 Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting of the citizens participation and public petitions committee of 2022. We're going to begin this morning just with confirmation agenda item one that we're content to take item three, which is consideration of the committee's 21-22 annual report in private. Are members agreed? We are. Thank you. We're joined this morning by Fergus Ewing remotely and Mr Sweeney, who will be with us shortly. Agenda item two is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those continued petitions is petition number 1804 to halt the Highlands and Islands airport limited air traffic management strategy. This was lodged by Alasdair McEaghan, John Doeig and Peter Henderson on behalf of Bimbacarae Community Council. As those who follow our affairs will know, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands airport limited air traffic management strategy project and to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision making process of the ATMS project. I'd like to welcome Engels Lyon. Good morning to you, the managing director of Highlands and Islands airports limited, who is joining us remotely and I very much appreciate you making your schedule available to participate in our discussion this morning. Members have had a number of questions. We're quite familiar with the ground. We've had various evidence sessions with various people as we go along, so very happy in the first instance to move to the first of those questions, but if there is anything you'd like to say just in advance of that, then I'd be very happy for you to do so. Just to say thank you for agreeing to say it today and for hosting me remotely, it helps. Great. First question then is, I will put, and then various members of the committee. We're also joined, I should say, this morning by Liam McArthur and Rhoda Grant, and I'll be very happy to invite them to say something after the committee members have placed the principal questions in evidence. Can I ask you, Mr Lyon, because this has come up in a number of, I mean, obviously the petition was first lodged before there was a change in the strategy of Hial, and a number of those who've given evidence to us have been suspicious of the motivation underpinning all of that, so given that you have now changed your mind, you know, after five years of pursuing the ATMN strategy, was that wholly driven or principally driven by financial considerations, or is there a wider basis for the change of position? Thank you for the question. There were a number of moving parts in taking that decision to take a different strategic direction. It was the industrial action, which I'd like to go into some detail on. There was a financial element, there was a campaign that had been run by prospect, supporting MSPs, and there was also the output from our island impact. There were a number of different moving parts that brought us to the table. If I could perhaps start with the industrial action, the industrial action took three different constituent elements. The first was a daily strike action for airlines and airline passengers at airports. That's hugely disruptive, but a day of industrial action can be managed. Airlines will put passengers on to the following day or the preceding day, hugely disruptive, hugely regrettable, but manageable. Then there was an overtime ban, and the overtime ban saw passengers sometimes unable to get into some of their remote airfields or sometimes unable to leave these remote airfields. That, again, was hugely disruptive to tens of thousands of passengers, and it cost local air approximately £2 million. However, again, that is manageable within the grand context of what we do up in. The thing that really put the bite on the organisation was when training stopped. Training stopped as a result of the action that was taken by the trade union, and training is the lifeblood for what we do in the Highlands Nines airport. We had a number of controllers in the control town who could not progress because of the industrial action. That has had an effect on the airports, and we are still working that out. That is still coming to a conclusion at Inverness Airport, where we are still experiencing some closures because of the training that we were unable to undertake during that industrial action. Training is a major, major element for us. We also had the financial element. When we went out to tender for the remote tower element, we received four bids back to the organisation, and the bids ranged from being almost on budget to being, in one case, cleaned half times the budget. When we looked at the bids in some detail, there were some significant variances about how organisations at price risk, and how some organisations at price cost certainty. When we looked at the thing that we decided that there was considerable uncertainty in those bids that we had received, we had a firm steer from Transport Scotland that the budget was the budget, so that we could not constantly go over the budget. At that point again, that was something that came into play. We also had the output from our island impact. The island impact assessment said that there are things that we should be doing with the local authorities by mitigating the impact of your decisions. We have a number of things on the go at the moment and, at that time, by mitigating the impact of our decisions. One was the sustainable aviation test environment in Orkney, and you saw the benefits of that last week when Royal Mail made the announcement about UAVs covering the north and west of Scotland. We have some exciting developments to take place in Stornoway, and we have other developments elsewhere. Notwithstanding all of that, that was insufficient to move the local authorities from removing their objections. As I said, there was the campaign that was being run by Prospect and unsupported MSPs. When combined, if you were to say to me, was it the finances? No, it wasn't. Were finances part of it? They were a consideration, but the principal thing for us was to get the industrial action off the table because we were beginning