 I welcome to the 14th meeting of the Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022. Our first item this morning on the agenda is the consideration of continuing petitions. The first of those is Petition number 1862, which is to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities. This petition was introduced by Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremmer on behalf of the used economic task force, and it urges the Scottish Parliament to encourage the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on the boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities in keeping with the island Scotland Act 2018. We last considered this petition on the 4th of May, and on this specific issue we thought it would be useful to invite the minister for transport to provide further evidence. I am delighted that we have the minister, Jenny Gilruth MSP, with us this morning. I think remotely—oh, and with us now. Sorry, we have Fran Pasiti, director of aviation, maritime freight and canals, Transport Scotland—oh, sorry, I didn't mean that. I couldn't see the small type in your nameplate. Once your job description is on there, there's little room left for your own name, but welcome to you both. Members have a number of questions that they would like to explore this morning, so we're quite happy to move to those, minister, unless there's anything that you particularly want to say before we do. Okay. I mean, I expect that this will be a relatively short session this morning, because we are focusing in on the particular issue in hand, so thank you very much for your time, and I'm going to invite David Torrance to lead the questioning. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Do you agree with former Transport Minister, Graham Day MSP, that is neither tenable nor credible, but island residents are not represented on boards of organisation, providing lifeline services to their communities? In relation to the quote itself, I don't think that I've seen the quote in context, and I might be grateful if the committee could share that with me, but I recognise very much so the need to do more in relation to islander representation on boards in particular. This has been a matter that obviously predates my time in office but has affected island communities in recent months. A number of my representations with island communities on a matter of different matters—most predominantly, I would say, in relation to ferry services—has been raised consistently. I should make the committee aware that one of the petitioners, Angus Campbell, has also been asked to lead on the consultation work in relation to Project Neptune, so he is involved in some of that wider work, which will seek to consult island communities on the governance and provision of ferry services. Some of those changes might look at directly the issue that the petition is considering, so I just want to make the committee aware of that. However, in the principle of the member's question, I very much agree that there is more that we will need to do in that respect. I should update the committee additionally that, last month, I updated Parliament on two different appointments. We now have Morag McNeill, who has been formally appointed as the chair of CMAIL. We also have Murdo McClennan, who has been appointed as a non-exec. He is an islander on the CMAIL board, which is progress. However, I very much recognise that more needs to be done here and I am committed to working with Angus Campbell and others on how we will deliver that as a Government. Just for information, I say that it was in a member's business debate in September 2021, led by Alasdair Allan on reserved seats on boards for islanders, and the minister was replying to Alasdair Allan in that debate. That is where the source of Mr Torrance's quote came from. Minister, you suggested, and read the evidence, that there are alternative ways for island communities to engage with public bodies, of advancing places on boards. Are these alternatives really fit for purpose? If they are, why do you think that island residents continue to press for a voice on the board of relevant public bodies? That is a fair observation from the member. There are a range of different ways, as he has highlighted, that islanders can get involved in some of the board activity more generally, although not directly on the board necessarily, itself if they are not sitting on the board. A good example of that would be the CalMac communities board, which is chaired by Angus Campbell, one of the petitioners. I have worked very closely with Angus since January on a number of issues on the Clyde and Hebrides ferries network. That board is a really good example of how islanders' views can be taken account of, but there is not just the communities board in relation to ferry services. There are a plethora of different boards that exist in our island communities, particularly in relation to ferry services. The committee might be aware that, in my update to Parliament on 9 September, in relation to project net train, I outlined an alternative approach to resilience in relation to ferry breakdowns on the network, which looks to engage with a wide range of organisations as on when there is a prolonged period of disruption on the Clyde and Hebrides network. Members will be aware of some of those challenges in recent months. Over the course of recess, as an example, I convened a resilience meeting that looked at engaging a number of different representative boards on those island communities, not just those who work in CalMac and Semal, but those who live in our island communities. I think that that is the responsibility that I hold as Minister to engage with island communities when there are sustained periods of disruption. There are other forums in which islanders can have their views taken account of. One way is through the communities board, as I have alluded to, but there are other boards and mechanisms that exist in island communities. There is a requirement for us to look further at what more can be done. There are upcoming appointments in relation to the David McBrain board. I was in discussion with Bran about this prior to the committee, and the process will be shared with me later today in relation to that. I am really keen to safeguard in the future that we can make progress. I have given examples of two appointments in recent history that have evidence progressed in the last year, but it is important that we continue to drive that as a Government. I look forward to receiving further information to these new appointments later today, and I will be more than happy to share further detail on what that process looks like with the committee. Minister, in your written evidence, you talk about individuals having to have the skills, the knowledge and experience to ensure that that takes place, but that may in itself limit the number of individuals who are able to participate in that whole process because they come from a specific circle or from a specific location. That in itself is causing some difficulty. Do you believe that there is an opportunity for training opportunities to try and influence that process so that individuals can be given that extra support that gives them the chance because otherwise you will be excluding individuals from the pool that might well be advantageous to ensure that they do get the chance to participate? Absolutely. I recognise that there is more that we can do in this space in relation to training and supporting the development of the necessary skills and expertise that are required for those appointments. I may want to say more on why that is so important, but I recognise that there are challenges in that respect. Before I came to give evidence this morning, I was not aware that the committee was an all-male committee. I looked at the committee and I wondered whether there might be more that all parties can do in this Parliament in relation to female representation. I think that there is a challenge here to government in relation to how we can deliver that. There is a challenge to political parties always on matters of representation, but I may want to say more in relation to the skills and expertise and to the current expectation that we would place in relation to those bodies and how they would engage with and support the development of those skills going forward. Thank you very much, minister. We do recognise that challenge that you have highlighted. In previous recruitments where we have sought to encourage applications from island communities, we have found that the combination of what can be quite specific technical skillsets and a geographic restriction or a knowledge of island communities has limited the pool of applicants that we have received. To counteract that, we have adjusted the approach. You will see in the advert for non-executive directors for the David McBrain board, which will be published in the course of the next few weeks. We have made it an essential criterion of one of those roles, rather than a desirable, but an essential criterion of one of those roles is that applicants have a good understanding on knowledge of the issues affecting island communities, which will allow us to widen the pool of applicants that we attract. We have also been far more proactive in how we publicise those roles and make people aware of the opportunities so that we are not only promoting those opportunities in the well-worn professional press or media. We are advertising the roles in the Gallic language. We are encouraging local authorities to disseminate the opportunities through their own community frameworks. We are using the Scottish Islands Federation to help us to promote those opportunities. We are encouraging island residents in our routine engagement with them to try and stimulate interest and awareness of the opportunities to encourage people to apply. We are advertising on the vessels as well. Are we not? We are. That is quite important in terms of the opportunities that are available to island residents. I would like to raise with the minister the fact that the focus of the petitioners is particularly on Hyal. The petition generally asks that there be representation from islands on public bodies, having a responsibility for lifeline services to islands, but the particular focus when one looks at the detail of what they seek relates to Hyal. I appreciate that the minister has responded quite a lot in relation to ferries, but I think that the focus was very much on Hyal. What they specifically have suggested, as far as I can see, is that there should be three seats allocated for specific island groups—Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland—and not excluding other island groups. I have just checked the web to see the size of the board of Hyal, because one does not want a minister to have boards that are over-wieldy in numbers. Cairngorm Park has got 25 members, for example, which is too many in my humble opinion. Hyal has only got eight. Therefore, as far as I can see, maybe I have got that wrong if I have, I apologise. Given that it seems to be a relatively small board, it does seem to me that there would be a lot to be gained by adding the island voice, and an awful lot to be gained from adding the island voice. I have not raised that with Ingo's line, and I am sure that Hyal, if they were here, would say that they have procedures to engage with islands. Of course they have, and we have heard about that before. However, I wonder if we could get a specific response, either today or after reflection and consultation with Hyal, which I think would only be fair to them, because I have not raised that with them and I have not raised that with you. It does seem to me that what they specifically asked for has a certain rationale and force behind it, and could be accommodated without making the governance of Hyal unwieldy or cumbersome, and could really add quite a lot of accountability and scrutiny and a feeling of belonging from people in the islands who really do feel it, as you know, minister, very remote and detached from things from time to time. I am prepared to be wrong on that, convener, but my reading of the petition was that the Hyal example was used as an example of lifeline services to island communities, and it wasn't, per se, focused only on Hyal. In relation to lifeline services to island communities, therefore, I think that we are really talking about three boards. We are talking about CML, Dave McBrain, and we are talking about Hyal. In the context of Hyal, I think that there are six members of that board, not eight, so if we were to add three members to that board, the composition would significantly alter. I am not saying that I am against it, I am sympathetic to the proposal, but Mr Ewing is right to say, convener, that I would like to take this to Hyal directly to speak to them about this proposal. It is a relatively small board. In fact, in terms of the membership of all of the boards, they are relatively small in number, and some of the challenge relates to how you could recruit the necessary requirements around the skills and expertise that Mr Stewart was asking about and, at the same time, assure islander representation in that. However, I am happy to write