 Llywodraeth! Welcome to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in Edinburgh, here in the Scottish Parliament. At our last meeting agenda item one, we agree to take a decision on private at a future meeting. As colleagues will recall, we are expecting gyda gwybodaeth i ddim yn gweithio'r eistedd ac sefydlu gerwyddoch chi'n gwleiddoch chi'n gweithio, oedd ein wneud ei ddim yn ymwyfnig yw wahanol. Rwy'n ei ddim yn gweithio'r eistedd ac mae'r ddigonwch yn gallu ei ddim yn gweithio'r eistedd iswieloedd ni'n gweithio ar y cymryd, rydw i ymgwyleisio, nhw'n fwy freedomaeth i chi i chi'n golygu yr eistedd. Rwy'n gweithio'r eistedd wedi gweld ei ddim yn yr hyn o'r ddynt sydd yn ei ddweudio Owr maen ti ddegwyd yr unrhyw o'r cael eu cyfrifio. David Torrance, the Deputy Convener and Fergus Ewing are both unwell and not able to be with us. Unfortunately, the SMP substitute is not available to be with us either. Three of us is considering the petition this morning, but obviously they have received the papers and have had an opportunity to contribute any thinking that they might have to our deliberations. Our first continued petition is section 1856, support the taxi trade It was lodged by Pat Raffertyd on behalf of Unite, calling 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 national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives, reviewing low emission standards and implementation dates. Since our last consideration of this petition, we have received a written submission from Transport Scotland in response to our question about the synchronising the roll-out of LEZs across Scotland, which the taxi drivers were particularly concerned about. The submission states that local authorities are responsible for deciding the timing for introduction and enforcement. It states that LEZ enforcement began in Glasgow city centre on June 1, as I think is well known by the public now, but that the council has introduced a grace period of one year for all and two years for residents within the zone. The council has also developed a mechanism for taxi operators to apply for a temporary exemption beyond the June 23 enforcement date. In consequence, Transport Scotland is not minded to mandate a transition to electric vehicles at one point in time as an alternative to offering support with retrofitting, and its view is that it is for operators to decide how to meet the LEZ standards. According to the submission, 250 taxis have now been retrofitted as a result of Government funding, and it also states that there are no plans to adapt LEZs beyond the current size and scope, or to introduce new LEZs in other parts of Scotland. In consequence, do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed? Do you think that we could write to Transport Scotland having a department to recognise taxi as a form of public transport? I don't think that we are considering them as a public transport and not giving them to speak. I think that we have put the petition in touch with Transport Scotland, but I think that it will be useful to follow up, because I think that we want to support the petitioner on that objective, because it did seem that they were the one area of public transport that was excluded formally from the process. So we are interested to know how we could write asking how those conversations have gone, or whether they have gone at all yet, and what the outcome of that is. I think that we might also write to the Glasgow taxi as a well through the petitioner, in fact, now that the LEZ has been in running since June, we could maybe write asking what the impact of it has proved to be in practice. I think that it will be useful to know. The consent of any other suggestions? No, but I just want that bit paper wasn't telling me anything I needed to know. I think that it's also important to hear from Glasgow City Council as Transport Scotland have referenced them significantly regarding how many applications have been received from taxi operators for a temporary exemption, and how many exemptions have been granted, and what criteria there are for receiving a temporary exemption to the LEZ, and how long such exemptions will last. I'm happy to include that as well. How long will it take the taxi drivers to get in touch with the council? To get into the council, then they have to go back to get their emotes and other things done, so it could end up with two or three months. If the exemption is only for a year, they have already lost three months. Fair point. We will keep the petition open, and we will take it forward with those further lines of inquiry. Petition number 1919, which is to prohibit the sale of high-caffine products to children for performance enhancement. This has been lodged by Ted Gurley, and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under-18s for performance enhancement due to risk of serious harm. We last considered this on 22 February, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and UK Athletics. The Scottish Government responded in April saying that it did intend to publish its analysis of the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people before the summer, which it duly did in May, at which point the minister confirmed that the Government would not be taking forward mandatory measures in this area. The Government also restates that it will consider commissioning further research into the effects of fast-release caffeine products on children and young people, but that would be part of its wider considerations of public health research. In the first of three submissions to the committee, the petitioners welcomed that news and drawn our attention to a study that concluded that caffeinated chewing gum acutely increases central arterial stiffness and aortic blood pressure in young healthy men. The UK Athletics response notes that caffeine, while not a prohibited substance, is on the world anti-doping agencies' monitoring programme, which includes substances that they wish to monitor to identify potential patterns of misuse in sport. UK Athletics advocate a food-first approach to nutrition and recommends that if an athlete decides to take a supplement, they only use products that have been tested as part of the informed sport risk reduction programme. The petitioners responded to this information and concerned that a consistent approach is not being taken to child-safe guarding and protection on the use of stimulants, particularly where fast-release caffeine gum has been handed out at licensed events. The petitioners also raised concerns about how, for instance, involving the use of fast-release caffeine gum are recorded and reported by athletics bodies. It is still all rather uncomfortable background information that we have here. Do members have any comments or suggestions? Can you ask for a timescale on this? If the Government is going to be releasing something, there is a timeline for this. I think that we could write to the Government drawing to their attention the submissions of the petitioner on relation to the on-going concerns that there are with the fast-release