to impact upon our ability to run the business and to continue to provide lifeline services to the north and west of Scotland. Okay, thank you. I understand all of that, and that's a very helpful exposition of the position. It sounds as if it was force majeure that motivated the change in the position, as opposed to a re-evaluation of the original thinking of Hyal, and that it's an evolution of the various points that you just raised that led to the change of heart. Choose the word. Is there a bitterness with Hyal that the change has now been brought around, that this is not the route that you would have preferred to go? I suppose that that leads me to ask a question that has come up in some of the evidence that we've received, although prospects seem reassured on the point. Is there a commitment that the strategy that will now be followed is the one that will be sustained, and that any suggestion that there would be a return to the original proposal after a period of time and when there's a further window of opportunity is not now part of a plan one way or the other? I suppose that to answer your first question about being bitter, there's absolutely no bitterness. We've got a business to run serving the north and west of those remote communities and the north and west of the islands. It's a privilege to do that as the chief executive for the business. He worked incredibly closely with Prospect from August last year to arrive at the position that we're at just now, and I think that credit has to go to those that have been involved in those discussions for getting that over the line as the first is absolutely no bitterness. The second thing to say is that in terms of strategy, we've agreed with Prospect a review in five years time, and that review will be an independent review that will stand by the findings of that independent. Both sides will stand by the findings of that independent. What we can do is we can't tie the hands of incoming boards and chief executives and all the rest of it as to what will happen in five years time, so for the period between now and five years, there will be no pursuing of the original strategy. Thank you for setting out very clearly the exposition of why you changed tack. I think that you've set out in a very candid and helpful fashion compelling reasons as to why you changed tack. I wanted to ask about an area that has been raised by Mr Henderson in the last evidence session, which is the extent to which changing tack has had a cost to it in terms of expenditure, which I think could fairly be described as abortive. In other words, expenditure pursuing a model, which has now been, if you like, shelved for five years. Can I ask what level of abortive expenditure has been on the development of the air traffic management strategy, please? When we reported this to the committee in January and to Mr MacArthur in December of last year, we quoted a figure of £9 million. If I could give you some detail on that £9 million, it would help to put some of that in context. In the first instance, if that £9 million approximately £1.4 million is down to staff code. Those staff members were originally taken on to provide, if you like, that bank of staff that would help us to manage the project. However, given some of the issues that we were experiencing across the company in terms of staff shortages, those staff members were deployed to those roles at other sites in Highlands and Islands airports and continued to be deployed in Highlands and Islands airports. Of that £9 million, you can subtract £1.4 million in revenue code. Of the capital sum, the city contained within that is a simulator that was bought at £324,000, and that is a simulator that will be used to trade Highlands and Islands air traffic control staff for the next 10 years. That is an asset that sat on the books and is depreciating, so it is not directly attributable to the cost. Finally, there has been much discussion around new century house and what we do with new century. New century house was bought below market value for a purpose up to house our surveillance centre. However, things have changed. New century house is now getting used for a temporary training facility, but what we are doing and are midway through doing is evaluating our estate in Inverness for two reasons. The first is that the reason for buying and holding new century house has changed. Secondly, at our head office, which was at capacity pre-pandemic, we now have 67 per cent of our team working hybrid, so we now have capacity in head office. We are looking at things in the round, but we are going to try and determine the best way forward. As a result of that, if new century house becomes surplus to requirements, that valuable piece of real estate will be sold. We are not precious about it, but it will be sold, and the money will be returned to Highlands and Islands Airport. Air and mine was bought at below market value. Thank you for that. The headline figure of £9 million needs to be reduced by various factors. Although the cost was incurred in pursuit of the project, which is Michelle, we are serving other valuable purposes for Highlands. I understand that. Are you able to say how much you would expect the price to be for the sale of new century house in relation to the purchase? Would that, if you like, as you seem to be implying, further reduce the £9 million cost thus far by maybe aggressing a profit? Yes, that is correct. I do not want to go into the commercial details just now, but if we look at the £9 million and assume that we realise similar to the purchase price, then that £9 million will reduce £5.445, so it will reduce £5.5 million. It is not the function of this committee, as you understand, to go into these matters in detail. Our function is simply to give voice to petitioners who come to the Parliament with a cause and to seek transparency and accountability. It is not our purpose to go into this in detail, but it is our job to decide whether or not someone else should. I therefore want to ask a simple question, which is, would you support Highlands handling of their