to Hyal on the point that the member has addressed. I am not necessarily sure that I would agree with the petitioners on three members of that board coming from island communities, given that it only has six members at this current time. However, I think that there is more that we can do in relation to formalising islander voice on those boards and ensuring that they are heard properly and their views are taken account of. Fram, you want to say more in relation to Hyal? I know that she met Hyal last week. Thank you very much, minister Ewing. There are six non-executive members on the Hyal board at the moment, and there is an opportunity for us to recruit a successor to one of the incumbent non-executive directors in the coming months. We will apply the same principle that we have in relation to the David McBrain and the CML boards of seeking to encourage island representation on the board to the extent that we can. I commend Hyal for all that they do in their community engagement. They dedicate a significant amount of resource to understanding the issues that affect the communities and all 11 of the airports that they operate. However, that operational engagement and discussion with island representatives on the operational issues affecting their specific communities is not a substitute for making sure that we have that at a strategic level and making sure that there is that customer focus at a board level. I agree with the principle and from discussion with the Hyal chair, there is a welcome. There is an acceptance of that principle, so we will take that forward. We will, as with all board recruitment, have to look at the composition of the board, the number and the total skills requirements so that we are getting the right balance of skills to affect the strategic challenges of the organisation at the time of the recruitment. I think that it might be helpful, convener, if we could maybe just share some of the detail of the proposals that the petitioners have put, which I have skimmed, having gone into it fully here to do justice to the petitioners. Maybe if we could copy that to the minister and then, if the minister has any further comments from the generally positive response, then we could see what they are. We can certainly do that. The information is in the public domain, but we can make sure that the minister is aware of that. Mr Sweeney. Thank you, convener, and thanks to both for coming this morning. I just wanted to ask in relation to the Caledonia and Maritime Assets Limited, David McBrane Ltd, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. In terms of those boards, what does the selection procedure look like and how is it determined? There is obviously a power structure in terms of who is picking people to go on those boards. How does that process actually work in practice? I am happy to allow Fran to talk you through the process itself. As minister, obviously, I will need to sign off on some of his appointments, so it might be best that Fran talks you through the technical detail of the requirements in relation to the board, or the application process itself, and then how candidates are sifted, for example. Each of the positions on all three boards are ministerial appointments, so the decisions are ultimately taken by ministers. For the three boards, they are regulated appointments, which means that the recruitment process itself is subject to the code and it is overseen by the Ethical Standards Commissioner, and that ensures a degree of impartiality around the process. The starting point for any of the recruitment is to identify the skillsets that are required on the board, and those will change over time, depending upon the particular challenge that the organisation faces. We will regularly have a skills matrix for each of those boards in place. We will review that and identify the skills that are needed. We do recognise that included in those skills is a knowledge of island life and making sure that island representation is at the forefront of the board's consideration. We will use that to identify the number of board positions that are needed and the particular skills for the vacancy that has arisen, and we will agree those with the ministers and with the Ethical Standards Commissioner. In some instances, the Ethical Standards Commissioner will ask for a representative to be a party of the recruitment panel, and that is a matter for the Ethical Standards Commissioner based on the sensitivity of the recruitment. For example, there was an independent panel member on the recent CMAL recruitment. There will be one on the forthcoming David McBrane recruitment, and the minister will sign off on the recruitment panel. The recruitment panel will typically have a representative from Transport Scotland representing ministers as the shareholder's interest in that recruitment. If it is considered appropriate by the Ethical Standards Commissioner, someone representing the commissioner's officer and a third panel member, that third panel member will ensure that there is diversity in the panel itself but will also reflect the particular skills and expertise. In circumstances where, for example, we are looking for someone with particular maritime knowledge or a particular other skill, the board member will reflect that requirement so that we can adequately test it through the recruitment process. We have in recent rounds, for example, in the CMAL recruitment sought to include island representation on the panel so that there is a fair assessment of the candidates' understanding of issues affecting island life. In the recent CMAL recruitment we were supported by Malcolm Burr, who is the chief executive officer of the Western Isles Council, and he was very supportive in that process and brought a great deal of insight both to assessment of applications and offered us invaluable advice on how we improve, how we market and increase awareness of the advertising or the opportunities that exist. We then run the process that is set out by the commissioner's office. We advertise, we accept applications, we sift those applications and then we test it and review. The panel will make recommendations to minister. The minister has an opportunity to meet candidates should she wish to do so and then, ultimately, it is a ministerial appointment, but those steps and measures are in place to make sure that it is as transparent as it can be, as inclusive as it can be and that it recognises that every one of those appointments is unique but there is a consistency and a transparency to how we go about doing them. Thank you very much for that. It does seem like a rigorous process in terms of assuring technical competence. I guess there is a tension there between the ideal of having representation that might be severely limited in terms of the population base you are drawing from. I am just wondering whether there is a way of providing continuous professional development or inability. This is not just in relation to transport-related boards. This is a wider issue across government. For example, I am dealing with significant issues with community housing association boards in Glasgow and the attention of the regulator saying that a lot of those boards do not have the necessary technical competence and that there is pressure to take control away from communities. I am wondering whether there is a wider cross-government approach to trying to improve the continuous professional development opportunities for people who are eager to participate but maybe do not have that technical capability that is necessary to pass a selection panel like that. For a cross-government approach, I would not sit with me as minister for transport, but I am happy to. I am not necessarily sure in terms of the cross-government approach that the minister would sit with. I will take that away and speak to officials about how we can better deliver that, because I recognise some of the tension that Mr Sweeney talks to. In terms of board appointments, you tend to get a demographic element to it, if I may say so, and a gender element to it. That skews representation of the public bluntly if we do not get the right people into these ports. There is an ask of government here about public appointments and how we can upskill the population and empower them to apply for those positions. I will take that away and speak to officials about a whole Government approach, which would not sit with me, but I recognise some of the tension that the member speaks to in terms of how he gets those skills and the necessary experience, while at the same time taking cognisance of, for example in this instance, islanders' views on the delivery of lifeline services. Colleagues, thank you very much. That was very constructive, thank you very much, minister. I suspect that I got it wrong for the first time in my confusion. Thank you both very much for attending and I will suspend the committee for a few moments. Welcome back. Our next petition this morning is petition number 1856, support the taxi trade. This was lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government 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 the low emissions standards and implementation dates. I am delighted to say that we are joined this morning by Stephen Grant, although on audio only regrettably, on behalf of Unite, who is representing the petitioner this morning, and by Robert McLean and Murray Fleming on behalf of the Scottish Taxi Federation. Good morning to you all and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee. We have heard quite a lot of evidence on this subject. We have also collated quite a lot of evidence, too. Members have quite a number of questions that we want to put, so we will move to those if you are happy for me to do so. However, I thought that, just by way of an introduction, I would ask a general question, because the situation, of course, is fluid, talking to taxi drivers locally in my own authority of East Renfrewshire. It has moved on even since we last considered the petition a few months ago. I wonder if our witnesses this morning might like to briefly outline the main challenges currently facing the taxi industry, given that the situation is very different now to when the petition was submitted in early 2021. I will come to you, first of all, Mr Grant. Because we cannot see you, we will have to hope that you speak up and clearly. Good morning. I am sorry for listening to me today about my camera issues. Well, basically, the issues facing the taxi trade are critical at the moment. We really are fighting for our survival. We are looking at an early Z zone being enforced in June 2023. This is all in the midst of a dysfunctional new and used taxi market, as well as financially distressed operators who are just coming out of a pandemic. We are now into a cost-of-lugging crisis. It just means that they do not have the money. Even if the vehicles were there to buy, they do not have the money to invest at the moment. We also feel that it is unfair that the roll-out of the LEZs were not synchronised in Scotland across the four major cities. Glasgow started early in June 2023, compared to 24 for Dundee, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The issues that have been synchronised feel by the Scottish Government not to discriminate against the city of Glasgow. We would really need extra funding, which is always welcome, but we also need time to recover and to get through this cost-of-lugging crisis. We also need to see the electric taxi market mature, as well as charging infrastructure appearing on the streets and the capacity that we need. We feel that it would be a much better situation where we transition to electric vehicles in one step rather than down the retrofit and routes. It would also allow the ambitions of net zero to be met in that one transition and probably in the long-term be a much better strategy. Thank you. Mr McLean and Mr Fleming, would you like to address the question? So, it is Robert McLean here from predominantly Glasgow Taxes Limited, but the company treasurer of the Scottish Taxes Federation. So, building on what Stephen has just said there from your right, there are a few points that I would pick up on. First of all, the second hand market, the availability of vehicles for fleet owners is at a stage where it is pretty limited in regards to what we can actually buy. Over the last few years, a company called Carb Direct, the dominant on the Allied in Glasgow, was able to produce a vehicle that was manufactured in Glasgow and so much as it was converted in Glasgow. It was either based on a Pugio at one time and then more laterally on a Ford Transit-type vehicle, a tournail, which it then converted into a six-seater wheelchair-accessible vehicle, which was utilised by the taxi trade. However, currently, at the end of the Euro six necessity for the low-admission zone, they have stopped producing any vehicle. Although the Transit was a Euro six vehicle, they have stopped producing that, and they were unable to get the donor vehicles from Ford to be able to continue with that. The other vehicle that we had a chance to use was the Mercedes-Benz Vito. Again, a diesel Euro six compliant vehicle, but in very short supply. Over the last couple of months, we