Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. I realise the pressure that is on the committee as we come to the end of the parliamentary session. I would like to go back to a couple of comments that were made when the petition last came before the committee on 5 February. At that time, Ash Regan said that she believes that public bodies are “defensive” and Fergus Ewing said that he profoundly believed that the current system is “inherently flawed”. That remains my position, and I think that that is the position of the petitioners.

Since I came to the committee on 5 February, more cases have come to light in the Highlands, some of which are deeply concerning. Pupils are being dragged out of classrooms by their feet and teachers are being suspended but no evidence has been given as to why they have been suspended. As far as their colleagues are concerned, it remains the case that they have done nothing wrong when the parents and the pupils know that they have done something wrong. That is why we need, more than anything else, a whistleblowing officer to look at issues and to address them.

If we are going to get it right for every child—which we must do—we need to ensure that children are heard and that, when evidence is provided on mistreatment, especially in schools, it is made available when the person is suspended. At the moment, too many teachers across Scotland are getting away with things because the authorities are hiding behind GDPR regulations that say that they cannot disclose whether a person has been suspended.

I think that that situation will go on for ever, until we get a whistleblowing officer, which is why I am keen to ensure that the petition continues. As I said, I know that time is an issue for the committee, but I think that your committee is the only one in Parliament that can keep open petitions into the next session. Considering that the children of Scotland are affected, I urge the committee to consider keeping it open, because we have not got things right at the moment. I will leave it at that, because I could get emotional over this, as I think that we are letting our children down.

No, it was not. I took part in that inquiry as well, cabinet secretary.

Good. The issue will probably not be resolved before I leave the Parliament, so it is on the record that I have at least tried to get it resolved.

Unless there are any other questions from the committee, that brings us to the end of this session on transport. It has gone on slightly longer than you might have anticipated, cabinet secretary, but that is probably due to your huge, wide-ranging portfolio—I do not think that the committee can be blamed for that.

We will look at some subordinate legislation next. Before we do that, I will briefly suspend the meeting, because the session has been slightly longer than anticipated.

Welcome back. The third item on our agenda is consideration of a consent notification relating to a proposed UK statutory instrument. The instrument would amend the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024, on which we took evidence on 3 September last year.

The amendments would enable the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation, a process that involves the UK Government legislating in a devolved area. The Scottish Government has said that it is content with the UK Government doing so in this case, and the reasons for that are set out in the notification that we have received. The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s decision. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in this area and on whether we agree with the specific manner in which it proposes to do so.

If we are content for consent to be given, we will write to the Scottish Government accordingly.? In doing so, we have the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or ask to be kept up to date on particular matters. If we are not content with the proposal, we can make one or two recommendations.?

It looks as though no member wishes to express any views on the instrument.

It is suggested in our meeting notes that, if we are content to agree to the instrument, we might pose the following questions. What functions of the scheme administrator might be delegated to the new PRO? How will the governance of the PRO reflect or ensure consideration of Scottish interests and circumstances? Are the proposed changes to modelling local authority costs expected to significantly impact the estimates of the funds that will be made available to Scottish local authorities? And has COSLA raised any concerns? Those questions seem relevant, but that does not affect the fact that, at the end of the day, we will probably agree to the instrument.

Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, I will sign the letter relating to that decision.

We will now move into private. I put on record that Monica Lennon will not take part in item 7 and that we expect Labour Party substitute Sarah Boyack to attend in her place.

Good morning, and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2025 of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Our first item of business is decisions on whether to take items 5, 6 and 7 in private. Item 5 is consideration of the evidence that we will hear today on transport; item 6 is consideration of the committee’s work programme; and item 7 is consideration of our approach to the stage 1 scrutiny of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill.

To ensure that we carefully adhere to the Parliament’s standing orders, I will split this into two questions. First, I will ask whether we are agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private, and then I will ask whether we are agreed to take item 7 in private, noting that Monica Lennon may not participate in that decision, purely because she is the member who is in charge of that bill. I will not quote the relevant rule, but I am sure that members have all looked it up, as I have. I hope that that is all clear.

Are we agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry, but I will push you a bit more on that. Is the consultation closed?

How long will it take you to publish those responses? You will want a summary. We are going to get all the climate change plan responses within a month, we are told. You must be able to pull the responses together within a month, surely, and publish a summary of them?

I am glad that we are not opening up the debate about LEZs and how the money can be used. I remember that from when I was on the committee that did the Transport (Scotland) Bill and it was quite heated at the time.

It was. We are agreed on that.

Bob Doris, over to you.