Chamber and committees

We have put the petitioner in touch with Transport Scotland, but it would be useful to follow up. We want to support the petitioner in that objective, because it seems that taxis were the one form of public transport that was excluded from the formal process. We could write to ask how those conversations have gone—or whether they have gone at all yet—and what the outcome was.

We might also write to the petitioner. Now that the LEZ has been running since June, we could write to ask what the impact of it on Glasgow taxi drivers has proved to be in practice. That would be useful to know. Do members have any other suggestions?

Our next continued petition, PE1919, which was lodged by Ted Gourley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under-18s for performance enhancement, due to the risk of serious harm.

We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and UK Athletics.

The Scottish Government responded in April saying that it intended to publish its analysis of the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people before the summer. It duly did so in May 2023, at which point the minister confirmed that the Government would not take forward mandatory measures in that area. The Scottish Government response states that it will consider commissioning further research into the effects of fast-release caffeine products on children and young people, which would be part of its wider considerations of public health research.

In the first of three submissions to the committee, the petitioner welcomed that news and drew our attention to a study that concluded that caffeinated chewing gum acutely increases central arterial stiffness and aortic blood pressure in young healthy men.

The UK Athletics response notes that, although caffeine is not a prohibited substance, it is on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s monitoring programme, which includes substances that it wishes to monitor to identify potential patterns of misuse in sport.

UK Athletics advocates a “food first” approach to nutrition and recommends that, if an athlete decides to take a supplement, they only use products that have been tested as part of the Informed Sport risk reduction programme. The petitioner has responded to that information concerned that a consistent approach is not being taken to child safeguarding and protection on the use of stimulants, particularly where fast-release caffeine gum has been handed out at licensed events. The petitioner has also raised concerns about how incidents involving the use of fast-release caffeine gum are recorded and reported by athletics bodies.

Therefore, we still have rather uncomfortable background information here. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

We could write to the Government drawing its attention to the petitioner’s submissions in relation to the concerns about fast-release caffeine gum, and we could ask when it might consider that as part of its public health considerations, given that it is an on-going issue and that UK Athletics is concerned and is monitoring these matters, as well. Is the committee content with something along those lines?

Members indicated agreement.

The third new petition is PE1966, which was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. 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 in policy development, specifically within the conservation arena.

Members will recall that we were curious as to whether NatureScot would appoint a representative from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to its board. NatureScot’s recent submission explains that members are appointed by Scottish ministers through a regulated public appointments process and that members are appointed individually and not as representatives of organisations.

The Scottish Government’s submission outlines its approach to consultations, saying that consultations seeking public opinion may prioritise local knowledge, while those specifically requesting scientific evidence will be assessed based on their scientific validity. In response to that point, the petitioner feels that scientific knowledge is recognised for its merits while local knowledge is

“given no greater credence than that of public opinion.”

On issues of internet connectivity, the Scottish Government points to alternative methods of gathering evidence such as face-to-face events and notes that only basic internet access is required to use its consultation platform.

The petitioner argues that the importance of local knowledge is recognised by the convention on biodiversity and points to NatureScot research on indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, according to which local and experiential knowledge tends to be undervalued in decision making and should be included in governance structures.

There is a bit of a stalemate in the responses that we have received so far. Given everything that the petitioner has said, we could write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will revise or consider revising its consultation guidance to ensure that, at the very least, it is consistent with the convention on biodiversity. Is there anything else that we might suggest?

The next petition is PE1976, which was lodged by Derek James Brown. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person is certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

The Scottish Government’s recent submission acknowledges the differing approaches to the administration of council tax disregard and says that officials are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to encourage local authorities to adopt a common approach. Colleagues will remember that we established that it was quite different depending on where you lived in Scotland whether you got that benefit redress. The submission was sent in May and said that the COSLA leadership was scheduled to consider the proposal “in the coming weeks.”

According to Alzheimer Scotland, the Scottish ministers have the power, through secondary legislation, to amend or remove the statutory test that requires applicants for council tax discount who have severe mental impairment to be eligible for a qualifying state benefit. Alzheimer Scotland considers that the requirement is unnecessary and adds unfairness to the application process, particularly for individuals who have dementia. Alzheimer Scotland wants entitlement to a discount or exemption to be uniform across Scotland and wants guidance to be developed to ensure the fair application of the legislation.

The petitioner’s most recent written submission draws attention to his petition to the United Kingdom Parliament, as well as to a UK Government response that states that councils can apply discretionary council tax discounts or exemptions in circumstances where individuals with a severe mental impairment have not demonstrated entitlement to a qualifying benefit. There has been a move in that direction in the rest of the UK, where people obviously feel that the legislation allows that to take place. What might we further do, colleagues? Are there any suggestions?

Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. [Interruption.]

We are expecting Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell to join us. Mark is here. Are you going to speak long enough for Mr Sweeney to get here, Mr Ruskell, or should we take another petition first? I think that Mr Sweeney wants to speak to the next one, too, so I could race on and see where I get to. Therefore, we would consider petition 2030, which is to review cultural funding arrangements to enable Scotland to contribute to the—[Interruption.]

Ah. We do not need to do that.

Gentlemen—if you would like to take your seats, we will deal with item 4. Before we consider the new petitions, I say to anybody who has lodged a petition and is watching, and to anybody who is just following our proceedings, that before we consider a petition we invite the Scottish Government and the impartial research service within the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer comment to colleagues on the committee so that we have the background, as we consider any new petition.

Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. Did you recognise the 6,000 figure? Did that seem familiar to you?

Who specifically might we contact?

Item 2 is the consideration of continued petitions. I should start by offering apologies from two of our colleagues. David Torrance, the deputy convener, and Fergus Ewing are both unwell and not able to be with us. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party substitute is not available to be with us, either, so there are just three of us considering the petitions this morning. However, our colleagues have obviously received the papers and have had an opportunity to contribute any thinking that they might have to our deliberations.

The next petition, 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 powers under the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to revoke the status of Peel Ports Group’s Clydeport Operations Limited 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.

As background to the petition, the petitioner has raised concerns about ships breaking away from their moorings at Clydeport-managed ports and the future of Inchgreen dry dock in Greenock. The SPICe briefing notes that the Harbours Act 1964 allows the Scottish ministers to make an order that relieves a harbour authority of its statutory powers, but only if the harbour authority applies for the order or consents to its being made, or if ministers have consulted with the authority and are satisfied that it is unlikely to object.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has noted that

“Scottish ports operate in a commercial environment usually with no direct public funding”.

The response goes on to argue:

“The activities Clydeport facilitates, the employment which it provides for, and the investment made in recent years, are of significant importance to the Scottish economy.”

The Scottish Government has stated that it

“has no plans to explore compulsorily purchasing, revoking the powers of, or nationalising Clydeport.”

The petitioner has also provided a submission with further details about the campaign’s concerns surrounding the regeneration of Inchgreen dry dock as well as concerns about the delays to the Adrossan harbour project.

Our MSP colleague Katy Clark had hoped to join us for the consideration of the petition but, unfortunately, she has been unable to do so. However, she has provided a written submission that details various concerns that her constituents have raised about Clydeport’s management of ports and harbours along the Ayrshire coast.

Paul Sweeney MSP, who has an interest in the petition, is staying with us following our consideration of the concessionary petition that we have just heard about. Before we as a committee have a think about the petition and consider comments or options, I invite Mr Sweeney to contribute.