Chamber and committees

Sorry, Mr Marra, did you say that you wrote to the First Minister?

Petition PE2028, which was lodged by Pinar Aksu, on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network, and Doaa Abuamer, on behalf of the VOICES Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

We are joined by our MSP colleague, Paul Sweeney, who is redeeming one of his return tickets. Paul continues to have an interest in the petition, and he led a members’ business debate on the issues that it raised in October 2023. Good morning, Paul.

We previously considered the petition on 20 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Refugee Survival Trust. Members will recall that, shortly after that meeting, I took the opportunity to highlight the petition at the Conveners Group meeting with the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, who confirmed that the Scottish Government was giving active consideration to the issue.

We have received responses from the Refugee Sanctuary Scotland, which was formerly known as the Refugee Survival Trust, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council, which are included in the papers for today’s meeting. The responses provide further detail on the pilot schemes that have taken place in Glasgow, Aberdeen and Falkirk. The findings of the Refugee Sanctuary Scotland emphasise the positive feedback that it received from participants in the pilot project, which enabled people to travel more frequently and over longer distances.

Following the pilots, the Refugee Sanctuary Scotland has recommended that future provision for people who are seeking asylum be implemented through the provision of a long-term digital ticket or through extension of the national concessionary travel scheme. Extending provision of the national scheme is viewed as increasingly important in the light of the Home Office’s dispersal policy of locating asylum seekers across Scotland, while most of the support systems are based in Glasgow. However, I understand that the Scottish Government is keen to ensure that any action that it takes does not have a consequential impact on asylum seekers arising from other Home Office regulations that might thereafter be triggered.

Since our most recent consideration of the petition and my raising the issue with the First Minister, the Scottish Government has announced funding of £2 million to support further exploration of extending free bus travel to people who are seeking asylum, and the commitment was noted as an immediate short-term action in the recently published fair fares review.

Before we consider the issues, I ask Paul Sweeney whether there is anything that he would like to say to the committee.

Thank you, Mr Sweeney. Do colleagues have any comments?

I think that it would be perfectly in order for us to write to the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.

We should also highlight that a number of these people are volunteers and that parking charges represent a considerable additional burden. That maybe distinguishes them from other groups in society that request exemptions, many of whom are in completely different circumstances. I think that, in this instance, the petitioner’s ask is worth pursuing. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do you want me to formally record that as the recommendation, Mr Choudhury? Is a committee visit to Venice part of your consideration?

In the first instance, we might keep the petition open, as Mr Choudhury suggests, and ask Creative Scotland, if the review is concluding, for an update on its conclusions and the consequences for Scotland’s future participation in 2025, 2026 and 2027. I think that that would be reasonable.

We could certainly draw the First Minister’s attention to the fact that we have received a petition following up on the issues that were raised with the previous First Minister at FMQs. Do you know the date?

PE2030, which was lodged by Denise Hooper, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the cultural funding that it provides to the Scotland + Venice project and ensure that Scottish artists can contribute to the Venice biennale in 2024. When we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 20 September 2023, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland, largely because the material responses that we had received did not really explain anything at all, unless I am missing something.

I am pleased to say that we have now received responses from both the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland. They confirm that the Scotland + Venice project was paused in order for a review to be carried out of the relevance and impact of the project. The response from Creative Scotland notes:

“The review will present and evaluate options for change, underpinned by a clear financing strategy. It will support the future planning of Scotland’s participation at the Venice Biennale from 2026.”

I might suggest that Creative Scotland investigates some of its other funding at the same time, but that is a separate matter.

In response to the information provided by the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland, the petitioner has expressed concern that it may, therefore, be 2027 before Scotland is represented at the Venice biennale again. The petitioner highlights comments from the then First Minister Humza Yousaf that investment in Scotland’s arts and culture will be more than doubled over the next five years, which the petitioner believes should allow greater flexibility for Scotland’s participation.

The committee has also received two submissions from the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, updating us at various stages on progress on developing and publishing the international culture strategy. That strategy was published on 28 March 2024 and it was subsequently debated in the chamber.

In light of the explanation that we have received, such as it is, and the resolve and determination that there appears to be that there will not be any participation in 2024 nor in 2025, it would seem, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. The first item on our agenda is, customarily, a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to people who are tuning into our proceedings because we are about to consider their petition that, in the first instance, as a matter of course, we contact the Parliament’s independent research body—the Scottish Parliament information centre—and also seek the preliminary views of the Scottish Government. We do that because, historically, those have been the first two things that the committee has agreed to do, and it simply avoids us building further delay into our informed consideration of new petitions.