caffeine gum and therefore ask the Scottish Government when, in their public health considerations, they think they might consider this, given that it is obviously an on-going issue and that the UK athletics body is also concerned and is monitoring these matters as well. Is there something along those lines? Thank you. The third petition is petition number 1966, which is to formally recognise and incorporate local knowledge and Scottish Government policy. It was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and it called in the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to formally recognise local knowledge and ensure that it is given full consideration alongside scientific knowledge throughout consultation decision-making processes and in policy development specifically within the conservation area. Members will recall that we were curious as to whether NatureScot would appoint a representative from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to its board. NatureScot's recent submission explains that members are appointed by Scottish ministers through a regulated public appointments process and that members are appointed individually and is not as representatives of organisations. The Scottish Government's submission outlines its approach to consultations, saying that consultations seeking public opinion may prioritise local knowledge while those specifically requesting scientific evidence will be assessed based on their scientific validity. In response to this point, the petitioner feels that scientific knowledge is recognised for its merits while local knowledge is given no greater credence than that of public opinion. On issues of internet connectivity, the Scottish Government points to alternative methods of gathering evidence such as face-to-face events and notes that only basic internet access is required in order to use its consultation platform. Again, the petitioner argues that the importance of local knowledge is recognised by the Convention on Biodiversity and the NatureScot research on indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, according to which local and experimental knowledge tends to be undervalued in decision making and should be included in governance structures. I feel a bit of a stalemate in terms of the responses that we've received so far. Comments or suggestions from members? In the absence of which, I think that we could write to the Scottish Government to ask, given everything that the petitioner has said, whether it will revise or consider revising its consultation guidance to ensure that it is consistent with the Convention on Biodiversity at the very least. Anything else that we might suggest? Is it worth following up with NatureScot as well in light of its recent report on indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and what action it tends to take on recommendations pertaining to local knowledge? I think that that would be useful. I think that we might also ask the Scottish Government if it is the case that all members of the NatureScot board are appointed through a public appointments process, what weight they give to local knowledge in the determination of any appointment they make or whether, in fact, that really doesn't count and, therefore, the petitioner's underlying concern about the absence of it may have some validity. We'll keep the petition open and actioned accordingly. Petition number 1976, which is to backdate council tax discounts for dementia to the date of GP certificate lodged by Derek James Brown, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit. The Scottish Government's recent submission acknowledges the differing approaches to the administration of council tax disregard and says that officials are working with COSLA to encourage local authorities to adopt a common approach. Colleagues will remember that we established that it was really quite different depending on where you lived in Scotland, whether or not you got this benefit redressed. The submission was sent in May and said that COSLA leadership was scheduled to consider the proposal in the coming weeks. According to Alzheimer Scotland, Scottish ministers have the power through secondary legislation to amend or remove the statutory test that requires applicants for council tax discount with severe mental impairment to be eligible for a qualifying state benefit. Alzheimer Scotland considers this requirement as unnecessary and adds unfairness to the application process, particularly for individuals who have dementia. Alzheimer Scotland also wants entitlement to a discount or exemption to be uniform across Scotland and for guidance to be developed to ensure the fair application of the legislation. The petitioner's most recent submission draws attention to his petition to the UK Parliament and a UK Government response, which states that councils can apply discretionary council tax discounts or exemptions in circumstances where individuals with a severe mental impairment have not demonstrated entitlement to a qualifying benefit. That has been a move in this direction in the rest of the UK, and they obviously feel that the legislation allows that to take place. I wonder, therefore, what we might further do, colleagues, any suggestions? Did the Government look into COSLA's consideration at all? Did we do any correspondence in regards to that? We could write to them asking them what the outcome of any of that was. That would be perfectly reasonable, particularly in relation to this point. Anything else we could do? I think that, as you have made in a previous meeting, there is still some way to go on this, and we do not have an adequate response. With Alzheimer Scotland's recent written submission, it is worth following up with the Scottish Government with regard to its intentions to amend or remove the legislative test requiring severely mentally impaired people to be eligible to a qualifying benefit in order to obtain a council tax disregard. That would be reasonable, and we could point out that it does appear from the submission that the petitioner has tabled that the UK Government has indicated that it has moved in that direction. Or, if it has not moved in that direction, it has clarified that it is possible for that to happen within the rest of the UK. Therefore, the Scottish Government might want to consider following suit. We will keep the petition open and move forward on that basis. Petition number 1977 to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children lodged by Helen Duncan, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the national guidance for child protection to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children. We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 18 January, although it seems fresher in my mind than that. It was the 18 of January of the year. When we agreed to seek views from a number of stakeholders, we have now received responses from shared parents in Scotland, Scotland's reporter administration, The Promise Scotland and Celsus Scotland's Centre for Excellence for Children's Care