Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the open session this morning. We will take item 4 in private. The committee will meet again on Wednesday 9 October.

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take in private item 4, which is consideration of our draft report on the A9. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, we have five continued petitions to consider, the first of which is PE1856, lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite the union. The petition calls on the Parliament to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support to taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-emission standards and implementation dates.

Transport Scotland has confirmed that a meeting was initiated and facilitated by Glasgow City Council with Unite, the Energy Saving Trust and Transport Scotland. Colleagues will remember that we held an evidence session with representatives from the Scottish Taxi Federation in relation to the issues raised in this petition and, I think, another one that we had at the same time.

Glasgow City Council’s recent written submission states that it received 776 applications for a temporary exemption to the enforcement of the low-emission zone. All 776 requests were granted. In short, all taxi operators who applied received the requested exemption. In February this year, conditions were agreed for those who may require an extension beyond the agreed year. Glasgow City Council granted 225 extensions to the exemption and notes that it will continue to show flexibility to operators who are making efforts towards compliance, should that be required.

In relation to the issues that we discussed, I think that a reasonably pragmatic approach was secured. In light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The second of our continued petitions is PE1958, on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The committee has taken considerable interest in the petition during this session of Parliament. It was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling—who I note is with us in the public gallery again, along with colleagues—on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, again on the basis again of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 22 November last year, at which time we heard from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise and agreed to follow that up by writing to the minister and to the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum. We have subsequently received a response from the Scottish Government referencing the support that is in place to support care-experienced people and the on-going collaboration with The Promise Scotland and other stakeholders to improve the package of support that is available to care-experienced young people.

The Scottish Government’s response also restates its commitment to introduce the proposed Promise bill by the end of the current parliamentary session. Members will have noted that a consultation is now under way, aimed at ensuring that young people who are leaving care and moving into adulthood have the right scaffolding of support available to ensure that they thrive. The Scottish Government consultation will remain open until next Thursday, which is 3 October.

The Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum response sets out its support for the aspirations of the petition, including the removal of arbitrary age criteria, and highlights the focus of the 100 days of listening on identifying solutions to ensure delivery of the Promise for all those who move on from care.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, the first of which responds to the detailed information that the Scottish Government provided. That submission raises further concerns about the varying levels of current support being provided to young people who leave care across Scotland. Jasmin has also included a practical list of suggestions for improving this scaffold of support that is available to people who are moving on through care or from care. In her most recent submission, Jasmin provides an overview of the themes that were raised during the 100 days of listening, which in her view reaffirm the need for the action that is called for in the petition.

We have expressed considerable interest in the petition and taken evidence on it, and the Government now indicates that it is taking action on the petition. The question for the committee is what more we think we can achieve in the time that is left to us in this session, which, of course, is now more limited. We had previously considered a parliamentary debate, but it is open to members to consider whether we have enough of an argument for that, given the Government’s response.

I am not sure what that would achieve at the moment. The Government will say that that is what it intends to do, so that is the difficulty. There is no debate about the substance of the issue. If we were in a dispute and we were advocating a course of action that the Government was rejecting, there would be the basis for us to argue that case in the Parliament. However, we are not arguing against the Government; we are supporting what the Government wants to do, but we want it to do it. I am not sure that that gives us the basis, with the limited amount of debating chamber time that there is, to construct a narrative that would justify having a debate.

Are colleagues content that we write to the minister on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I will ask the clerks to reflect on whether there is any way that we might be able to solicit independent evidence from practitioners. I do not know how that could be done, but we could reflect on how it might be done. Are colleagues content with the proposals as they stand and to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Thank you. I am interested to hear whether Richard Leonard passes the Alfie test, because he was very quiet during Monica Lennon’s evidence on this occasion. Welcome again, Richard. I am happy to hear your contribution to our discussion.

Our next petition is PE2098, which was lodged by Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh on behalf of Misneachd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring investment in the Gaelic language to sustainable levels by increasing the annual budget to at least £8.5 million and increasing funding in line with inflation each year.

The SPICe briefing explains that, over the past decade, the Scottish Government’s direct funding for Scots and Gaelic has stayed fairly stable in cash terms, which represents a real-terms cut of around a fifth. During this time, Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s annual budget has remained at £5.1 million. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, following feedback, additional funding of £175,000 was provided for its Gaelic officer scheme. Bòrd na Gàidhlig was asked to report on the scheme by the end of June this year.

The petitioner’s submission shares his view that nowhere near enough is being done or spent in vernacular communities to address the intensifying language shift. He highlights the view of two panels that stated in the early 2000s that Bòrd na Gàidhlig would require an annual budget of £10 million to fulfil its obligations. The petitioner states that there will not be a second chance to preserve the language as a spoken vernacular language in Scotland.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content to proceed on the basis that we will keep the petition open and initiate enquiries?

Members indicated agreement.