have moved away from the automatic vehicle to a manual vehicle with a 1.7-litre diesel engine, probably still chipped in such a way that it is powerful, but Glasgow has got some fairly steep hills, if you think I'm in slow, straight north and other places like that. It's a fair old task to take four or five people on these six as these vehicles can carry in a situation like that. We're fairly restricted in the availability of that type of vehicle. The next one that is available and probably will become the main vehicle will be the LEVC, which is a hybrid-type vehicle. Currently priced at £64,500 to us as the owner, and that's where the £7,500 UK grant taken off were. You can see that it's over £70,000 in its original iteration, so it's expensive to buy. The only support available for that vehicle is the energy savings trust interest free loan, which over six years works out to £888 per month. I'm sure that most people would appreciate that it's a fair old chunk of money. In theory, you don't really have any fuel costs, but we all know that electricity is increasing in price and charging it at home will certainly have to pay for it. Most street-side chargers now have some sort of a fee. Indeed, if you go away from the collaborations of Glasgow, Edinburgh and the bigger cities, you find that it can be as much as £80 per kilowatt per charge in some of the BP and some of those types of places that are now starting to see it as a revenue stream in place of the carbon fuels that they've traditionally supplied us all with over the last 100 years or so. To that end, if there was support in relation to the LEVC or the Euro 6 vehicle available, that would be a huge assistance. At the moment, there are a number of vehicles being taken up from London, which are then capable of being converted. The only issue that I see in the trade in general is that, in London, the owner of that vehicle has been given £10,000 to decommission it from the London market so that the London market can then hit its targets for the ultra-low emissions zone. Where we are is that those vehicles are shipped all over the UK, not just to Glasgow, but those vehicles that have had £10,000 of public money given to them then arrive in Glasgow or Birmingham or wherever they go. They are then converted either to an LPG-style vehicle or with what is now known as the retrofit exhaust change that makes it capable of hitting the mark or Euro 6. In Scotland, the energy savings trust again supports the payment of that, whereby, if it is the retrofit exhaust, there is somewhere in the region of £5,500 or £6,000 available by way of the grant. The owner of the vehicle pays £1,500 per own money, and it is an LPG. The last figure of us all is about £13,700 to do that, of which £12,000 in a bit is paid for by the energy savings trust. You can see that at a stage there, where over the UK, £25,000 to £35,000 has been given by way of grant to those vehicles, but there are still old vehicles. There are still 12 or 13 or 14 plate vehicles, so they are already well used in the London market. It may be done over 150,000 miles, maybe more than that, but the time they arrive in those other cities, where they will then be converted and expected to get some sort of life out of them over another 10 to 15 years. I think that the public money would have been better spent to support, as I believe Manchester have done, a grant of £20,000 to an owner who is prepared to purchase the LABC model. As you can hear, £20,000 off of that £64,000 top price would be a good reduction in that. Back down where the market was with the Mercedes and the Ford, it was around £40,000. There are a number of things that can be done. The trade is in a really difficult position at the moment, not least because of probably some of the impacts of the pandemic and the absolute death of drivers. There are heat lines all across, just back from America, and even there there are people crying out for workers in the hospitality industry, and I know that is absolutely the case all across Scotland. We are very closely aligned to the hospitality industry. We work closely with events, floating events, the hydro, and large numbers of people coming and going to those concerts. We enjoy a very good relationship with nearly all the big hotels in Glasgow, whereby we are the provider of transport for them, and it is so disappointing when you let those types of customers down because we simply do not have enough cars on the road in the evenings and night time economy in particular, and we only do not have enough cars because we do not have enough people to drive them. The cars are available, but we do not have the drivers to drive them. I realise that that is a slightly different topic, but it does have that impact on the whole trade as it stands at the moment. There are a number of factors whereby the trade needs support to get drivers in. As a company in Glasgow, I have just run a four-week advert on STV to try and highlight the attractiveness of the flexibility of being either a taxi driver or a taxi owner and operator and the potential that is there for people to come into a good job. It is a good job. There is a living to be made, but having come out of the pandemic, now into this current economic crisis, cost of fuel, road fuel, cost of fuel for utilities at home, and as I say, the potential to charge an electric vehicle in the back of that. There are a number of factors there that are concerning. My last point on it is that it is an aging trade. We are all, predominantly, we are in our 60s, late 50s. The average age in Glasgow taxis, as I know, is 59 and the average age of a driver is 54. It is an aging trade and there are less and less people coming into it from any youth market. To that end, someone who is going to invest £64,000 over six years, aged anything over 60, it is a huge consideration, not least of which because a lot of the guys do not have health insurance, none of us know where our health is going. There are a lot of factors, there is a lot of worry, there is a lot of anxiety and there are a lot of serious considerations around that economic part. Do I close there, sir, and pass over to Murray Fleming, who just might want to add a couple of pointers predominantly from the side of the country? Mr Fleming, thank you. Mr McLean, that was very comprehensive and you have touched on a number of issues there that I think we do want to explore. Mr Fleming, would you like to add anything further to the comments from Mr McLean? No, I think that Robert has covered most of the aspects. What I would say is that, with the low-missions zone expectations on the back of Covid and the capital investment required, if the Scottish Government wished to retain wheelchair-accessible vehicles in the manner that would become accustomed to the Nedman Glasgow, that is going to require funding. I will also share the view that the funding towards LPG and the retrofits is misguided investment and new vehicles would be a far better course of action. I worry a little when you say that it is a horribly old profession at 54 and 59. I am 63, so I do not quite know what that says about my prospects. I think that there were three very specific areas there. We have some areas of questioning that we want to address, but I hope that, during the course of the evidence session, we will ensure that we do justice to all of those. Mr Sweeney. Thank you, convener. I will just preface my comments as a declaration interest as a member of the Unitary Union. I recognise a lot of the points that have been made as I am representing Glasgow and particularly the controversy over the low-missions zone restrictions planned for introduction next year. I understand that the Glasgow City Council recently announced that enforcement on the LEZ will not apply to certain taxes until the first of June 2024, so effectively an extension of one year. Is this a sufficient time to allow non-compliant vehicles to be retrofitted with emissions reduction systems or, indeed, fully replaced? Mr Grant, how are we going to know when he wants to... Mr Grant, can I come to you first? Would you like to comment on that? Yeah, absolutely. Really, it's not enough time, a year's extension, that the vehicles that are being talked about there are Euro 4 vehicles that don't have a retrofit solution or less than Euro 4, so these are the TX1, TX2 models, the Pujo, E7s and Mercedes Vitos that are not suitable for retrofitting, don't have a retrofit solution. Those vehicles will get a year's extension. Any that have a retrofit solution will have to be done by June 23. Even the date of mid-24 is going to be a serious ask, as it is, and we just feel that there needs to be a rethink just like what's happened in Manchester, where the mayor of Manchester realised that the plans agreed pre-pandemic had to change because it would not work after the pandemic, so there really needs to be a rethink in my eyes and our union's eyes that this is just not workable in its present form. Mr McLean, I'm going to assume from the contribution you made a moment ago that you take a similar view. Do you want to just articulate that, either Mr McLean or Mr Fleming? Yes, sorry, I was waiting in the microphone. It's predominantly an issue with the retrofit equipment as well. The primary supplier of that has a company called Cyberand, who allows third-party engineers to install that equipment in the vehicles in Glasgow, and presumably when it comes to it in Edinburgh. I can speak for the Glasgow market because that's actively on-going, but it's not actively on-going because it's proven very difficult to get the kit from the Cyberand company. They can provide the hard-core engineering part of it that converts the exhaust, but the energy savings trust insists that along with that piece of hardware is a piece of software called Telematics or a black box, as the insurance companies call it, so that the movement of the vehicle can be monitored by an energy savings trust to ensure that, A, it's still being used as a taxi, and B, they know that it's fully operational and what they've funded through that grant money. The Telematics aspect of it are proving impossible to get at the moment, and therefore Cyberand are unable at the moment to fit quite a number of vehicles, so that's proven difficult and challenging at this time. That has the effect of rolling and kicking everyone down the road, whereby the vehicles are currently in the process of being funded by EST, are not going to get their equipment installed into the vehicles for some considerable time, so that's going to have a knock-on effect on all the other operators and owners who are trying to hit the mark. In Glasgow, they have to be registered by next Monday 31 October. They have to have declared that either. We're going to go ahead with a retrofit or an LPG solution, or a new vehicle purchase, and as I've explained earlier, the availability of new vehicles is now probably at the LAVC only. There are only two dealers in Scotland, one in Edinburgh, one just nearly starting in Glasgow, and it was recently two weeks ago. You can see the challenges that the trade has faced, not just through the pandemic and as a result of the pandemic, but for all that period of two years, the ability to buy vehicles or availability of vehicles has proved to be a real challenge. Mr Grant, I understand that you would like to add just something further. It is the case that there is a significant number of vehicles that do have retrofit solutions, but that's only on paper. A lot of those vehicles would be structurally compromised long before the actual retrofit technology ended its life cycle. What you are looking at is that there are a lot of operators scrambling about to change those retrofitable vehicles to a vehicle that is structurally sound at the last for the life cycle of the retrofit, and those vehicles are not available because the used market is completely dysfunctional at the moment. The vehicles that we would say are structurally sound and will last the duration of the retrofit technology are just not available. I would still on the subject, Mr Swinney, are you going to move on? I have a question that I would like to ask on this aspect unless you have another. No, I recognise that you have described significant constraints, age profile, the financial crunch that is involved, the risks associated with people reaching the end of their careers having to take on a huge amount of leverage financially. I know that the Scottish Government, in response to the written question that I tabled some months ago, indicated the three main schemes that the Energy, Savings and Troster administering on their behalf, the switched-on tax-alone scheme, interest-free loan up to £120,000. I think that there was a response that mentioned the servicing cost, about £800,000 a month, but there was also the low-emission zone retrofit fund, which provided 80 per cent grant funding to replace existing diesel engines to meet the Euro 6 standard for driving within an LEZ. The grant provides up to £10,000 per wheelchair-accessible taxi, installing repowering technology, or £5,000 per taxi installing exhaust after-treatment systems. The low-emission zone support fund, which is available to eligible micro-businesses and sole