and Protection. Many of the responses highlight the need for discretion and flexibility in relation to informing parents about welfare concerns, noting that there are some circumstances where an obligation to inform a father risks undermining efforts to protect the safety and wellbeing of the child or children. Shared parenting Scotland suggests that there is already an obligation on social work and other agencies to inform both parents of concerns about their children and questioning why this is not happening in practice. According to Celsus, existing legislation and guidance is sufficient to support best practice, and a more effective way to address the issues raised by this petition would be through improvements to workforce learning, knowledge and skills in this area. In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions? I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the National Child Protection guidance in Scotland 2021 sets out general principles on how practitioners should involve children and families in child protection processes. The written evidence suggests that introducing an automatic requirement to inform biological fathers would remove flexibility and discretion from child welfare process and could have the unintended consequence of putting the child at further risk. I agree to that. It could open up a lot of other negative avenues. We thank the petitioner for the petition. There appears to be national protection guidance in place, but thank you for raising the issue with us. Obviously, it is open to bringing back a petition at a later date if we feel that still isn't being acted upon. Petition number 1982 to review funding arrangements for higher education to help to ensure more funded places are available for Scottish ballet dancers at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. That was raised by Gary Mackay. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and help to enable more places to be made available to Scottish students pursuing ballet at this level. That is funding from the Scottish Government, Scottish taxpayer to Scottish ballet. The committee has received a response from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland which begins by challenging the petitioners claim that there is a five-person cap on places for Scottish domiciled dancers. The response explains that where the figure 5 appears in data sets, this is because standard rounding methodology has been used whereby numbers have been rounded to the nearest five to avoid identifying individuals. The conservatoire also challenges the petitioners view that its process for awarding places discriminates against Scottish applicants stating that Scottish dancers presenting for addition and to meet the required standard have been offered places. The petitioners response highlights the subjective nature of additions and raises questions about five dancers who, he says, were rejected from the conservatoire despite being offered places by a number of other dance schools. I have to say that I found some of the responses that we received here quite intriguing. Do colleagues have any thoughts on this one? I think that I am surprised to see that we have only got five from 2009 to 2022. I think that we should write to the Royal Conservatoire to find out the exact figure of how many Scottish students got the funding and if there is a cap. I know that they are saying that there is no cap but surprisingly it is only five every year. I am not clear on the rationale regarding the rounding of five or ten as to why that is appropriate. I have to say to the Royal Conservatoire that I thought their response was disappointing. I felt almost as though it was designed on the basis that if we read it we wouldn't take much more interest in the petition and we would be fobbed off with what, to my mind, is a very generalised and not terribly constructive response. As I say, this is funding as the petitioner points out that comes from the Scottish taxpayer and the Scottish Government. I think that the response that they have given almost in a way validates the concerns of the petitioner and it may well be that in due course we might even take evidence on this petition if we don't get something slightly more satisfactory by way of a written response and make our own recommendations to the Scottish Government in relation to the Royal Conservatoire funding in consequence. I think that we might go back to the Royal Conservatoire if we are content. I even found their argument odd because presumably since all of the people within any aggregated number are receiving funding I'm not quite sure what the confidentiality issue actually is because everybody's getting it who are we particularly naming as in consequence but at the very least if that is an argument that they wish to maintain because they say they are bound by a protocol I think it would be perfectly possible for us to write to them asking how many Scottish domicile students in each of the I would like to say the last five years aggregated were offered places that I think that would allow sufficient anonymity for us to have a handle on the actual number that were involved and how many then took up the offer in consequence as well in cases of variation today. Can you also ask how many applied for the funding as well or to get involved in the how many applied, how many were offered and how many took it up aggregated in five year increments and I think we might highlight to them that we were a bit disappointed with their response and we take the petition very seriously and it may well be that we would consider taking evidence on it before making recommendations to the government in relation to funding matters Are we agreed? We are That concludes item 3 it brings us to item 4 a petition of new petitions We are expecting Paul, Sweeney and Mark Ruskell to join us Mark is here Are you going to speak long long enough for Mr Sweeney to get here Mr Ruskell do you think or should we take another petition first before we run to that one We will take another one first I think Mr Sweeney wants to speak the next one too so I will race on and see where I get to We will therefore consider to review cultural funding arrangements to enable Scotland to contribute We don't need to do that Gentleman if you would like to take your seats we will now move to item 4 Before we consider new petitions can I say to anybody who has lodged a petition and is watching and to anybody who is just following our proceedings that before we consider the petition we do invite the Scottish government and the impartial research service within the Scottish Parliament to offer comment to colleagues on the committee so that we have that background as we begin the consideration of any new petition However our first petition this morning is petition number 2028 which is to extend the concessionary bus travel scheme to include people seeking asylum in Scotland This has been lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill integration network and Doa Abumar on behalf of the voices network