traffic management strategy process being the subject of an external review by an organisation such as Audit Scotland? We welcome that, Mr Ewing. We have absolutely no truck with that at all, whether it is Audit Scotland or A and other. We would query whether Audit Scotland is the right body for no other reason than that. Audit Scotland has not audited high up thus far. We have our own external auditors, but we are very happy with it. Is there any other body that you think could carry out an audit? I am mindful that, if I may just make this point, that any body looking into this would have to have rather more than a rudimentary understanding of the issues involving air traffic control, which are fairly complex, as we have seen from the Civil Aviation Authority. I had pondered whether Audit Scotland were in fact the right body for the reasons that you have stated, but I wondered if you yourself could come up with any way in which public accountability could be achieved by a body that has a reasonable knowledge in the issues involved, which I think would be essential to do a proper job. There may be an opportunity for peer review. There are a number of capable organisations in the Scottish Government that could undertake some degree of peer review. There may also be an opportunity for the committee to speak directly with our external auditors, who do audit us on a number of topics on a routine basis. Thank you very much. That completes my questions. I think that I just lost the last word or so of what you said, but I hope that everyone else can hear you. No, we did lose the last sentence, Mr Lyon, if you just wanted to conclude that point again. Yes, what I was saying is that I am very happy to make that connection with our external auditors. We are an independent company. If you want to speak to them about carrying out that kind of review—that is great—thank you very much. David Torrance Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Lyon. The lack of engagement with local communities about the future of air traffic control in those areas causes real problems. Can I ask why that was and can I get assurances of you that if there is anything to change in the future strategy for the area, you will engage with those communities? Good morning. We had a prior to announcing the strategy. The company that did the work for us undertook a number of engagement. Since announcing the strategy and up to the pandemic, we undertook over 200 sets of different engagements across the Highlands and Islands. During the pandemic and up to date, we have taken a very different approach with our community engagement. We were held up recently by one of the local authorities as being an example of best practice. Where we are today is a long way from where we were at the start of the episode, if you like. With the benefit of hindsight, would we do things differently? I think that we have learned, and that is something that we will do as we go forward. That local authority has been an example of best practice, and that is good to hear, and it is a good benchmark to step for ourselves. Thank you. Mr Lyon, why were health staff and recognised trade unions not involved in the development of air traffic management strategy from outset? How do you intend to involve staff in the development of future strategies? Would that not help to industrial relations? Yes, some of the staff were involved prior to announcing the outcome of the strategy. Since the devise strategic direction, we have managed, we have worked with our staff to help inform that discussion by setting up a number of working groups, which I am sure Prospect would confirm that that has helped to build a number of the bridges. If you were to ask me, have we built enough of the bridges? Have we repaired enough of the bridges? I would say no. It is work in progress. The committee has heard concerns that high-elw management placed too much faith in the air traffic management 2030 strategy, scoping study produced by the consultants Helios, the results of which relied significantly on emerging new technology. How do you respond to such concerns? Helios provided a report, and within the report there were a number of options. The recommended option was the way that the board decided to go at that point in time, but it could have chosen some of the other options that decided to choose the one that was recommended. It is the first one. Since then, that board has since moved on to pastures new, and we have a new board. In June 2020, I think, the new board sat down and went through all the evidence available and confirmed that the decision at that point to pursue the strategy that we had was the right decision. At that point, we had also employed a new chief operating officer, and he was given carte blanche to view everything and decide whether or not we were still pursuing the right strategy. He came to that point also. Helios provided the options, and the board decided to pursue that option at that point. Thank you. Alexander Stewart. Mr Lyon, communities were very fearful and anxious about the whole process. They still are. There is no question that they feel that there may be some loss or some reduction or some diminution of some of the facilities that they would expect. Can you give assurances to communities that are served by high-level airports that they will not see any reduction in the services or aviation safety from the roll-out of the new air traffic control system and the procedures that it goes? As I said, they are still very fearful of what is planned and what will happen. First of all, I thank you for raising the issue of safety. Whatever we do in Highlands and Islands airports is always to improve upon levels. We operate in one of the most highly regulated industries, not in the UK, but whatever we do has to lift the safety. We don't compromise. What you have in the Highlands and Islands today is safe, and we have an opportunity to make it safer, which is what we intended. In terms of the diminution of service, again, by introducing some of the changes that we hope to introduce, the idea is that we will