Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2029, on nationalising Clydeport to bring the ports and harbours on the River Clyde into public ownership, was lodged by Robert Buirds on behalf of the campaign to save Inchgreen dry dock. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use the powers under the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to revoke the status of Peel Ports Group’s Clydeport Operations Ltd 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 to compulsorily purchase Inchgreen dry dock for the benefit of the Inverclyde community.

Again, it is some time since we last considered the petition—it was on 20 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to stakeholders, including maritime trade bodies, regional councils and major industrial companies along the River Clyde. I know that Paul Sweeney, our former colleague, had hoped to meet us this morning but was unable to do so. However, he helpfully suggested a number of the stakeholders from whom we were able to gather evidence. In total, we have received 13 new submissions, all of which are detailed in the papers that members have received for today. Those include two submissions from the petitioner, which share their comments on the responses that we have received and their continued concern about the performance of Peel Ports as the harbour authority.

Although the Scottish Government has stated that its aim is to bring more ports and harbours into the ownership of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd where the primary function is the provision of lifeline ferry services, it is also the Scottish Government’s position—this is the difficulty—that nationalising Clydeport would not be appropriate and that it has no plans to take such action.

That is the bold position in relation to the petition’s ask, notwithstanding all the efforts and the considerable number of submissions that we have received. If the Government is saying that it will not do this, what more can we do to try to promote the aims of the petition? There are a couple of potential routes, but I invite comments from colleagues on our best course of action.

PE2040 is on increasing funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to prevent serious cuts to the services that are provided to the public. The petition, which was lodged by Anthony McManus, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the annual budget that is provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and to take action to prevent job losses and the removal of front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 25 October 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union. I think that the matter was highlighted by the fire that took place at the old Ayr station hotel, where fire appliances were not immediately available.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service response tells us that the temporary withdrawal of fire appliances was based on data and modelling that helped to identify which appliances would have the least impact on its emergency response, while helping the service to meet financial savings. That is in the context of the service requiring to make £11 million-worth of savings in the financial year 2023-24.

The Fire Brigades Union has highlighted that the flat cash budget provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has resulted in real-terms budget cuts to the service that it believes risk compromising firefighter and public safety.

As we reflected at the previous consideration, the issues that are raised by the petition were looked at by the Criminal Justice Committee as part of its pre-budget scrutiny work last year. As members may be aware, the Criminal Justice Committee is continuing to look at the area ahead of this year’s pre-budget scrutiny. In view of the direct attention on the issues of the petition by our colleagues in that committee, do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

Thank you very much, Tess. The petition raises significant issues. I am sure that the committee will wish to keep it open. Do colleagues have any suggestions about what we might do?

I thank Monica Lennon, and I thank Karen McKeown for her sustained efforts over the life of the Parliament.

Are colleagues content that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to PE2093, on the Scottish ministerial code. In summarising the petition, I may make reference to active cases about which we should be circumspect about making any further comment.

The petition, which was lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code; to put the code under statute; to enable the independent advisers to initiate investigations; and, if the First Minister decides to go against the IAs’ advice, to ensure that a statement is provided to Parliament. The petition also calls for the code to set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament and to allow IAs to make recommendations for changes to the code. It further calls for a renaming of the IA position to make it clear there is no judicial involvement and seeks to require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.

The petitioner believes that updating the ministerial code by making such changes would strengthen standards and improve public confidence.

Members will be aware that, as is noted in the SPICe briefing, new versions of the ministerial code can be issued at any time and that previous updates have been issued following Scottish Parliament elections and changes of First Minister.

In its response, the Scottish Government highlights the fact that the ministerial code was most recently updated in July 2023 to further strengthen transparency and propriety and states that there are no current plans to update the code during the remainder of this session of Parliament. It might be worth noting that the Scottish Government’s response was provided prior to John Swinney being appointed as First Minister.

We have also received two written submissions from the petitioner, which set out in more detail how he believes that the ministerial code should be updated to improve public trust and transparency when applying the code or investigating potential breaches of it.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. For those who are joining us online this morning, perhaps to hear their petition being considered, I say that, ahead of our consideration of a new petition, we always invite the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe—to give the committee an initial view on the petition. We do that because, before that was our standard practice, it would be the first thing that we decided to do on considering a petition, which simply added a degree of delay.

The first of our new petitions is PE2092, which seeks to change the law to prevent children between the ages of five and 17 from drinking alcohol in their home or in other private premises. The petition has been lodged by Jamie-Lee Dougal, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do exactly what I have just said. The petitioner notes that many adults in Scotland abuse alcohol and suggests that allowing children and young people to consume alcohol in the home or in private premises does not help to tackle those issues.

The SPICe briefing provides detail of existing legislation restricting the sale and supply of alcohol to persons under 18. Although there are no specific offences relating to allowing consumption of alcohol in the home by a child, an adult could be prosecuted, depending on the circumstances, on the grounds of child cruelty, under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that an alcohol-free childhood is the healthiest and best option and points to a downward trend in the number of young people who consume alcohol. It also notes that, where a child has misused alcohol, that could be grounds for a referral to the children’s hearings system. Given the wide range of law, duties on public bodies and national guidance in place to protect children from harm, the Government does not intend to take forward the specific ask in the petition, but it has stated that the issue will be kept under review to assess whether further legislative measures might be required in the future.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???

PE1966 is on formally recognising and incorporating local knowledge in Scottish Government policy. We last considered the petition, which was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, on 20 September 2023.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge 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 policy development, specifically within the conservation arena.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and NatureScot. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that

“There are no plans to revise the Scottish Government best practice handbook on consultations”

and that it does not take a one-size-fits-all approach to consultations.

NatureScot recognises that local knowledge is vital, and it seeks to incorporate local knowledge in its work and decision making in a number of ways, details of which are provided in the papers for the meeting. The submission also states that NatureScot employs staff

“from a variety of areas and backgrounds who bring local knowledge to their roles.”

That is what it says, anyway.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

It is a serious issue, but I have to say that a lot of systematic synthetic phonics appeared in our words there.

There appears to have been a degree of action, although the petitioner is not altogether sure about it all. Are colleagues prepared to act? I wonder whether we might close the petition and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to let her know that we have done so, while drawing her attention to the fact that the petitioner feels that some of the work on the matter is a little vague. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with that? I very much doubt that much can happen during this session of Parliament, even if work is being taken forward, because we have only 18 months of the session left to run. Nonetheless, the Government’s view is that it is still undertaking that work.

Are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.