traders, including taxi operators, provides a £2,500 grant towards safe disposal of non-compliant vehicles as an incentive. That was a response to our written question tabled on 6 January. You mentioned that the Manchester scheme was a £20,000 grant, so I wonder in the context of those three options that are provided by the Scottish Government, are you suggesting that something along the lines of the retrofit fund, if it was enhanced to provide the grant towards new purchases, could be a satisfactory solution to all of us? Mr McLean, I will come to you first, because you raised that specifically. I think that that is a very valid point, Mr Speedy. As I said in my initial presentation, the current use of the public money in regards to where it has been spent, you talk about the £2,000 effort for the scrappage scheme. If an owner or operator takes advantage of that £2,000, they have to buy a new vehicle, so that is fine. It only has to be a year newer. Then it hits the mark to have some other retrofit solution added. That £2,000 is then deducted from any subsequent grant that would be paid in relation to that. If you take a vehicle that is £2,000 and it gets scrapped or taken off the road in Glasgow and then they go and get a retrofit exhaust 50 to a new vehicle, that £5,000 grant would be reduced by £2,000, so that £5,000 is still the maximum that they are getting to put a new vehicle on the road that hits the mark for the Glasgow low emission zone compliance. The LPG conversion, as you said, is a 80 per cent part, which at the moment I think is running about £12,000 that will be granted by the energy savings trust, the balance being paid by the owner. That is a complete re-powering solution. That is removing the diesel engine from the old taxi, putting in a fairly decent petrol engine, and then the parts that go with the exhaust to make it comply with the correct Euro 6 compliance in relation to the use of that LPG powering, so it starts on petrol, converts itself to LPG once it is running and runs on LPG. As you may also be aware, for about a month, sourcing LPG proved particularly challenging in Glasgow. I am not sure about Edinburgh's where guys run into Kilmarnock and Hamilton to try and source LPG, so I am fairly sure that you can imagine that the thing that got back, the availability of fuel to operate in Glasgow was significantly reduced. A real number of issues and challenges around that whole retrofit and old vehicles, whether it is re-powering or retrofit and exhaust, and by far the best solution is to make available a decent, funded solution that allows people to get into a market where they can buy not necessarily a new vehicle. For instance, I have a two-year-old Mercedes fully compliant vehicle, but if I was getting a grant by a new vehicle, I would buy a new vehicle and make my vehicle available in that second-hand market whereby somebody who is going to need an older vehicle could take advantage of that, my second-hand vehicle at much better price and see Glasgow hit the mark for fully compliant. The last thing that we want is to lose the fleet in Glasgow, and none of us are against the low-emission zone. Everyone fully supports the health aspects and absolutely everything that is trying to be done, but Glasgow as a city just cannot lose the fleet overnight, which I want to lose the fleet in the first of June, but it is always a huge part of it, and that is a real worry. Thank you. Mr Sweeney, I will come back to you. Does that lead you into your next question? You seem to have a clear set of asks. I just wondered if you had presented a counter proposal in the case of Glasgow City Council and if that had been well received or if they have just ignored what you have been trying to say about a reasonable set of countermeasures to clearly what is quite a blunt instrument that has already seen a 20 per cent reduction in the number of licences in this city. I will come to both groups. That was the kind of area that I was going to explore too, because I wanted to ask who within Glasgow City Council what sort of reception you felt you were having to the exploration of the arguments that you are making, because I am clear that you have made some quite comprehensive technical both specification arguments in relation to the availability of vehicles, but also to the financial construction that would be available to support the alternatives that you think would be best. I say that as someone who spent 25 years in the Scottish retail motor industry and myself found from time to time that the technical specifications that were real, the difficulties and practicalities associated with that, were not always understood by policy makers who were keen to drive forward to a particular objective. I am interested to know, as Mr Sweeney, who and how you feel those discussions with whom they are taking place and how you feel those arguments are being received. I will come to both. Mr Grant, you might want to come in on that and also touch on the previous question. I will go from Glasgow City Council councillors such as Anna Richardson, who is no longer in position, and Angus Miller. They are the main people that we have been discussing our counter-proposals with, but I am afraid that it has fallen on deaf ears and come heller high water. They want to implement the LEZ in June 23, despite all our protestations and all our concerns. It does seem to be falling on deaf ears. Given that you are detailing quite specific technical and availability issues around actually being able to comply, what sort of responses are there to that reality? It seems like they particularly do not want to understand the issues that we are having. As I said, they are wanting to push ahead with this. There has been the mitigation of allowing those with older vehicles that do not have the retrofit solution, the extra year, but it is just tinkering around the edges. We have explained the issues that I raised earlier about retrofit and the vehicles that have a solution on paper. Those vehicles do not justify the retrofit, they will not last the duration of the retrofit technology. Those people are having to go out and purchase vehicles if they can get them anyway, so they are in the same position as that person that does not have a retrofit solution. As I said, I can only say that for the numerous meetings that we have had with Angus Miller, John Molyneux and the Green Councilor, we just feel that they are not listening and come heller high water that is going through. Mr McLean and Mr Fleming, would you like to comment on Mr Sweeney's question and my codisle? Yeah, indeed. There are a number of issues there, particularly in relation to Glasgow, first of all, and I will let Marigeth give her a quick update on the adverse side after. Before Covid even happened, if you go back to late 2019, as a committee, as a company, we compiled a presentation in which we called Death by a Thousand Cuts, which was where we saw that taxi trade would suffer within the next 10 years to such an extent that we would probably be left with no trade in Glasgow. That is all the things that I mentioned earlier about drivers, age of vehicles and so on. We presented that initially to a couple of councillors, the licensing department and a number of key stakeholders in the Glasgow City Council. Along came Covid and things changed significantly. We continued to make those presentations and culminated in being able to make the presentation to Susan Akin, the leader of the council in Glasgow. Along came May last year and the elections came and went. Susan Akin and her team were back in. Anna Richardson was very keen to listen, but certainly very stuck in her ways in relation to how she saw that low emission zone and where it was going to go. She was replaced by Angus Miller, and we get an audience with Mr Miller. We speak to him and we give him the presentation. All the while, Glasgow is ill-bent on making sure that this goes ahead on the date that they have always said that it would go ahead. We are clearly eager to please the Scottish Government in so much as they want to hit those marks whereby Glasgow are first to do it. They want to be seen to be hitting the marks in relation to the 2030 energy efficiency figures that are laid down by the Scottish Government whereby we stop selling any internal combustion engines by then. That in itself would be fantastic, but the vehicle that I spoke about is £64,000, as I said, as a hybrid. It still has a petrol engine in it. We invest £64,000. Is there a guarantee anywhere that at some point Glasgow will not look to become zero emission rather than low emission? All those things are factors in the background. Glasgow City Council will listen. We will not necessarily act on what they hear, but we will get an audience, we will get a chance to speak, we will get a chance to have your say, but we will continue in exactly what they are doing. Mr Fleming, do you want to add anything in relation to Edinburgh? In relation to Edinburgh, we have a deadline of the 2024 deadline, which is helpful. What is important to note is that Edinburgh has an age limit as well. Not only does it have to be Euro 6, it has to be 10 years or less. We have got vehicles in Edinburgh that guys are taking the side-brand product, converting the vehicle, and it only has one year's extension in effect. We are seeking to get that extended to 14 years. LPG vehicles are extended to 14 years, which seems rather unfair when you could have a Mercedes Euro 6 that will have to go off the road after 10 years. We have accepted the policy, but I think that councils are adopting the approach that this is Government policy. We simply have no scope for change, and that is the deadline, come what may. However, as a lot of people in the trade have got these older vehicles, once they get to that 2024 deadline, they are walking away, and there is no one to replace them, no one to be prepared to take the funding on board. Thank you very much. Mr Sweeney, do you want to say more? I can move on to Mr Torrance. Just to say thanks for that insight. It seems that the financial solution sits with the Scottish Government in terms of the energy saving trust products that are offered via the Government. Perhaps if we are able to present a counter proposal to the Government as well, that could potentially be a way of dealing with the intransigence that you are experiencing at a council level. It seems that there is not much appetite for moving any further in terms of the deadlines. However, in terms of the financial remedy that Manchester has reached, perhaps there could be a similar remedy here. Would that be something that we could perhaps look at taking forward? Mr Torrance, that leads in to your general question. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning to all the witnesses. In written evidence, the Scottish Taxi Federation argues that a current taxi and driver licence in the regime under a civic government Scotland Act 1982 is no longer fit for purpose. Why do you think this and how best could the system be brought to date, and just to let you know that I was on the regular licence and board for 20 years at Five Council? That is the same thing that is saying to Marion Robert. Mr McLean, do you want to… Mr Fleming, do you want to… Clearly, the act, as the name suggests, was introduced in 1982. Here we are all these years later, 50 years later, looking at an act that has got a bit of catching up to do, particularly in relation to technology. When that act was written, it was all very traditional, and a private hire car was a private hire car, certainly because it was not a taxi. What is a taxi? A taxi is a vehicle that can pick up on the street, sit at a rank and take people from a rank. It can also take called for cars, called for hires, like a private hire car, but a private hire car cannot do the aspects that are referred to by picking up on the street or picking up at a rank. Along come mobile phones, and things start to change a lot, but people no longer have to go to what London is called, the mini-cab office, or up here, the private hire car operators office, to await the arrival of a private hire car. Likewise, people who have to go to the phone box or stand on the street and traditionally hail the car in the street. The look for the arms light, they hail the car, and along comes a mobile phone, so they can phone the company. That changes things significantly, but, lo and behold, the mobile phone becomes a smartphone and all of a sudden we have apps. Things that those who were born in the 50s had never had any knowledge of, and some still have no knowledge of, particularly in our trade. They are very reticent to change and acknowledge those changes. However, we have apps and along come disruptors into that app technology. We are not transport providers, we are technologists. Along come a company called Uber, who is probably the biggest disruptor in this market, and Glasgow and Edinburgh. Uber arrived with a very slick app. Hundreds of millions of pounds to waste and throw and lose a trade that still has never made them a penny of profit. We tried to emulate that. As recently as last month in Glasgow, we tried to put in place a fixed pricing structure. As a result of some work that we have done through