Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1907, on the provision of funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland, was lodged by Claire Beats. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove the eligibility criteria for access to services.

The committee last considered the petition on 23 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government for further information, including on its plans to address concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on the development of children born during the pandemic.

We have received a response from the Scottish Government, in which it refers to its

“commitment to expand early learning and childcare to 1 and 2 year olds, starting in this Parliament with children from low income households.”

The response also states:

“the Scottish Government is funding a range of ... learning resources for ELC practitioners, which are directly relevant to supporting COVID-19 recovery”.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

That seems sensible, Mr Stewart. Does the committee agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1914, on banning school uniforms in secondary schools, was lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms in secondary schools.

The committee last considered the petition on 20 April. At that meeting, we agreed to keep the petition open while we wrote to the Scottish Government following the publication of its consultation on school uniforms. We also agreed to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence that we had received and to seek further information on how children and young people have been involved in the consultation process.

We have now received two responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, which highlight the timing of the Scottish Government’s consultation on school uniforms—it ended on 14 October—and confirm that the consultation process would include bespoke engagement with children and young people. The cabinet secretary also suggested that the Scottish Government does not intend to take a uniform approach to uniforms and that local authorities and education authorities would also have a responsibility and determination in all of that.

Do members have any suggestions?

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The consultation has now been published and, as Mr Torrance has said, given the Scottish Government’s response, that is the limit that the committee can go to. Do colleagues agree that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Stewart has suggested that it might be of interest for us to proactively visit communities that have been affected by the issue. Does that appeal to the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE1951, which was lodged by Alistair Bally Philp on behalf of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, is on reinstating an inshore coastal limit on the use of dredge and trawl fishing gears. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reintroduce a variation of the historical 3-mile coastal limit on the use of mobile dredge and bottom-trawling fish gears to support: the recovery of Scotland’s inshore demersal fin-fish population and the wider ecosystem; opportunities to optimise the social, economic and environmental returns within the new spatially managed area; and increases in the number of fishing jobs and the revitalisation of coastal communities.

The Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation highlights the decline in fish landings and the significant losses of marine features since the removal of the historical inshore limit. It is concerned that, despite the use of marine protected areas, less than 5 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are currently protected from damaging trawling and dredging activity. The federation has also shared information on economic studies, showing that switching fishing effort from trawl fishery to creel fishery has the potential to

“yield substantial economic, social and environmental benefits to Scotland”.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has engaged in extensive discussions on the matter with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and has no plans to introduce a 3-mile limit to restrict mobile gear activity in inshore waters. The Scottish Government suggests that there are already a range of measures in place to protect fish stocks, and it highlights commitments contained in the Bute house agreement, including the designation of highly protected marine areas, which are to cover at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s inshore and offshore waters by 2026.

The petition has already attracted a large number of written submissions, many of which indicate concerns about the Scottish Government’s approach to marine management.

Given everything that we have received in advance of our consideration of the petition this morning, do members have any comments or suggestions? It appears that both Mr Stewart and Mr Torrance are keen to jump in.

I just want to explore that point. You have detailed quite specific technical specification and availability issues with regard to the ability to comply. What has been the response to that reality?

Mr McLean, I assume from your contribution a moment ago that you take a similar view. Do you want to articulate that?

Either Mr McLean or Mr Fleming can come in.

PE1942, on encouraging peer support programmes in public sector organisations, was lodged by Fiona MacRae. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer support programmes such as trauma risk management, or TRIM, and sustaining resilience at work, or STRAW, in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health.

The petitioner has told us that use of the TRIM and STRAW processes could help to create psychological safety at work by encouraging employees to complete an incident report when they experience or witness behaviours that might affect employees’ mental health. She has also suggested that early intervention could help to reduce the number of employees experiencing mental health problems and contribute to a safer and more positive workplace culture.

In responding to the petition’s aims, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has provided information on a range of actions that are being taken to promote mentally healthy workplaces, including a mental health transition and recovery plan, funding for a national trauma training programme, and the establishment of a peer recovery hub by the Scottish Recovery Network.

Do members have any suggestions or comments with regard to further action?

PE1943, which is on helping to prevent the destruction of greenfield sites by providing financial incentives for the remediation and reuse of brownfield sites, has been lodged by Victoria Mungall and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use, while discouraging developments on greenfield land.

Victoria Mungall tells us that brownfield sites can often be difficult and expensive to remediate due to contamination, unstable ground and other challenges. That results in greenfield sites being targeted for development, as they can be far less expensive for developers to build on. She also highlights that, in England, grants have been introduced that allow local authorities to contribute to the remediation of brownfield land.

In its response, the Scottish Government provides details of the vacant and derelict land investment programme, which was launched in March 2021. That £50 million fund is available on a competitive basis to all Scottish local authorities and to the Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company.

Members might be aware that the draft national planning framework 4 proposes an updated and expanded policy on vacant and derelict land that discourages development on greenfield land, unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available.

Do members have any thoughts or comments?