achieve one of our core objectives, which is to improve resilience. One of the reasons for embarking on the strategy in the first place was to help to improve resilience. What we can't find ourselves in is a position that we find ourselves in. In a couple of the airports where we were struggling for money levels, we had airport closures. If one thing demonstrated that it was the pandemic and our ability to keep lifeline services going, those are real lifeline services to remote communities, and it is all about preserving those links and enhancing them. How is the crux of the matter about supporting and ensuring that communities have those services? Can I ask you what lessons have you learned from Fiasco? That has had communities up in arms, MSPs up in arms, and the whole idea of that. What lessons have you learned from dealing with this over the last five years, and how can you put some of those lessons that you may have learned into practical to ensure that there will be practical action for the communities that still have much anxiety about what might come out from this process? I shared something with one of your colleagues who is at the committee today when the same question was asked of me when we met. I said that this idea of sharing some of the challenges that we had early on would be very helpful to us and to your good selves, so that we have a very open book approach to sharing these challenges so that we can work on solutions, whether they are joint solutions or we just tell folk what is going on. That would be the biggest lesson that we could take away from this, is to improve that communication. I go back to the point that I made earlier, where we have now moved a communication and information flow to such an extent that one of the local authorities says that it is an example of best practice, proud of what you do, and I would like to see that continue going forward, so that that will ensure that there are no surprises going forward. We have two colleagues with us this morning. That is the formal questions from the committee members. I would very much like to give both Mr MacArthur and Rhoda Grant an opportunity to either make an observation or to put a question, given the importance of the issue and the fact that the evidence is almost a final opportunity for the committee to consider all the various bits of evidence that we have received. Mr MacArthur? Thank you very much indeed. Good morning. Engels, you talked earlier about, in response to questions from the committee, about with hindsight things that would have been done differently. I think that we can all be accused of having wisdom with hindsight, but having lived this process for a number of years, if not all five of them, it seems to me that hindsight was not really necessary from very much the outset. The concerns about the cost calculations and estimates being wider than mark in terms of what would actually be required to deliver this safely and successfully were out of alignment with what many within the sector were suggesting would be the case. The staff concerns about the proposals and the implications for jobs, including in the islands, were very evident from the get-go. The opposition within local communities, including local authorities, were evident. Hyal's consultants identified the remote-term model as the most complex and risky of the options. Over the course of the four or five years that I engaged with Hyal repeatedly, I was told and repeatedly through public statements that the public was told that this was the only viable option to deliver safety and, in accordance with changing regulations, the air traffic management system that is required across the islands and islands. I appreciate that we are now in a different place, but it is difficult to accept that one needed hindsight to have arrived at that conclusion. There is real anger and frustration that has taken the best part of five years to get to a conclusion that many had arrived at pretty much from the get-go. That is much just for the record. That is an observation. Over and above the question that Fergus Ewing raised about the audit and I welcome the response that you have given to that, I think that there were concerns raised previously by Mr Henderson that we could find ourselves in a similar situation in relation to centralised radar surveillance. Again, we have a proposal being taken forward by Hyal where there are concerns among staff about the implications in each of the airfields and that those concerns are not being given due weight and that we could find ourselves some way down the line dealing with a similar situation where Hyal is going to be forced to reconsider those proposals. What assurance can you give us that that is not the case, that staff concerns in relation to centralised radar surveillance will be taken properly into account? Thank you for that. I am disappointed to hear that. We have continued the working parties. We have announced the revised strategy and then be in terms of how we deliver it. If I would be completely honest with you, the number of attendees at the working parties has dropped dramatically since announcing the strategy and the working parties are the opportunity to say that this is good, this is bad or we are indifferent on this matter. I will take that away and I will discuss that with the prospect and I will try and find a way of encouraging more participation at the working parties to ensure that we have that right level of feedback between the units. I think that one other final question. Obviously, one of the drivers for this the move to the remote towers was the concerns around recruitment and retention of air traffic control staff in certain airports. I think that the concern that I and others were raising that this was not necessarily an issue at some of the airports and that Hial had a track record when embarked on a local recruitment exercise of recruiting and retaining staff very successfully, but when they moved to try and recruit ready-made air traffic controllers from Sweden and elsewhere, which were a short-term option in the sense of