Scott Pulse, a national survey company, we surveyed the people of Glasgow to say what they would like to see in their local pub company. They said that they would love to see that meter being taken away, because that causes real anxiety. I do not know if we have ever sat in the back of a black car when it is stuck in traffic, coming from Ibrox, and there is a meeting or an event on it at the hydro. You come to the Squinty bridge and you can sit for maybe 20-25 minutes before you have actually got over that bridge and that meter is ticking and ticking and ticking and the poor customer in the back is sitting looking at it and saying, am I going to have to pay that? The reasonable drivers will say, look, do not worry about the meter power, we will get that sorted once we get to the central station of our other going. However, less scrupulous drivers might just leave the meter running in charge of that person, exactly what that meter says, as they are entitled to do. All those things have created a real issue in relation to how we operate those taxis. As you know, in the city, we have to operate every hire on the meter. The meter must be engaged and the fixed price was never going to be an option at this particular time, certainly not until the 82 act further gets an upgrade and recognises technology or, in some other way, sees that there has been some significant changes in relation to how the trade operates over the past 40 years and tries and pulls itself into the 21st century to fit and sit exactly where we are now in relation to those aspects. I am coming back to the meter. The meter is to protect the public. The first thing that these companies do is ensure that they do not have a meter, which allows for escalation of fares when it is busy. The black cab trade is very often now at busy weekends and sees themselves at disadvantage, earning less than a sector that has far less capital investment. I come back to the thing that if you want a wheelchair accessible fleet, there has to be some form of assistance offered. I am not sure that all of the committee would specifically have experienced that coming from Ibrox, but I am sure that we have all sat in a cab with a meter running. Mr Grant. Murray Maid there. We also have big issues in Glasgow with satellite council areas, licensing private hire vehicles and working within Glasgow city almost exclusively. We see that particularly with South Lanarkshire vehicles now working in the west end of Glasgow and contributing to the City of Scotland Scotland Act 1982. It is a huge problem. There should be some sort of geofencing there to stop them doing this, but there needs to be an update in terms of geofencing areas, as far as I am concerned. Mr Stewart. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your comprehensive comments this morning. You have identified, there is no question, that this is an industry that is in crisis and without the proper support and the proper mechanisms that will be in place that you will find the demise of some of that. We have already seen the reductions that came through the pandemic and you have talked eloquently about the demographics and the age situation. When it comes to the Scottish Government, they have to give you support mechanisms. We have touched on some of the grants and some of the areas that have already been proposed, but do you believe that there is room for more incentives to ensure that you can be supported as a sector? If those grants are not sufficient and they are not equivalent to what is happening elsewhere, you will be at a disadvantage from other locations across the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government has a role and responsibility to act to support you. It would be good to hear what you think could be done more by the Scottish Government and what they should be looking at outside the box to try and support you as to what is required. As I said earlier, if that does not take place sooner rather than later, there will be sections of the community that no longer have the support mechanisms for taxis that they have enjoyed in the past. Mr Grant, can I come to you first? We are slightly short of time now, so if I could ask everybody to be a little bit in sight. Well, one thing that we did ask for is to have a dedicated taxi team within Transport Scotland. They do not currently have that. The buses do. For example, if you look at the disparity in the grant offerings for buses compared to taxis, the buses have been given somewhere around 40 to 50 per cent grants to change from diesel buses to electric buses. If you look at what is available for taxis at the moment, there is a scrappy scheme that you get £2,000 for scrapping your old vehicle. If you put that against the £65,000 cost of an electric vehicle, it comes in at around 4 per cent grant. That is a tenfold difference between the buses and the taxis. I have to think that that is possibly because there is little understanding of the taxi trade and a dedicated team within Transport Scotland would obviously help enormously. Okay, thank you. Mr McLean and Mr Flemming, and again, if I could ask you to be quite brief now, thank you. Yeah, indeed. I think that the points that I outlined earlier probably cover it, sir, in relation to better use of what public money is available. Of course, if there is more to be made available, and I think that we all understand entirely the current economic crisis that is on-going and the number of demands that has been placed on the resources of the Scottish Government and, indeed, local councils, but I think that if people recognise that to purchase a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, a black car, whatever you want to call it, is a significant investment—a significant investment not just for the owner and operator, but for the city, for the people who rely on that or try to reduce the number of cars that come into and frequent those city centres. So let's make better use of the cars that we are going to allow in, the private ire, the black cars, the companies that are going to provide the transport for people and ensure that people still have that freedom of movement to enjoy those cities, go to events, shop in, eat and whatever it is they're doing, but let's make sure that we have a fleet that's commensurate with what the city's want, but the Scottish Government presumably want to ensure that those wheelchair-accessible vehicles are available and that there's a funding support there that will ensure that, as a trade, we can maintain that. Just a more targeted approach to funding of new and suitable second-hand vehicles that have a reasonable lifespan left within their operation. It's not wasting money on some of those retrofits that are throwing money at old vehicles. They're not suitable from the outset, as they're up in the... Mr Ewing. Yes. Good morning, gentlemen. I wanted to ask about the engagement that you've had with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government told its committee in August last year, more than a year ago, and I quote, officials will make contact with the petitioner to discuss engagement between Transport Scotland and the taxi sector. Can I ask what the outcome of those discussions was, please? Mr Grant. A meeting with Jenny Gilruth and just laid out the issues that we were facing, and all that really came out of that was a modest increase in the grants towards the retrofit, nothing else really that was groundbreaking. We were calling for them to put the breaks on the timeline. It's just far too soon to consider everything that's happened, but they don't seem to want to put a pause on it. Jenny Gilruth was at pains to suggest that Glasgow City Council had it within their gift to delay the enforcement date of June 23 for us and basically washed her hands of the issue. Can I ask when that meeting was that took place, the meeting with the Transport Minister? I can't give you an exact date, but it's roughly around two to three months ago. I also wanted to ask if all of the witnesses could, perhaps after this meeting, convener, send us some of the detail of the points they've made, because I suspect I'm not alone that you have made out a pretty strong set of arguments and the figures that you've mentioned that I would like to study in a bit more detail and see them in black and white, because it does seem to me that you are the Cinderella of the public transport sector, the way that you've been treated, because you're trying to do the right thing, but you're being told you must do the right thing by the state and the state therefore must have a greater responsibility to assist you to do that without forcing your members out of business or imposing an unreasonable financial burden, as you have described today, and I think persuaded me that you've made a stateable case, but I would like to see the figures in writing and therefore I would make that request and specifically if you could share with us details of the Manchester alternative and how they do it there, because I think that earlier on in the evidence I can't remember who it was, but one of you said that in Manchester they do provide a more generous scheme to enable assistance by way of grant finance, a purchase of a new vehicle, rather than, as you've argued, throw money away at retrofitting old vehicles that are ready more or less to go to that great car cemetery in the sky, so that's just the request I make because if you do that then I think this committee may well want to try to see how we can help you advance this and time of courses again you, so it would have to be done quite quickly. I hope, convener, that's a reasonable request. Just before any of the witnesses come back in, I'll just ask Mr Sweeney once to come in on the same point, I think. It was just a supplementary to Mr Ewing's call for some more evidence or some more helpful information. You mentioned the wider impacts on the economy, I can attest to anecdotally in Glasgow significant issues being felt by businesses, night-time economy, not getting the sort of trade that they used to get because people are basically saying it's too difficult to get back home from Glasgow, therefore the city is like in a ghost town at night. Also massive queues at rank coming off of train stations, you know, you're waiting about half an hour for a cab at George Square sometimes and that's midweek, but also, you know, big events like the SEC, you know, they're feeling that as well on ticket sales. And it also, you mentioned the manufacturing base, you know, we had a healthy ecosystem in Glasgow manufacturing taxis at Allied Vehicles and Postal Park employing over 600 people in skilled manufacturing. You mentioned the only product available potentially as a Coventry and Shanghai based manufacturer, LEVC. You know, there's a wider economic impact here, both in terms of the supply chain of taxis in Scotland and the impact on the night-time economy in major cities like Glasgow. So, you know, if there's any more evidence that you could help furnish us with, whether it unites commission that or whether we can try and find ways of building that picture up, I think it would add more compelling argument to this. I'm concerned that we are kind of almost out of time, so what I'd like to suggest is that the clerks will liaise with our witnesses this morning on some of the areas where it might be helpful to get more detailed evidence and information, and I'm sure that you would all be very happy to co-operate with that. I've got, and I'll allow you to commit and confirm that in a second, but I just wanted one final question with something Mr McLean touched on. We did ask all local authorities earlier what the effect of the pandemic had been, and about half of local authorities responded, and the general response was that there had been in the wake of the pandemic a sort of 20 per cent reduction in the number of available cabs across those local authorities. Anecdotally, I've heard in my own local authority that there's been a little bit of a recovery from that, but I did hear Mr McLean say that we've got the cars we don't have the drivers, and one of the suggestions that was made to me is that some local authorities are at the moment under-resourced in terms of actually processing applications from drivers who might be interested. I'm interested just to know, finally, along with confirmation that you would be happy to provide further information. When you say that you have the cars but not the drivers, is it a question of the attractiveness of the proposition? Is it a question of the time it's taking for people who might want to enter into the profession to actually get a licence? Mr McLean? Yes, there are a couple of points there. I'll be as quick as I can. One, in the public hire trade, you have to have the topographical test that London calls the knowledge in addition to the new Scottish qualification authority for typically a professional taxi driver. So there are these two hurdles to pass over before you could then even apply to become a taxi driver. As part of our presentation for the death by a thousand cuts, Susan Aikham had agreed that there probably was something that Glasgow City Council could do by removing the topographical initially and allowing, as we