The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the Scottish concessionary travel scheme to include all people seeking asylum in Scotland regardless of age In our consideration of this petition we are joined by our MSP colleagues Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell Welcome to you both I think both of you are Mr Sweeney is a veteran of our proceedings I believe that Mr Ruskell has been with us to consider petitions previously as well Welcome to you both The petitioner highlights the challenging financial circumstances asylum seekers face suggesting that extending the concessionary bus travel scheme would support asylum seekers as a group becoming much more integrated into our communities As the spice briefing notes people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom are usually ineligible for most welfare benefits they have to use the term many of us are familiar with no recourse to public funds However, the Scottish national concessionary travel schemes are not listed by the UK Government as benefits that rely on public funds meaning that some asylum seekers can already benefit from free bus and coach travel Scottish Government officials estimate around one third of people seeking asylum in Scotland are already eligible for concessionary bus travel under the existing schemes that is those who are under 22 and over 60 or who are disabled Scottish Government response also provides information about a pilot to provide travel support to asylum seekers in Glasgow which ran from January to July this year We have also received a submission from the petitioner drawing our attention to pilots that have taken place in Aberdeen and Falkirk as well as encouraging the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland to continue engaging constructively on the issues raised by this petition I ask colleagues what thoughts they might have on how we might proceed in relation to this petition I'll invite both of our colleagues to speak Mr Ruskell, would you like to offer a contribution? Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to this petition This is an issue that I've been aware of for a number of years now talking to people who are in the asylum system talking about the daily pressures that they face the poverty that they have to endure the lack of opportunity the constriction on their everyday lives it just feels like this is the minimum that we can do to support them The committee will be aware that the amount of money that asylum seekers have to live on is very low I think that it's around £5 a day for hotel accommodation it's around £1 a day I can't imagine how hard that would be to live on that amount of money it feels to me like an absolute impossibility The other side of this is that I've seen just how transformative the under 22s concessionary travel has been for young people how it's opened up opportunities how it's really helped people to build relationships to access jobs employment just to go about their everyday lives and to have that kind of freedom I know that a lot of those freedoms people in the asylum system don't have as a right but the basic freedoms just to get about to participate in society to see their friends to see colleagues and others and to engage with the community is hugely restricted hugely restricted having free bus travel would make a massive difference and the evaluations that you pointed to for the very limited pilots that have happened already in Aberdeen and Wales we're still waiting for the pilot from Glasgow I think we'll show what the value of this policy is and it feels to me like it would be a natural extension of the existing concessionary travel scheme for over 60s under 22s and people with disability to just include this category of people within that I have to say that I'm really at a loss as to why this hasn't already been introduced I really am because I think the information you've had through the spice briefing is quite clear this isn't included in that category of benefits that are not eligible so it really does beg the question is there another reason is there another legal interpretation that the government has which is making them cautious other complexities with extending the existing card based concessionary travel scheme to people in the asylum system is there other issues about identification or other issues around budget I genuinely don't know and I don't think we've had clear answer from recent transport ministers I would say that we've had four transport ministers in the last two years so there's a question there as well but I am concerned that this is an issue which is falling between different ministerial responsibilities I am concerned that we don't have a clear view from government as to reason why this can't be introduced but I think the case for it remains and I think it would be a great service for this committee to get under the bonnet of this issue and understand why this hasn't been introduced because on the face of it this is in line with the kind of environment that the Scottish Government is trying to create a welcoming environment for people in the asylum system as their claims are being processed I just don't understand why this hasn't been extended right now and at the end of the day we're talking about small numbers of people less than 6,000 so again I don't understand if there's a budget reason here why this support hasn't been extended already Thank you very much for that I mean, I know you're not here to give evidence but I was going to ask a question and you answered it there which was the numbers of people that might be involved and I think you've quantified that there at around about 6,000 or thereby I suppose the other potential reason which you didn't volunteer is it possible that this request has been blended in with other requests for extension to the scheme or rather than move on any they move on none sort of thing given that it might then be used as a kind of basis for an argument in another area of extension which I don't I mean I'm not arguing that that would be the right thing to do but I just wonder if maybe that also is in the minds of people who have maybe not taken this issue forward I think that's an excellent point convener because the way that the concessionary travel scheme is being established and the evidence test for extensions of that concessionary travel scheme there are certain conditions around that there are certain qualities of evidence that need to be to be submitted so I think that that would get into the guts about the reasons why it hasn't been extended up to now and I do understand that Governments currently engage in a fair fares review so they're looking at concessionary travel and fares across all public transport and I understand that the Transport Minister gave evidence to the NSAC committee this week that that will be concluding I think next year so clearly there are demands for extension of concessionary travel people in island communities people need companions to join them if they've got a site site issues those exist but I think understanding the context