what they ended up doing was reaping the whirlwind of that because they were always going to leave. Is there an assurance from Hial that going forward with this new model that there will be a return to looking to recruit from within the local communities, which has demonstrated itself not just for Hial, but across the public sector and indeed the private sector, a far more effective way of identifying people that you may need to put in additional training for, but are far more likely to remain within the organisation over the medium to longer term? We had a good discussion up in Cherd in the other week where we've just approved exactly that. That's a young lady that's entered it at the system level and it's now moving into the ACOR trainee level. Maintaining the draw from the local employment market, we will always do. However, there will be occasions when we have to fish in the bigger pool because that's being the short-term fit, so whilst the primary source of employment should always be from our local hinterland, there will be occasions when we do have that square. That's just the nature of the business that we're in, but yes, certainly where we can get local staff. You'll even see just now that when we're advertising posts, our posts are providing the not operational, they're based all over the country, all over the Northland. Rhoda Grant, is there an observation or a question you would like to make? A bit of both if you don't mind, convener, is that okay? I won't go over ground covered by the committee, apart from to say that I'm really pleased that Prospect and Hial are working so well together and that staff are now involved in the working groups. There is a level of distrust as to why we have reached this point and what brought us here, which you answered at the beginning. I suppose the independent review in five years time is the thing that is causing some concern to people. Is this just a pause and will that review bring us back to where we once were? My first question is, how do you rebuild trust, not just with the workforce, which I understand from yourself and Prospect, that work is on-going, but within the communities that you serve as well? I think that the community one is it, if you like. It's a long-term project with the staff that our teams are closer to us. The community is going to be a long-term project. As I say, we've started rolling out this revised engagement programme that we have and it does seem to be yielding benefits. Speaking to a lot of MSPs, MPs and local authorities, feedback that we are getting is a positive about the change, but being equally positive about the level of engagement, about the honesty and transparency that we are sharing in the engagement sessions. That is part of it, Odin. We get to that point where you ultimately know almost as much about the businesses that we do. If we can get to that point, it just helps. I will ask a few questions about radar. I understand that radar for Shetland, which is the one remote airport that uses radar at the moment, was to transfer from that to Hyal. However, there has been a delay in that. What are the reasons for that delay? Does that augur well for radar at the other airports being centralised to Inverness? Shetland is a greenfield site. It is something that the CAA has not done in the wrong way that it has done it in Scotland before. Certainly, we have not done it before, so it is a very complex project. It is slightly behind in terms of some of the staffing issues that we have there, in terms of the training issues, but once those are out of the way and that is close to being the case, we will be able to live and learn from that project. Is there an option to have radar controlled locally at the airports? Almost in the opposite direction of travel that was happening previously, would it be an option to have that radar controlled locally at those airports, creating more jobs and maybe following on from the recruitment pattern that Liam McArthur talked about, where local people could be recruited and trained? That would create more jobs in our local communities where they are desperately needed. One of the issues that we talked about today and previously is around resilience. If we have those people under the one roof, it allows us to say, for example, that somebody could be controlling the radar on Monday and, because of sickness, illness or absences, they could be controlling it on Saturday or Tuesday and, potentially, even on Wednesday. By having those individuals under the one roof, we are able to get that resilience that, on the scale, builds that level of resilience into the airports. That is the basis on which we agree the compromise with the prospect and their colleagues in the time. You would not revisit that, you would not look at it again. I am just kind of conscious that it might be a way of rebuilding that trust and reassuring communities that you were looking to work with those communities as well. I would suggest that that is something that gets looked at under the five-year review. Thank you. I am very grateful, Mr Lyon. Is there anything that we have not covered that you might just want to add as a final observation or comment? That is being fine for me, Mr Carlaw. Thank you. Thank you very much for your evidence this morning. I very much appreciate the time you have given and the comprehensive way in which you have answered the various questions from committee members and from our visiting colleagues this morning. Members, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard today at a future meeting? We are, in which case, I will suspend the meeting shortly and thank you again for your participation. Thank you, Mr Lyon. Our second item this morning is the consideration of continuing petitions, the first of which is petition number 1855, the pardon and memorialise those convicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1563, lodged by Clare Mitchell QC, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. At our last consideration of this petition on 23 February, we heard evidence from the petitioners, Clare Mitchell QC