suggested, to make it an apprentice for a year whereby you could drive a taxi, because let's face it, lots of people use that now on mobile phones to navigate. At that point, you can learn your way around the city and then set the exam probably with a much higher chance of passing it and being of more use in the trade anyway. When she went back to the licence and regulatory committee with that, that was blown out. So we are where we are. We're still at the top, we're still off the SQA and we're still off to jump those fences and hooks to achieve getting a driver into a taxi. To touch on a previous point, just very quickly, no STF, Scottish Taxi Federation, have had no communication with any Scottish minister or Scottish Government. Other than to, I attend to short-life working groups where the EST attend, though predominantly Derek McHadey is a person from the Energy and Savings Trust, to speak regularly to Derek, but no one at any higher or finance level. That covers that. Mr Grant, finally, on behalf of the petitioner, as you're speaking today, any final comments you'd like to make? Just to say, to me, it does seem that Glasgow City Council, at least our licensing are under resourced. We can wait up to a year and a half to get a physical driver licence badge out to the driver, similar with the operator's licence, the taxi licence that's taken up to a year to get that out. There does seem to be a staff shortage in there dealing with licensing applications, but I also think that there's been a lot of reflection through the pandemic from drivers who have now left the trade looking for a better work-life balance because there was an oversupply of vehicles and it made it very difficult to make a living unless you put in serious hours. So a lot of jumped now that there is a demand for drivers in other sectors. Okay, thank you for that. And gentlemen, thank you all. I think the committee has very much appreciated the evidence you've given. It certainly has, I think, justified our decision to have this slight round table discussion this morning. There are a number of issues that we'll wish to pursue and we look forward to your further assistance with us as we do that. Thank you all very much and I'll suspend for a few moments. Thank you. Welcome back and that we now move on with the continuation of item 1, which is consideration of continuing petitions. Petition number 1854 review the adult disability payment eligibility criteria for people with mobility needs lodged by Keith Park, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20 metre rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or to identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs. The committee agreed at its last consideration to ask the Scottish Government to engage with stakeholders on the review of adult disability payment. The Scottish Government has now confirmed that engagement with relevant stakeholders will be included in the remit for both stages of the ADP review. We also have a further written submission from the petitioner calling on the committee to seek further evidence from stakeholders and report directly to the review. We're joined this morning by our colleague Carol Mocken. Carol, good morning, welcome, thank you for your patience. Would you like to contribute to the committee's thinking on the issue? Thank you very much for asking me to speak and I very much appreciate the opportunity. I, as you've said, once speak to petition 1854. As you know, the petitioners have asked the committee to continue to seek evidence with a view to producing a report to submit to the 2020 review on moving around descriptors within adult disability payment. I think that it's fair just to give a little bit of background to the 20 metre rule. The 20 metre rule was introduced as part of the eligibility criteria to access personal independence payment. It means that if you can walk one step over 20 metres, you do not qualify for the enhanced rate of mobility support. The rule does not consider the nature of fluctuating conditions or the impact of physical or mental fatigue. It does not make allowances for people who perhaps have further distances that they require to go and they may have to stop and start on those distances. The relevant point here is that the Scottish Government is replacing PIP with the adult disability payment ADP, but it is keeping the eligibility criteria the same. I know that the petitioner has tried to lobby the Government on this and continues to do it. I have spoken with a number of people who have been affected by the rule, and in particular people suffering from MS. It greatly affects that group of people and I have spoken to individuals and to the organisation. Since introducing the rule, the MS Society has done some research. The findings are very relevant for the committee. One in three people with MS have had their support downgraded. Two per cent of people with MS have had to give up work altogether because they lost that enhanced rate of mobility support and needed that support to continue with their work. That is really important for them as individuals but, of course, for the economy as well, people should always be able to have that opportunity if they can. Around 611 people with MSF gave up work altogether just due to the loss of mobility, and that is between 2020 and 2022. The Society believes from speaking to people and the evidence that they have gathered that that has cost the Government in the way in which they support people with MS due to the additional cost to the NHS and to the rise in claims and other income supports. When I spoke to the Society, I felt that their points were very relevant and important. However, what difference can the committee make by keeping the petition open? Well, one of the considerations is that the committee is about engaging people and making sure that underrepresented voices are heard and that it gives them a platform. The petitioner feels that the petition staying open would certainly offer that opportunity, certainly up until the report or the moving about report is finalised. They also feel that people at the sharp end of the 20-metre rule want to be able to engage in a meaningful debate and continue that debate. They are a very marginalised group due to the disability and they do find it difficult to find avenues in to participate in the discussions and debates and the petitioner's committee has certainly allowed them to do that and they would wish them to continue. You have already had evidence so you could continue that relatively well and that the MS Society feels that the Government is quite open to some of the evidence that you are collecting and so it would be relevant at that time. The last point is that it does seem premature when the evidence has been supportive. The Society has felt that this has been a very successful route for them and their members and we would hope that you would consider keeping it open at least until that review is made. This is an important petition and we have considered it in some detail. I think that the Scottish Government has confirmed that it will include stakeholders in the review and so I certainly would like to propose that we keep the petition open at the present time. I wonder if colleagues would be happy for us to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government just to request information and more detail on the timescales and the completed dates for each stage of the review, to ask how the Government intends to report on the stage 1 of the review so that we have an understanding of the thinking, and to ask how the Scottish Government intends to engage with the Scottish Parliament throughout the period of the review and on the proposals and recommendations for action. Are there any other proposals from the committee? Are we content to proceed on that basis? I hardly agree with your recommendations but I think that the committee should wait to take any further decision with the petition as well until we actually see that the first stage of the review before we bring it back to committee. Carol Mock and MSP have provided very interesting information about the impact on people who have MS. I wonder if it might be appropriate to write to the MS society in order to elicit more information from them. Maybe Carol could help us with the talks with the information that she's got, but I think that given what she's informed the committee of today, I would be interested to dig a bit deeper to see if there are, in fact, people who have been casualties of this rule, if you like, and have lost the ability to carry on working. That's a very serious matter and I'm very grateful that Carol has brought that to the committee today, but I would be keen to see if the MS society can add a more complete picture. No, I think that that would be very helpful. Mr Park, who lodged the petition on behalf of the MS society, I think that it would be interesting to drill down into the very specific complications arising from the condition itself. Mr Sweeney? Just to say that I concur with the comments that you've made, convener, and also from Ms Malkin, on a really important need to keep this open. I think that there's one thing having the Government doing a review, but it's the role of the Parliament to keep that Government under scrutiny, and I think that this committee performs an important function in that regard, and this is clearly a live item of business that this committee has been attending to, and therefore we are well placed to perform that role, so I think that even informing the lead committee that we intend to do this, it would be helpful as well. I'll be all content. We are content, thank you very much. We move on to petition number 1907, provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland. A continuing petition lodged by Claire Beats, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds, removing eligibility criteria for access to services. We last considered the petition on 23 March. We agreed to write to the Scottish Government for further information and on its plans to address concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on the development of children born during the pandemic periods. We have received a response from the Scottish Government in which it referred to its commitment to expand early learning and childcare to one and two-year-olds, starting this Parliament with children from low-income households, that is me quoting from the response. The response also states that the Scottish Government are funding a range of learning resources for early learning practitioners, which are directly relevant to supporting Covid-19 recovery. Do members have any comments or suggestions? Mr Stewart. Convener, I think that once again this is a very live situation in circumstances. I know that the Scottish Government and the responses that it has given us have indicated what it is trying to achieve, but I think that it would be useful to get some further details of the anticipated timescales for expanding early learning and childcare to the one and two-year-olds, because that will give us a more clarity as to where we stand at the present time and that will give us an idea as to how we can progress things for the future. That seems sensible, Mr Stewart. The committee agreed. We are. Thank you. Petition number 1914, Ban School Uniforms and Secondary Schools, lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms and secondary schools, last considered by us on 20 April. We agreed at that meeting to keep the petition open while writing to the Scottish Government following its publication on the consultation on school uniforms. We also agreed to write the Scottish Government highlighting the evidence that we have received and seek further information on how children and young people have been involved in the consultation process. We have now received two responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Those highlight the timing of the Scottish Government consultation on school uniforms, which ended on 14 October. They also confirmed that the consultation process would include bespoke engagement with children and young people. At the same time, they also suggested that the Scottish Government does not intend to take a uniform approach to uniforms. There would be a local authority and education authorities who would have a responsibility and determination in all of that. Do we have any suggestions of Mr Torrance? Considering that the consultation has been published in the cabinet secretary, it has indicated that there are no plans to abolish school uniform or mandate for specific school uniform. I do not think that we could take this anywhere else. Under 15.7 of standing orders, I would like to close the petition. We would thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The consultation has now been published. As Mr Torrance said, I think that that is given the Scottish Government's response the limit that the committee can go to. We were agreed to close the petition. That brings us to agenda item 2, which is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is petition number 1939 to amend the date of birth to allow wider accessibility to the HP vaccination programme for boys. This has been lodged by Suzanne Thornton calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to health equality for young males born between September 1, 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access the HPV vaccination via the NHS. Suzanne tells us that she is concerned that the current vaccine eligibility criteria is creating a health inequality. She notes that all girls as well as men who have sex with men aged up to 45 years are offered the HPV vaccination while young males born prior to September 2006 are unable to access the vaccine. Should a young male born prior to the state wish to receive the HPV vaccine, they would have to do so through private healthcare, which Suzanne advised would cost approximately £500. The Scottish Government notes in their response that eligibility for teenage immunisation programmes in Scotland are defined by academic year rather than date of birth as such any boy that started S1 in 2019-20 would have been offered the vaccine and will remain eligible up to his 25th birthday. The response from the Scottish Government also notes that the JCVI do not currently recommend a catch-up programme for boys and state that the evidence suggests that boys are already benefiting from indirect protection as a result of the roll-out of the vaccination programme to girls. The HPV vaccination programme has been a controversial one. I know that it has been the subject of previous discussion in the Public Petitions Committee in earlier sessions. Do members have any comments or suggestions in relation to the petition that we have received this morning? I think that this is an area that requires a little bit more depth and clarity. I would suggest that we write to the Joint Committee of Vaccination Immunisation to ask if there are plans to review the need for and the value of the catch-up immunisation programme for males aged 25 years and younger and to write to Teenage Cancer Trust, Josephical Cancer Trust, Young Scot and Men's Mental Health for them to seek their views on the issues raised by the petitioner. I think that all of that would be of interest for us to clarify and to see what is required for the future. Mr Stewart, thank you. Are there any other organisations that colleagues would suggest we contact or are we content to keep the petition open and pursue further evidence from those sources? We are, I think that thank you very much, so the petition will stay open and we will seek to gather further evidence to consider it at a later date. Petition number 1942 encouraged peer support programmes in public sector organisations, which has been lodged by Fiona McCrae calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer supported programmes such as trim and straw in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health. Fiona tells us the use of the trauma risk management, trim and sustaining reliance at work straw processes could help create psychological safety at work by encouraging employees to complete an incident report when they experience or witness behaviours that may affect the mental health of employees. Fiona also suggests early intervention could help reduce the number of employees experiencing mental health problems while contributing to a safer, more positive workplace culture. In responding to the aims of the petition, the cabinet secretary for health and social care has provided information on a range of actions being taken to promote mentally healthy workplaces. Those include a mental health transition and recovery plan, funding for a national trauma training programme and the establishment of a peer recovery hub by the Scottish Recovery Network. In view of that, members, do we have any suggestions or comments for further action? I wonder if we could keep the petition open to get more information on the committee's right to relevant stakeholder organisations, including the Mental Health Foundation, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Samaritans and the Scottish Recovery Network and the Laura Hyde Foundation seeking their views on the value and the need for provisional peer support programmes and workplaces across Scotland? Do any other colleagues wish to add to that? Are we content to keep the petition open and to write to the organisations as suggested by Mr Torrance? We move to petition number 1943 to help to prevent the destruction of greenfield sites by providing financial incentives towards the remediation reuse of brownfield sites. This has been lodged by Victoria Mungal and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use, while also discouraging developments on greenfield land. Victoria tells us that brownfield sites can often be difficult and expensive to remediate due to contamination, unstable ground and other challenges, and that results in greenfield sites being targeted for development, which can be far less expensive for developers to build upon. Victoria also highlights that, in England, grants have been introduced that allow local authorities to contribute to the remediation of brownfield land. In their response, the Scottish Government provides details of the vacant and derelict land investment programme, which was launched in March 2021. This is a £50 million fund that is available on a competitive basis to all Scottish local authorities and to the Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company. Members may also be aware that the draft national planning framework NFP4, proposed and updated and expanded on policy on vacant and derelict land, which discourages development on greenfield land unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. Once again, can I ask if members have any thoughts or comments? I think that the committee should keep the petition open until the fourth national planning framework is finalised and approved, so we can look at it to see the updated version of it. In doing so, can we also write to the Royal Town Planning Institute, Homes for Scotland, and cause a seeking of reviews on the issues that are raised in the petition? Thank you. Are we content with those suggestions? Are there any other organisations, Mr Sweeney? Obviously, vacant and derelict lands are particularly acute issues in Glasgow. I think that actually the bulk of Scotland's derelict land is within Glasgow. In that respect, it would be interesting to get insights from the Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company in particular about the work in the model that they have adopted, which I think is the only urban regeneration company left in Scotland. It would be an interesting insight. I think that also the Royal Institute of Scottish Architects would be a worthwhile organisation to engage with, and perhaps the CIOB is called the Charles Institute of Building, because I know that it has been proposing an idea around a demolition levy to promote reuse of buildings and renovation of buildings. There is a major disincentive that has been created through the tax system whereby renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings is subject to 20 per cent VET, but demolition and new build is zero-rated. You have already got a handicap imposed on what should be the right thing to do in trying to renovate buildings, so that is why you often see otherwise quite pleasant looking architectural buildings destroyed, because it does not make any sense financially for the developer. There are some perverse incentives out there that should be investigated, and that perhaps could be part of the remedy. I am very happy to accommodate that suggestion. Our members of the committee are content to do so. We will keep petition open and right to the organisation suggested ahead of further consideration when we have received response. Petition number 1945 to ban the extraction and use of peat for horticulture and all growing media by 2023 lodged by Elizabeth Otway. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat imports, exports and sales in order to protect peatlands both in Scotland and worldwide. Elizabeth states that the Scottish Government's investment in peatland restoration is undermined by continued extraction and use of peat in horticulture. The call for the 2023 deadline is in line with the UK Climate Change Committee report who recommended banning peat extractions, sales and imports by 2023. The SPICE briefing notes that we have received. Note that the Scottish Government commitments to phase out the use of horticultural peat have now been made for several years. The UK Government aims to end the retail sale of peat and peat containing products in England and Wales by the end of the current Parliament and by 2028 in the professional horticultural sector. The Scottish Government response indicates that a public consultation will be launched shortly to inform its work in relation to banning the sale of peat-related gardening products and it has commissioned research on the issue. The Scottish Government states that it is committed to setting a timescale for phasing out peat with the introduction of legislation to support that. In view of that suggestion to us from the Scottish Government, do members have any comments or further suggestions? I think that we should keep the petition open and in doing so right to the Scottish Government to highlight the recommendations of the UK Climate Change Committee to ban practices such as rotational burning on pentlands by 2020 and to ban peat extraction on the sale of peat and peat imports by 2023. To ask the Government how feasible it would be to ban the extraction and use of peat by 2023 and when the Scottish Government expects to deliver a plan and timetable for phasing out horticultural peat to be developed and produced and when the consultation will be launched and how a petitioner can contribute to his consultation. Thank you. Do colleagues have any... Mr Ewing? Yes, I wasn't quite sure whether the petition was calling for restrictions beyond the use of peat for horticulture from what David Torrance said there and the reference that he made would appear that the climate change recommendations seek to go further than that and ban peat for burning. Given that we all know that burning of peat is traditional in crofting counties, it means essential means of heat and a cultural practice that has gone on for centuries and any attempt to ban the said practice would be met with horror and outright opposition if not direct action by crofters if we might write to the crofter's foundation in order to seek their guidance as to who we should be consulting about this because I suspect that this is an issue that will become, convener, to use a rather poor pun, a burning one. I wondered from a range of poor puns which one you were going to reach for there, Mr Ewing, but I'm happy that we do that as well and we content members of the committee we are. Brings us to petition number 1946 to call on the Scottish Government to pay all charges for homeless temporary accommodation lodged by Sean Clark and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities. Sean tells us that vulnerable homeless people, including working people, are being forced into serious debt. Sean's recent submission highlights the increase in homeless households in temporary accommodation over recent years and states that this situation will worsen due to the cost of living crisis. He says that without the action called for the financial burden and further poverty will drive many people into physical and mental ill health. The spice briefing received states that councils use different methods of calculating charges for temporary accommodation and that a social bite report found a wide variation in costs ranging from £65 to £400 per week. The legal services agency published a report that noted varying levels of detail in local authority policies and varying regard for and definition of the affordability of temporary accommodation. It also recommends that in the longer term charging individuals for temporary accommodation should be prohibited. The Scottish Government's response highlighted its forthcoming housing bill, which will seek to prevent homelessness through principles of shared public responsibility, earlier intervention and increased housing choices for individuals. It has also established a temporary accommodation task and finish group, which will review charging practices and affordability concerns. Do members have any suggestions or comments in relation to the petition? Can I ask the committee to keep the petition open in doing so to the Scottish Government for the forthcoming housing bill, which will include provision to prevent local authorities from charging individuals for a provision of temporary accommodation and if the Scottish Government will give consideration to paying for homeless temporary accommodation and waiving the outstanding debt owed by homeless people to local authorities for temporary accommodation? Any further suggestions from the committee? I am content to support Mr Torrance's calls. As you have indicated in your opening remarks, there is no question that the cost of living crisis will have a knock-on effect on all of that. There may well be the needs to clarify as to what the housing bill is going to develop so that we can progress that. Without that, it could spiral into a much larger situation in circumstances