of how Government is looking at extension because travel would be very useful but zeroing in in particular as to why this has taken so long for Government to come to a considered view and how this fits with fair fares review I think would be a good place to go in terms of questioning and scrutiny Thank you very much Mr Sweeney Thank you convener I'm really just here to commend and echo my colleague Mr Oskall said this petition to you the genesis of it really came from discussions with asylum seekers people seeking asylum in Glasgow over a number of years discussing some of the practical challenges they face living in the city particularly in the wake of the pandemic and there was a particularly harrowing anecdote that one of the gentlemen mentioned about having a abscess in his gum and he had to get emergency dental treatment but he couldn't afford the bus fare into town so he had to walk 10 miles in the pouring rain to go and get emergency dental treatment in severe pain because of his financial position as an asylum seeker so that really struck me as quite a shocking scenario in a country like ours and that moved me to ask them what would practically help make a difference and actually where the whole idea of extending the concessional travel scheme came from and indeed that subsequently led to the launch of a campaign in December 2021 in conjunction with the voices network and Maryhill integration network the campaign has since attracted widespread support from across the asylum sector and continues to be championed by Thug sector colleagues including those from Maryhill integration network the Scottish Refugee Council Friends of Scottish Settlers Just Right Scotland Grampian Regional Equality Council among others people seeking asylum do not have the right to work that is the critical issue and instead rely on a financial allowance from the home office to cover the basic costs of living and this allowance isn't inflation-proof it amounts to around £6 per day and for those living in a hotel accommodation which is an increasing number is £1.36 a day so effectively very limited freedom to move and undertake any real life to be honest and in Glasgow the cost of an all day bus ticket is £5 so that means effectively not just recreational activity or what have you social activity but travel to essential medical social legal home office appointments often at short notice it's simply not an option for many people seeking asylum in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland now unless they forego food or other essentials which has severe impacts I've had testimony from mothers caring for young children for example who have gone without food to make sure their child gets a basic nutrition because they had to attend a home office appointment under threat of deportation so severe psychological implications there as well asylum accommodation due to the cost pressures is often situated in isolated peripheral parts of the city an unaffordable public transport that's often one that doesn't function as well is ultimately compounding that isolation for many people seeking asylum in Scotland today so free bus travel is one relatively small practical intervention that we could make that would allow people to integrate explore their new surroundings, their new communities their new country and I've been proud to amplify this proposal in partnership with constituents and colleagues in the third sector I've mentioned previously some of the organisations working with people seeking asylum who have been spearheading this campaign since its launch in 2021 but I think it's important also to reference that this policy has support from across civil society indeed all faith leaders and the Scottish religious leaders form have signed an open letter in support of the proposal and it's also been recommended by the mental health foundation and the poverty alliance so from a parliamentary perspective it's fantastic to work with cross-party colleagues such as Mr Ruskell and Mr Doris the MSP for Glasgow, Maryhill and Springburn to engage with Scottish Government on this ask including both in writing and meeting with successive transport ministers indeed with the Transport Scotland Agency and personally I've also met with Shona Robison MSP in her previous role as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice Housing and Local Government and with Neil Gray MSP in his previous role as Minister for Culture, Europe and National Development with special responsibility for refugees both of whom saw personally merit in the proposals and undertook to explore them further and to that end the programme for Government 2022-23 they did commit to work with the third sector partners and councils across Scotland to consider how best to provide free bus travel for people seeking asylum and since then a pilot has been run in Glasgow but there has not been really any further update given or any mention of further work or extrapolation of that pilot in this year's programme for Government both of which are extremely disappointing to those of us who have worked on this project for almost two years so that end I would encourage colleagues on this committee to keep the petition open and to invite witnesses those personally seeking asylum who are affected by the implications of that to speak to the impact of this policy would have on their lives and indeed their current situation which could potentially inform future correspondence from the committee to the Government regarding those proposals and perhaps create greater impetus to move forward with it Thank you very much Mr Sweeney Did you recognise the 6,000 figure did that seem familiar to you? It does vary obviously the level of people in the country at any one time but broadly around the 6,000 figure we've run some rough cost estimates it's very marginal cost to the public in terms of the wider benefits that it would realise in terms of people's wellbeing in terms of social interaction etc it's a very small percentage even of the existing concessionary travel scheme in terms of the cost that we've run so quite a marginal increase in the overall provision I think the Government did mention in its correspondence around a third of people seeking asylum currently would qualify under the existing young persons and disabled or over 60 schemes a gap of people of working age Thank you very much I think that this is an important petition and I think that it's got quite a specific and deliverable ask in relation to it to colleagues of any thoughts having heard from Mr Ruskell and Mr Sweeney I would say we keep it open and get third sector organisations involved as well because a lot of people Scottish Refugee Council so to get third sector involved other communities involved I agree with more of my colleagues The smaller organisations doesn't have to be like there's like in Edinburgh you have SEMBO you have not SEMBO, SEMBO is in Glasgow isn't it like third sector organisations Mr Golden The starting point might be to write to the Scottish Government to first of all understand both the Scottish