and Zoe Vendettossi, and agreed to consider the evidence at a future meeting. Following that meeting, members will be aware that during the parliamentary debate on International Women's Day, the First Minister gave an apology to those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. Since our last consideration of this petition, we have also now received a response from the petitioner welcoming the First Minister's apology and also the work being undertaken by Natalie Dawn to take forward a member's bill in relation to the pardon. Unfortunately, Natalie Dawn is not able to join us this morning, but she has provided a brief statement, which has indicated to members in advance of today's meeting that she is consulting on her proposed member's bill, which focuses on the pardon, which will be published imminently, but does not deal with the issue of any national memorial. Members who I unfortunately wasn't here to consider the evidence, obviously read it carefully, do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. I think that it is important now for us to get some of the evidence from Natalie Dawn herself. Obviously, she is consulting and it would be useful for an update from us from how she is progressing with that member's bill. I also think that it would be advantageous for us to contact and write to the Scottish Government requesting that they give some consideration to the whole memorialisation of individuals who have been convicted as witches under the act of 1563. I wonder if we could write to the Scottish Government as well and ask what public body would be involved in this so that we could go to them directly to see if they would support it. Yes, I think that that's a good idea. Clearly, we can't commission a memorial. It may well be that there's a committee of the Parliament that could pursue the matter, but it would be helpful, I think, if the Scottish Government indicated that if there was a body they thought might be assuming they respond positively to the idea that if there was a body they thought might be the appropriate one to try and advance this. Are members in agreement with those recommendations? We are. That's good, thank you. Petition number 1860, new legislation for prescription and limitation act lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the prescription and limitation act to allow retrospective claims to be made. We considered this last on 2 February and we agreed to write to the Minister for Community Safety. Following that meeting, we have now received responses from the Scottish Government, which include a copy of the response that the Minister received from the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. From the information provided, it has appeared that information on the use of judicial discretion under section 19a of the prescription and limitation act 1973 to supply time limits from bringing legal proceedings and certain actions is not currently collected in a way that allows for it to be easily analysed or interrogated. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Thank you, convener. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it intends to take any further action to collect and evaluate information on the use of judicial discretion under section 19a of the prescription and limitation act 1973 to supply time limits from bringing legal proceedings and certain actions and what actions it might be. Yes, I am inclined to agree, although it is very clear from the evidence base that, while the problems are acknowledged, the resource does not exist currently to do anything about it. I think that it would be sensible to try to identify in that correspondence if that is not something that can happen immediately. Is it even something that could happen in due course? Are members content with that recommendation? Thank you. Petition number 1895, the mandatory accountability for nature scots decision making procedures lodged by Gary Wall, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for nature scots to explain its conservation objectives and decision making within the framework of the Scottish regulator strategic code, code of practice indeed, and Scottish Government's guidance right first time. Again, we will ask consider this on 2 February. We agreed to write to nature scott asking whether it routinely provides information about its conservation objectives when rejecting licensing applications. In their response, nature scott explained that the circumstances under which licences can be granted do not always relate to conservation objectives. They state that licence refusals are routinely issued and their approach is always to explain to applicants the reasons for the refusals against the relevant legal texts. In their recent submission, the petitioner cites case law, which they believe highlights the requirement for nature scott to balance objectives when deciding whether to grant exemptions for licensing, and they also stress the requirement in nature scott to be transparent, accountable, consistent and proportionate and express concerns about the conflicts with nature scott's policies and a lack of oversight and accountability. Do members have any comments on the petition to help us to advance our thinking? David Torrance, I think that we should write to nature scott just to ask him to be reassured by them that their processes are in place for licensing refusals and the reason for refusals are transparent and clear to any recipient applied consistently across Scotland. I wonder if we can also ask him if he has appropriate guidance for staff on the procedure of licensing refusals to ensure that the issues raised by the petition are in regard to transparency and clarity are being addressed by consistent procedures. That seems reasonable, but we agree with that. Petition number 1905, the public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950. This petition was lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of the UK XJW's support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950. At our last consideration of this petition, we heard directly