for many local authorities and for many individuals, so I am content for that to be the case. Am I to propose that we invite Shelter Scotland to make a submission to the petition? I think that they might have important insights. I am happy to accommodate that. Any further suggestions? Are we happy to keep the petition open and proceed on the basis and we can consider the petition afresh when we receive the submissions that we are now seeking? Petition number 1947 to address Scotland's culture of youth violence, which has been lodged by Alex O'Kane and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. Alex highlights a culture of youth violence in Glasgow city centre and says that children as young as 13-year-olds have been kicked unconscious. Alex told us that these incidents have been videoed and circulated on social media. Alex sent us a further submission, highlighting a recent incident involving a young girl and says children should be safe on our streets and young people, and I quote, need to learn about consequences and deterrents, or they will simply become adults without fear of consequences and deterrents. The Scottish Government response outlines a number of on-going programmes and work being undertaken with partner organisations, such as the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and Medics Against Violence. The response highlights a notable decrease in the number of young people frequenting Glasgow city centre and an associated decrease in antisocial behaviour and violence. The Scottish Government states its plan to publish the First National Violence Prevention Framework for Scotland, which seeks to refresh its approach to violence prevention and harm reduction. The submission also notes an 85% reduction in the number of children and young people being prosecuted in courts between 2008 and 2020. In view of the response from the Scottish Government and our thoughts, this important petition. Members of any comments or suggestions, Mr Stewart? I think that this is a very important situation. I know that the petition talks primarily about Glasgow, but across Scotland there are without question some areas of locations that suffer the blight of violence and young people who have difficulty in assimilating what they want to do and choose to go out and be involved in antisocial behaviour in vandalism and that can sometimes lead to violence. I think that the petitioner has given us some quite strong examples of what has taken place and that the whole idea of social media is used within this context to publicise and promote some of these and that is a dangerous development as well. I would at the first step suggest that the committee may wish to seek from lived experiences across this board because by doing that we will then get an opportunity to discuss further details with individuals and circumstances that have taken place. There is a role within this for community safety and the police and other authorities to participate to have some of them involved would also be very useful, I believe. Paul Sweeney. Thank you, convener. This petition was submitted following a spate of violence in Glasgow city centre and surrounding areas. Violence was brought to my attention by the petitioner earlier this year. Since then, there have been several instances where the levels of violence on display have been absolutely horrifying, most notably in the case of 13-year-old Abbey Jarvis. I do not want to get into the specifics on that case, as they are currently legal proceedings under way and I do not want to prejudice those. Petition 1947 is known as Abbey's petition following media coverage and I know that my colleague Pauline McNeill MSP has been engaging with Abbey's family to see what can be done to support them in particular, so I would like to see this petition kept open and progress. I know that the Government has responded setting out the measures that they have taken to try and reduce youth violence in Scotland, but I would like to put it to the committee that those measures have not been adequate and that in big cities like Glasgow the situation is getting worse, particularly in the city centre. In my conversations with Police Scotland and the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, it appears that there is no one individual reason for that recent increase. Indeed, the problem is multifaceted. I do think that the committee therefore would benefit from hearing from the likes of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, and if they wished to appear before us from families who have been directly impacted by youth violence. Mr Stewart's suggestion was that it may also be of interest for us to proactively go and visit communities that have been affected. Does that have some appeal for the committee? It does, so we will write to the organisation and also do that. We will ask the engagement team here to develop a programme potentially from us, and are you happy for them to do that? Is there anywhere in particular you would like us to visit, bearing in mind that this will probably be in the new year, given timetables? Any suggestions or are you happy for the unit to come back to us? There has been a particular focus of anti-social behaviour, convener, in the Cynuq Square and, informally, what is known as the Four Corners area of Glasgow in Ergyll Street under this Heelamonds umbrella, so I think that that might be an area, but I am sure that the petitioner might also have suggestions. We are content to evolve some recommendations to us and where we might visit and to plan to do so possibly just in the early new year. On that basis, we will hold the petition open. Petition number 1948 to improve the way that unexplained deaths are dealt with. This has also been lodged by Mr Alex Cain and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review their practices for dealing with unexplained deaths from initial recovery through to the support that is offered to family members. Alex stresses that the vital window of time when a body is discovered with no clear cause of death, when decisions are made and evidence can be secured or lost. Alex says that because an unexplained death is not considered to be a crime, the same level of resources are not invested to support the person's family and victim support is not included. Alex also stresses the need for good and supportive police communication with families in this situation. The Scottish Government submission sets out the process followed by Police Scotland and the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service when managing unexplained reportable deaths. Police officers are expected to undertake a range of actions during an initial assessment to determine the response. If at any stage circumstances indicate a police reportable death, the assessment must be halted and officers must notify supervisors and CID. In dealing with unexplained deaths, one of the key principles highlighted by the Scottish Government is that the deceased and any family or friends are treated with respect, dignity and compassion. Guidance states that consideration should also be given to the appointment of a family liaison officer for bereaved relatives. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I have engaged with the petitioner on this petition, which I believe is known as Stephanie Bonner, a constituent who tragically lost her son three years ago in what has been recorded as an unexplained death. The family have had no answers, have been let down by the authorities and are awaiting the outcome of review by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner into the handling of their case. Nothing I say today will do the importance of this petition justice and therefore I am of the opinion that the committee should invite Stephanie herself to give evidence on her experience since the tragic passing of her son three years ago. I gave a commitment to the petitioner that I would encourage the committee to invite Stephanie at the earliest opportunity. The first opportunity that I have had is during today's session and I stand by that commitment there for my request to the committee today that Stephanie has invited to speak to us. Fundamentally, this petition is about improving the way that unexplained deaths are dealt with. In order to do so, it is vital that the committee hears first hand from those who have experienced the current system, its flaws and the impact that that can have on families who are grieving and seeking answers and closure. So we have a proposal to hear from the petitioner. It might be useful ahead of that just to seek some further information from a variety of other organisations to any colleagues of any suggestions in regard to that. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I agree with my colleague Paul Sweeney's actions to take back. Can we also write to Police Scotland to get information on how a family liaison officer is deployed and the role of a family liaison officer and their training duties and their accountability in situations like this? I think we can. Any other suggestions? We might write to Victim Support Scotland as well. Sorry, I made a mistake. Of course, the petitioner is Alex Cain, but if there is an individual who is specifically affected by this, who would like to give evidence to the committee, I think that the clerks liaison with Mr Sweeney in relation to that further, that would be useful. So we are prepared to keep the petition open at this stage and to explore how we take forward the suggestions that have been made. Thank you. That brings us to the last of the new petitions this morning, 1951, to reinstate inshore coastal limit on the use of dredge and trawl fishing gears, submitted by Alastair Bally Philp on behalf of the Scottish Creel Fisherman's Federation, which urges the Scottish Government to reintroduce a variation of the historic three-mile coastal limit on the use of mobile dredge and bottom trawling fish gears to support the recovery of Scotland's or demercel fin fish population and the wider ecosystem, opportunities to optimise the social, economic and environmental returns within the new spatially managed area, and increases in fishing jobs and the revitalisation of coastal communities. The Scottish Creel Fisherman's Federation highlighted that the decline in fish landing is significant losses of marine features since the removal of the historic inshore limit. It is concerned that, despite the use of marine protected areas, less than 5 per cent of Scotland's inshore waters are currently protected from damaging trawling and dredging activity. The Scottish Creel Fisherman's Federation has also shared information on economic studies, showing that switching fishing effort from trawl fishery to creel fishery has the potential to, and I quote from them, yield substantial economic, social and environmental benefits to Scotland. In their response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that they have engaged in extensive discussions on this matter with the Scottish Creel Fisherman's Federation, but have no plans to introduce a three-mile limit restricting mobile gear activity in inshore waters. The Scottish Government suggests that there are already a range of measures to protect fish stocks and highlight commitments contained in the Bute House agreement, including the designation of highly protected marine areas, covering at least 10 per cent of Scotland's inshore and offshore waters by 2026. The petition has already attracted a large number of written submissions, many of which indicate concerns over the Scottish Government's approach to marine management. On the basis of everything that we have received in advance of our consideration this morning, do members have any comments or suggestions? Both Mr Stewart and Mr Torrance are keen to jump in, Mr Torrance. Consider that there is another committee in Parliament doing work in this area. I would like to refer the petition to Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee for consideration as part of the work on inshore fisheries issues. I agree, convener, that the Federation makes some very valid and strong points in the petition. It would be much more appropriate for it to go to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, because it is already looking into some studies with reference to fishing in inshore fisheries issues. That is the right place to put it, because it will look at that in much more depth and give it the appropriate precision that it requires. Colleagues, given that there is another committee, Mr Sweeney? I understand that I cannot remember what stage it is at, but I believe that there is a UK Parliament fisheries bill under way, if it has not already passed into statute, but it might be worth contacting the Scotland office to see if there is any input from the UK Government on the matter. I think that we could draw that together with the recommendation when we refer the petition. Are we agreed that, given that there is another committee exploring these issues, that we will refer the petition to that committee? We are content. That concludes the public section of our meeting this morning. We next meet on the 9th of November. We will now suspend the committee and go into private session.