Government's assessment of this particular proposal costs associated and indeed their understanding of the numbers because I think that's probably important although we've got estimates today and for an update on the options there exploring with regard to this specific issue and thereafter it might be worthwhile considering whether further evidence is required or indeed whether that be written or in person I think we might ask them specifically as well where the pilots have actually managed to get to in terms of any other organisations we could write to just in relation to all of this or do we think that in the first instance we want to hear from them there's merit in hearing from the Scottish Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Survival Trust I'm minded that the Scottish Parliament's convener's group next week will be putting questions to the First Minister directly and I wonder if this might not be an issue where I am behalf of the petitioner could put the question directly to the First Minister so I think that's something we might consider because the question session with the First Minister next week is on the programme for government so I think this from everything that I've heard fits in quite nicely with that and therefore it might be an opportunity to highlight the work of Mr Sweeney and Mr Ruskell also the nice thing about the convener's group when you're the convener of the petitions committee you're not raising something on behalf of any political party you're raising it on behalf of the petitioner and it will be an opportunity for the petitioner's concern to be put directly to the First Minister and it seems like something that might be therefore give it a little bit of an impetus as well so we'll keep the petition open we'll advance and all that we may take evidence subsequently but let's see what progress we can make in the first instance there does seem to be an area of goodwill but it does seem from what Mr Ruskell said is that having got so far it's then got into a kind of basket of things where nothing actually then makes further progress after that. Mr Sweeney I also say that really what we're looking for is an extension under a statutory instrument to the existing concessionary travel scheme that would be the simplest and neatest solution and certainly rough and ready cost estimates suggest that it would be around half a million pounds per annum so we're not really talking about a substantial sum in the grand scheme of the Scottish Government's fiscal position there's plenty of headroom to deliver this policy but it's been perhaps confused with some of the pilots being done through third sector partners maybe the cleanest and neatest solution is to simply go on with the statutory instrument okay thank you all very much I think we're content petition number 2029 to nationalise Clydeport to bring the ports and harbours on the river Clyde into public ownership that was lodged by Robert Byrds on behalf of the campaign to save inch green dry dock it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use powers under the harbours act 1964 and the marine navigation act 2013 to revoke the peal ports group Clydeport operation limited status as the harbour authority for the river Clyde and its estuary to establish a municipal port authority in Clydeport's place and bring the strategic network of ports and harbours along the river Clyde into public ownership and the compulsory purchase inch green dry dock for the benefit of the inver Clyde community in background to this petition the petitioner raises concerns about ships breaking away from the moorings at Clydeport managed ports and the future of the inch green dry dock at Greenock our spice briefing notes that the harbours act 1964 allows Scottish ministers to make an order relieving the harbour authority of its but only if the harbour authority applies for the order or consents to it being made or if ministers have consulted with the authority and are satisfied it is unlikely to object in responding to the petition the Scottish Government notes that Scottish ports operate in a commercial environment usually with no direct public funding the response goes on to argue that the activities Clydeport facilitates the employment which it provides for and the investment made in recent years are of significant importance to the Scottish economy the Scottish Government states that it has no plans to explore compulsorily purchasing revoking the powers of or nationalising Clydeport the petitioner has also provided a submission with further details on the campaign's concerns surrounding the regeneration of inch green dry dock as well as concerns about the delays to our druson harbour project now our MSP colleague Katie Clark had hoped to join us for the consideration of this petition but is unfortunately unable to do so she has however provided a written submission which details various concerns raised by her constituents about Clydeport's management of ports and harbours along the Ayrshire coast however staying with us from the concessionary petition we've just heard we have Paul Sweeney MSP who has an interest in this petition and so before we have a think about it as a committee and consider comments or options I'll invite Mr Sweeney to contribute to first well thanks convener and this is a petition that I have an interest in personally I have a background in the shipbuilding industry in the Clyde working for bee systems and I've maintained a long standing interest in the development of the Clyde corridor as an industrial asset for the wider city region and I have had long standing concerns about its general long term decline as a major port and that really stems from ambitious plans that were launched around 20 years ago to develop Hunterston and Greenock as one of the major transatlantic transshipment terminals for containers coming across the Atlantic and at that time there was a huge investment planned in that respect and then Clydeport PLC merged with purchased by Peel Group which also owns the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and has a major interest in the Mersey so another competing west coast of Britain port and subsequently huge investment on the order of billions of pounds of ground to developing the Liverpool 1 container terminal in Liverpool and the focus very much of Peel Group's operations as a port authority have been into the Mersey at the expense of the Clyde so I think there is a general concern long standing that the Clyde is being a pattern of managed decline and disinvestment over many years and that the focus has been very much on the Mersey side to the extent to which if you want a pilotage on the River Clyde you are calling a call centre on the Mersey to get access to the River Clyde it seems to me the number of fronts unacceptable and perhaps there are some parallels with the previous inquiries into the management of airports in Scotland where there was an issue with the one company managing both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports having a conflict of interest in