from the petitioner, Angela, about her experiences and the issues that she would like to see addressed. Can I again thank Angela for taking the time to come to the Scottish Parliament, to speak with the committee on what was clearly a particularly difficult topic? I think that I speak for all members when I say that the committee found Angela's evidence compelling—difficult to deliver, but compelling. In that session, we heard that victims of this abuse are hidden in plain sight and need to be heard, as they are often isolated from everyday life. The petitioner made her case for the Scottish Government to conduct a public inquiry into this matter and raised the significance of mandatory reporting mechanisms. Members will recall the submission that we received from the independent inquiry into child sex abuse, which is under way in England and Wales. The inquiry undertook a specific investigation into child protection and religious organisations and has published its report along with recommendations, including recommendations for further work. Members can find a link to the full report in their papers. That was a difficult session for the committee. I wonder whether members, having reflected in the evidence, have any comments on how we might now choose to proceed. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I would like to keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence session and the findings of independent inquiry in England and Wales, stating that it notes the findings of independent inquiry into child sex abuse report in England and Wales and the issues that are identified are requiring further consideration. I also want to highlight the petitioner's experience, which reflects many of the findings of independent inquiry and the issues that are identified as requiring further consideration. I also want to highlight to the Scottish Government that there are no plans to extend the scope of inquiry into abuse of the children in care in Scotland and that there are current gaps in Scotland in progressing consideration of the issues related to the response of religious organisations who are informed about allegations of abuse against children who are not in care. Alexander Stewart. I would concur with that, convener. As you indicated, that was a difficult situation, but a situation that is there and we need to get more clarity on that. What has been suggested would give us some of that clarity at this stage for us to consider what gaps there may will be in the process going forward to ensure that there is an opportunity to see what has happened in England and Wales with reference to some of that as well, because it is very relevant to the petitioner and what she was trying to bring forward at the time. Any other colleagues wish to comment. I continue to be perplexed by the fact that the inquiry in England and Wales has managed to accommodate the review into abuse in the care sector. I am still unclear whether that is the case and why there is resistance to closing the gap in the scope of the inquiry in Scotland. I think that that is very much the petitioner's perspective from the evidence that we heard. I think that it is a point that remains largely unanswered. The argument that it would create a difficulty or a delay does not seem to have been borne out by the ability of the inquiry elsewhere to accommodate that area of abuse. I think that that is something that we really want to try and pursue. Are we content with the recommendations that have been made in relation to the evidence that we heard? We are. Thank you. Petition number 1912, funding for council venues, lodged by Wendy Dunsmore calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the necessary additional revenue to local councils to run essential services and venues. We considered this petition last. We agreed to investigate the issues with the local authority chief executives. We have received responses from COSLA, Angus Council, North Ayrshire Council, Argyllian Bute, North Lanarkshire and from Fife Council. The responses highlighted a number of common challenges for leisure and sport funding at a local authority level, including low customer return rates after pandemic lockdowns resulting in reduced revenue for leisure venues, a continuing financial pressure as a result of funding cuts, and ring-fenced funding from the Scottish Government creating limited flexibility for councils. The local authorities also highlighted a number of changes in their service provision to tackle the issue of financial sustainability. However, concerns remain over the allocation of funding for sport and leisure activities in the future, so very much echoing the concerns of the petitioner. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Delighted that a number of local authorities did respond, but it is only a small number in comparison to what we have in local authorities out there. However, I do think that they capture some of the areas that are very relevant, and there is no doubt that the pandemic and the impact that took place. Is it for us now to refer the petition to the local government housing and planning committee in the context of the committee's wider consideration of local government and authority finances and the post-pandemic recovery? That would be my suggestion Colleagues, do others have a view? Thank you very much. We will nodding an ascent there, Mr Ewing. You were nodding an ascent? Yes, I concur. We will do so then. Position number 1913, to fast-track future adult disability payment applications for people undergoing cancer treatment lodged by Wendy Swain. Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department within social security that will fast-track the adult disability payment ADP applications for people with cancer diagnosis whilst they are undergoing treatment. Considered last on 2 February, we agree to seek views from Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK. Macmillan Cancer Support's response requested that the committee urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the new system of adult disability payment in Scotland follows a number of key principles. Those principles are set out in their submission and relate to the processing times for applications, fast-tracking applications and making greater use of paper-based assessments and evidence from medical professionals. Do members have any comments or suggestions? Thank you, convener. I think that we should keep the petition open, but in doing so, I would like to write to the Scottish Social Security Agency to highlight the concerns of the petitioner and to propose those for improving to the SSSA system. I set out in the written submission from Macmillan Cancer Support and recommend that the SSSA should take a board, like regularly publishing processing times for benefit applications, broken down by condition, ensuring that processing times for special rule cases are kept to a minimum period for around a few days and reduce the processing time for applications from the normal rules to non-terminal patients to 11 weeks or less and to consider a scope to mark the minds of use of paper-based assessments and make greater use of evidence from medical professions to limit the need of unnecessary face-to-face assessments. Colleagues, are we content to progress the proposals as identified by Mr Torrance? We are. Thank you. We will keep the petition open and progress accordingly. Petition in 1917 to provide full legal aid to all parents fighting for access to their children. This petition lodged by Amy Stevenson calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide full legal aid to all parents who are fighting for access to their child or children regardless of income. We last considered this on 23 February and we agreed to write to a number of stakeholders. Since our last consideration, we have received written submissions from the petitioner, from Relationships Scotland and Shared Parenting Scotland. They highlight a number of issues with the current legal aid provision that is dependent on income, including the costs of legal proceedings, the impact of the financial barriers on children, the importance of early resolution mechanisms and the need to consider children's rights and put children's interests first. Colleagues, I am inclined to write to the Scottish Government highlighting the evidence that we have received, requesting that legal aid provision relating to parental responsibilities is included as part of its planned review of the legal aid system and asking them for information on the scope of the review, now that it is under way, the plans to consult and the timetable for this and the timetable for bringing forward the legal aid reform bill. Does that proposal meet the approval of the committee? It does. Petition number 1925 to bring HGV speed limit on major trunk roads to 50 miles an hour in line with other parts of the UK lodged by David Singleton and self-evidently urges the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the 40-mile an hour speed limit for HGVs to 50 miles an hour in Scotland in line with other parts of the UK. Discussed last by the committee in the 9th of March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, and the response from the Scottish Government confirms that speed limits of HGVs are being considered as part of the national speed granagement review. Transport Scotland has also indicated that it would be happy to engage directly with the petitioner. In the light of this, colleagues, are there any suggestions for action? Thank you, convener. Considering that the Scottish Government is already considering the speed limits for HGVs and that Transport Scotland has indicated their wellness to engage directly with the petitioner in this matter, I think that we could maybe close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Paul Sweeney? In closing the petition, perhaps advise the petitioner that maintain a correspondence with their local members of the Scottish Parliament in order to ensure that they receive a satisfactory outcome in their discussions with Transport Scotland. If there are any concerns, they can take that up accordingly rather than being done through the petitions process. Thank you, convener. I agree with the suggestions that have been made to close the petition, but to recommend the petitioners and others to pursue this matter with their MSP. I just wanted to add that, as the MSP who drives the A9, I suspect rather more frequently than perhaps others, that the 50-mile speed limit for HGVs on that road has, in the view of the vast majority of my constituents, added considerably to the safety of traffic, because prior to that, lorries going at 40 and people breaking the speed limit at 80 gave it a kind of wacky racist feel to it and, to be serious, this massively enhanced, in my view, the risk of fatalities, which is a very, very serious problem. I must admit that, from being agnostic at the beginning, I am now a very firm supporter of this. I just wanted to put that on the record, really, convener, because I do very much hope that the safety aspects, in particular on the A9, which I think can be monitored and proven if there is a study by Transport Scotland, as I believe there is, into that, would be a very useful piece of evidence to extend this measure to the rest of Scotland, as indeed is the case throughout the rest of the UK. Thank you very much, Mr Ewing. Are we content, therefore, to close the petition on the basis that has been suggested, but to make sure that the petitioners are aware of the offer to engage and also to draw to the petitioners' attention the suggestion that they maintain a close link with their own MSP in order that the aims of the petition can be pursued and achieved? We are content to do so and I would like to thank the petitioner very much for bringing that petition to the committee. That concludes our meeting in public this morning and we will be meeting again in early course. We have not, just as they agreed to the date of the next meeting, but we are members content for me to liaise with the clerks and to agree and advise of that date. Thank you very much. We will now move into private session.