Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have quite a complicated note for the next petition. PE1853, which was lodged by Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor Douglas Philand, calls on the Scottish Government to provide an all-year-round freight and passenger lifeline ferry service from Campbeltown to Ardrossan.

The Scottish Government’s submission advises that the request to extend the ferry service

“was discussed with elected members from the Argyll & Bute Council and other stakeholders”,

including, I presume, the petitioners. The Scottish Government states that

“it is not ... operationally possible to extend the current operating period of the Ardrossan-Campbeltown service as there are no available vessels.”

The submission highlights that the Scottish Government remains

“committed to securing the two new ferries currently under construction, with the delivery of MV Glen Sannox expected in April-June 2022.”

The Government suggests that, once the Glen Sannox is delivered, the potential for a year-round Ardrossan to Campbeltown service could be explored, subject to a robust business case being made and the availability of funding.

The petitioners have discussed the possibility of potential vessels with well-known ferry consultants, who have advised that vessels that are currently available outwith the CalMac fleet could be procured to meet the requirements of providing a lifeline service.

We have received a late submission from Donald Cameron MSP, who was hoping to be able to attend the meeting for consideration of the petition. Members have been provided with a copy of that submission. The submission states that the petitioners have identified the need for alternative forms of transport from the Kintyre peninsula to the central belt. Donald Cameron addresses the suggestions in the Scottish Government’s submission regarding options such as flying from Campbeltown to Glasgow and using ferry services at Dunoon and Hunters Quay. He offers that those alternatives are not suitable on the basis of above average cost or notable travel time.

The submission continues by raising concerns about possible links with

“the anticipated depopulation of the Kintyre area”

and suggesting that

“the creation of a permanent ferry service”

could contribute to

“encouraging people to remain in the area”.

Donald Cameron states that he supports further exploration of potential vessels that meet the requirements of a year-round service by Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government. He concludes by stating that the inability of Transport Scotland and CalMac to offer an all-year-round ferry service for one of the major towns of Argyll and Bute is simply not good enough.

This is obviously an important petition. Would members like to offer any observations?

That seems reasonable. We might also ask the Government to be more expansive on the process for evaluating a subsequent business case for the route in the event that, as the submission says, it becomes possible at a later stage. It would be useful if people knew how that was going to proceed.

Do members agree to keep the petition open while we pursue those two lines of inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.

The point is that we do not pursue individual cases—that is outwith our remit. The issue is the general provision. It would be useful to find out whether the safety net is assisting anybody or whether it is not known about and is not being used, in which case there is a deficiency.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board will be set out in the public body’s founding legislation. In the case of more than 70 boards, the recruitment process is also regulated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. The Scottish Governments states:

“This means that, as far as possible, the recruitment process is fair, transparent and based on merit.”

In their response, the petitioners argue that a lack of local knowledge results in decisions being made that do not fully consider the practical impact on those living on the islands. They believe that introducing community representation on boards would lead to better decision making.

I note that some of our parliamentary colleagues have asked written and oral questions on this matter. Do members have any comments?

PE1860, which has been lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham, calls on the Scottish Government to amend the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow retrospective claims to be made. The Scottish Government states that prescription and limitation incentivise people to enforce their legal rights through the courts promptly, without delay, and also provide legal certainty. However, the submission states that, should the court be persuaded that it is equitable to do so, it can already override the principal limitation time limits to allow a legal action. In her response, the petitioner states that she has “been treated ... unfairly” in her own case, due to a lack of timely action on the part of her solicitor, and therefore

“that there should be an opportunity for people in such situations to be able to make retrospective claims, at any time.”

Do members have any comments? I think that all of us, certainly those of us who have been around for a bit, have been written to by constituents who have fallen foul of such time limits, which is what the Scottish Government has sought to address in its response.

I wonder whether we could combine both recommendations that we have heard. We could still use rule 15.7 to close the petition but, at the same time, write to the Scottish Government to point out the experience elsewhere on the continent and to seek some clarification about whether there might be some areas in which it could extend the practice of the delivery of face coverings. Would that be acceptable?

Item 4 is consideration of our work programme in outline. There are two or three decisions that it would be useful for us to take. The first is to consider holding a business planning session, which will give us an opportunity to consider the legacy report and to consider and agree our statement of intent for the committee for the coming session, and also to discuss all the other relevant issues that we might wish to consider about how we do the work of the committee.

I propose that we hold a planning session during the summer recess and that we aim, all things being equal, to do that in person here in Parliament at some point, probably during the final week of recess.

Do members agree to do that? I will not come to you all individually, because we know from experience that that can take half an hour. I will take it that the proposal is generally agreed.

The second issue that is before us is to consider the status of 15 on-going petitions that our predecessor committee referred to subject committees. The committee had taken those petitions as far as it could and had decided that they would best be taken forward by a subject committee. By convention, at the end of a parliamentary session, if such a petition is still under discussion, it is referred back to this committee, because it might be that the subject committee that was considering it has been disbanded or constructed in a different form.

As I said, we have 15 petitions in that category; I suggest that we refer them back to the most appropriate subject committees, which might, of course, be the same committees that were dealing with them before. Do members agree to do that?

I see that we all agree.

Do members have any other matters that they would like us to consider this morning? Brief as this meeting has been, we have considered all the immediate items on the agenda.

I take members’ silence as agreement that we do not want to consider anything else today. We look forward to our next public meeting after the summer recess. Until then, I thank you all and wish you a good morning.

Thank you, Bill. I begin by paying tribute to the immediate past conveners of the committee—Johann Lamont, Michael McMahon and David Stewart—all of whom I had the pleasure of working with in different ways.

I look forward to taking on the convenership of the committee. Having served on the Public Petitions Committee in the session before the previous one, I can say that I greatly value the work of the committee. Inherent and essential to that work is the free-flowing exchange of views and the working relationship that we all have on the committee as we seek to do our best on behalf of the petitioners whose petitions we will be considering.

I look forward to the coming session and to the work that we will do. In many respects, we have no idea what that will be. There are some outstanding petitions, as a consequence of the deadline by which petitions could be considered in the previous session. However, the new work that will come our way will be the challenge and the joy of the committee in the months ahead. I look forward very much to the task and to working with colleagues.

Item 3 is the choice of deputy convener. Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for the position. I believe that David Torrance is that party’s nominee; I am pleased to invite Bill Kidd to nominate him.

I confirm that I have no relevant interests to declare.

Congratulations on your appointment, David. You are a continuing member of the committee. I remember serving with you on the Public Petitions Committee in a session that feels like 100 years ago now. You were also a member in the session before this one. I know that you will bring your huge experience to bear in your new post, to the benefit of us all.