that regard there has not really been any serious inquiry or study into this in the potential of long-term economic effects on the west of Scotland and the greater Glasgow city regions there is a container terminal in Greenock of course but it does not even feature in the top 10 British ports anymore it has been in decline for a long time one time it was the fifth biggest container port in the UK and no longer appears on any of the top 100 ports in Europe for example so there is a major long-term concern there is a high correlation with the level of freight traffic coming through ports and levels of economic growth so I think there is a yoke on the west of Scotland's potential we have seen recently the publication of statistics on population that the west of Scotland is in long-term decline there is a broader issue here that the government really needs to pay more attention to we need to have a serious ports policy and a policy for growing freight traffic through Scotland ship movements and also the associated industry such as ship repair and to that end I think that the petitioner makes some serious and valid points I think that we should be guided by measurable outputs what is the goal to grow the Clyde what is the goal to develop and invest in the Clyde and its operations that is not clear at this point in time there has been stop-start projects associated with the Inch Green Dry Dock which is the biggest mainland dry dock in Great Britain contrast that with Belfast where I have seen massive investment in the former Hal and the Wolf shipyard site nothing corresponding happening on the Clyde so a number of fronts I have concerns and even in a more parochial sense the upper Clyde effectively isn't dredged any more beyond the Govinshipyard site and at Brayhead where the King George V dock sits and that is a major concern because there is a real dearth of recreational traffic on the upper Clyde I think if anyone is familiar with the Clyde side around Glasgow there aren't many boats going along in contrast to somewhere like Merseyside where it is teeming with marinas, wharfage and lots of recreational craft if Glasgow for example had a marina at the Pacific Key it would be a huge boon for the city and generate millions of pounds of revenue there isn't any attention being applied to this and it is quite extraordinary in my view that a private bill was passed in the early 1990s that effectively gave quasi-legislative control to a private enterprise to effectively manage 450 square miles of riverine land in the west of Scotland with huge legal privileges and bylaws including the management of the riverbed itself so the obligations they have in legislation to maintain a navigable channel as far as the tidal wharf at Glasgow Green haven't been adhered to for many years and that has starved and damaged and stymied the potential of the Clyde from central Glasgow all the way down to the estuary and I think it does merit a broader inquiry and I'm not impressed frankly with the Government's blasie brush-off in its response to this committee in this petition Thank you very much Mr Sweeney I actually hesitate to invite colleagues to consider matters at all because I think your knowledge is fairly comprehensive do you have any suggestions as to what the committee might itself consider doing? This has been raised both in the House of Commons and in the Scottish Parliament over the years but it's not really had any serious focus and it's been most frustrating and I think a number of parliamentarians across parties have expressed this concern so I think that the creation of a space to look at this in greater depth would be fantastic and I think the Public Petitions Committee serves a good opportunity to provide that space for this wider consideration so looking at stakeholders up and down the Clyde I know that colleagues have suggested some stakeholder groups perhaps in the estuary further of Clyde area but perhaps also looking at submissions from the Greater Glasgow City Region Councils also looking at perhaps some of the major industrial companies on the Clyde such as Bee Systems such as Malang Group who are looking to develop infrastructure on the Clyde would be helpful as well as perhaps Ferguson Marine and other parties who have industrial operations on the Clyde there might also be worth speaking to Maritime UK and other trade bodies that look at port development to perhaps get some analysis around the longer term growth of the Clyde as a port relative to other competitor ports in the UK just to start to establish a bit of a base of evidence as to what is going on I think it would also be good if Peel Group would respond to some of this and I think it's important that they justify their position and set out their plans for investment and the Clyde no one per se against Peel on the lack of clear operational ambition for the Clyde as an asset if they were to rise to that challenge then I think people would be more relaxed to put their stewardship of the river I'm very grateful for your experience and passion and obviously a range of comprehensive suggestions they are colleagues I'm very happy to embrace all the suggestions Mr Sweeney has made are there any others colleagues that might wish to add Mr Golden first of all the committee needs to be clear that we're really conflating two separate asks here one in relation to what we've heard this morning around the future of the Clyde and the second part which I believe is what the petition focuses on is the change of ownership with regard to the future of the Clyde and I think we just need to be clear that one doesn't necessarily link to the other but it could focus really needs to be on the latter point although I think it would be useful to have a fully informed opinion around the future of the Clyde from interested parties with that and particularly with regards to the petition I think it might be useful to write to the Scottish Government regarding both aspects future of the Clyde and ownership particularly on her Fair to Katie Clark's submission the former Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth and I'm reading from it said she acknowledged that private ownership of harbours can substantially slow progress in relation to improvements now that strikes me if that is indeed Scottish Government policy that would lead one to a conclusion that the petition should be warmly welcomed if that's the case but I think it's important to clarify that with the Scottish Government and I think it's worthwhile in addition to that writing to the British Ports Association UK Chamber of Shipping Seymal CalMacFerries Inverclyde Council and Glasgow City Council I think with some of the suggestions along with others that Mr Sweeney made I do think that the petition opens up an area about which I myself knew very little I have to say and yet born, raised and lived in and around the city of Glasgow through which the Clyde is the dominant feature all my life without really giving any recent thought to the issues that are raised in the petition or indeed the issues that have been discussed in some detail by Paul Sweeney and I have from time to time over the decades wondered myself about you know the lack of any transformative I mean I used to come home from school when there were still wharf buildings all the way up right into the city centre along the Clyde and things happening in them and they were all done away with and then I think we had river taxis for all the five minutes which didn't really amount very much and then I seem to remember there was a flying plane that would go to Oben from somewhere on the river but compared to other major cities that you visit where the river is still a teeming lifeline through the city the Clyde sits rather dormant really in a part from city life and some of the issues raised by the petition and by Mr Sweeney might be underpinning some of the lethargy that is associated with all of that so very happy to take all these issues forward at this stage and we'll obviously here consider the petition further and decide what we might further want to do when we get the various responses so thank you very much that brings us to the petition we very nearly started earlier on and then stopped mid stride to review cultural funding arrangements to enable Scotland to contribute to the Venice Biennale in 2024 this has been lodged by Denise Hooper and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding it provides to Scotland plus Venice and to ensure the Scottish artists can contribute to the Venice Biennale in 2024 the petitioner notes that Scotland has participated at its own entity in the Venice Biennale since 2003 with people attending the festival specifically to see the Scottish contributions the Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development has responded to the petition saying that the decision to pause involvement in the Biennale in 24 is to allow for an important period of reflection and review the review is expected to begin during the summer just past and was to include a process of sectoral engagement to explore new approaches for the project for the longer term the petitioner has also provided a submission highlighting recent comments by the First Minister about the value of culture and urging a greater focus on the benefits Scottish culture and arts being promoted in such a prestigious international stage I am tempted to ask what the important period of reflection and review was about I presume it was on wider considerations than just this one commentary event but do colleagues have any suggestions I think we can certainly write the Scottish Government asking for an update in its work to their international culture strategy I'd be interested to know what this phrase decision to pause involvement to allow for an important period of reflection and review means what was important about it and how long are they reflecting and what are they reflecting on that is important I think we might also write to Creative Scotland to seek information on the review of the Scotland Plus Venice project perhaps also I'd be interested to know what the outcomes of our past participation have been I don't think that's terribly clear just what have we seen and how does this maybe Creative Scotland can tell us how that compares to our participation in other events and it may well be that is what the Scottish Government is reflecting upon but I think we heard from all of them that would be helpful anybody else I think it would be useful in addition to that to include what monitoring metrics they currently use to analyse success or otherwise put a timeline as well on this I thought you were going to suggest we go in a fact finally visit to Venice Mr Chancellor I was going to say that that was the next thing that when are we going there okay well we're right to all those organisations thank you very much the petitioner Denise Hooper for the petition and we will be investigating further where this sits and I think our final petition this morning is petition number 2031 the Insulin pumps to all children with type 1 diabetes in Scotland and there is a sense of deja vu when I first came on to the petitions committee some 12 years ago one of the first petitions we considered was on the availability at all at that time of insulin pumps so here we are again with a petition lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Cathness health action team and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that children and young people in Scotland type 1 diabetes and would benefit from a life-saving insulin pump are provided with one no matter where they live the petitioner highlights what she views as a postcode lottery relating to the provision of continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps for children with diabetes with a particular concern about the waiting list for these devices across NHS Highland responding to the petition the Scottish Government refers to the diabetes improvement plan which aims to increase access to existing diabetes technologies that can significantly benefit people with type 1 diabetes the Scottish Government response also highlights that between 2016 and 2021 it invested an additional 15 million to support the increased provision of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring the Government also points to current work to roll out diabetes technology and a particular focus on reducing regional variation do members have any comments or suggestions to diabetics Scotland to get their view on that I mean I think did you write to the Jenny Minto for any update on that one the minister for I can see there is a suggestion where it says that we write to Jenny Minto for the help for any suggestions I think we might get to that I might quite like to write to the different health boards to just ask what the current status within each health board is I mean the assertion here is that it's a postcode lottery and I have a recollection that right back at the start when it was the provision of insulin pumps at all it was a health board lottery issue way back then in terms of the provision with I think Greater Glasgow and Clyde having embraced them and other health boards not way back all that time ago so I think it would be interesting to know what the provision is within each health board and what policies they have surrounding the award of insulin pumps to children because this sits within a framework where I think it is the case that they are children are meant to get them if they need them so I think we want to find out where we're actually at with all of that and Diabetes Scotland and the Insulin Pump Awareness Group might be able to help us in that work as well I think I think that would be helpful in the first instance because I mean these are very very important matters to those people who in life depend upon them thank you so we'll keep the petition open and we will make those inquiries and consider it afresh when we get responses that concludes the consideration of our petitions today we're next due to meet on the 4th of October on that note I therefore formally close the meeting thank you very much