Chamber and committees

As somebody who very much hopes to be able to support the bill at stage 3, I say that that becomes more difficult if the discussion of the amendments that some of us feel are reasonable is curtailed. We are discussing some of those amendments with Government ministers in the hope that we can get to a point at which the bill can be supported. It is really rather alarming to those of us who desperately want to find a way to support the bill in its final form if we cannot have that proper discussion.

I want to probe the minister a little further on his response to Sarah Boyack with respect to the Ukraine longer term resettlement fund. I am aware of a possible site in my constituency, which is not local authority owned, that was until recently a care home facility with space for more than 80 residents. It is currently mothballed, but it could offer accommodation to Ukrainian families if refurbishment works were agreed and progressed. Is there a route for such sites to be identified and progressed other than through a local authority, or can it be done only exclusively through that route?

I very much hope to be able to support the bill at stage 3. I intend to abstain tonight. I have heard compelling speeches like the one that Jackie Baillie is developing from Michael Marra, Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jamie Greene. I wonder whether Jackie Baillie would welcome an assurance from the cabinet secretary that the Government will be open to constructive amendment of the bill given that, to be frank, its record on being open to amendments is not a strong one. Fulton MacGregor said that the committee will be open to them. Would Jackie Baillie welcome such an assurance?

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The consultation has now been published and, as Mr Torrance has said, given the Scottish Government’s response, that is the limit that the committee can go to. Do colleagues agree that we should close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE1951, which was lodged by Alistair Bally Philp on behalf of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation, is on reinstating an inshore coastal limit on the use of dredge and trawl fishing gears. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reintroduce a variation of the historical 3-mile coastal limit on the use of mobile dredge and bottom-trawling fish gears to support: the recovery of Scotland’s inshore demersal fin-fish population and the wider ecosystem; opportunities to optimise the social, economic and environmental returns within the new spatially managed area; and increases in the number of fishing jobs and the revitalisation of coastal communities.

The Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation highlights the decline in fish landings and the significant losses of marine features since the removal of the historical inshore limit. It is concerned that, despite the use of marine protected areas, less than 5 per cent of Scotland’s inshore waters are currently protected from damaging trawling and dredging activity. The federation has also shared information on economic studies, showing that switching fishing effort from trawl fishery to creel fishery has the potential to

“yield substantial economic, social and environmental benefits to Scotland”.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has engaged in extensive discussions on the matter with the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation and has no plans to introduce a 3-mile limit to restrict mobile gear activity in inshore waters. The Scottish Government suggests that there are already a range of measures in place to protect fish stocks, and it highlights commitments contained in the Bute house agreement, including the designation of highly protected marine areas, which are to cover at least 10 per cent of Scotland’s inshore and offshore waters by 2026.

The petition has already attracted a large number of written submissions, many of which indicate concerns about the Scottish Government’s approach to marine management.

Given everything that we have received in advance of our consideration of the petition this morning, do members have any comments or suggestions? It appears that both Mr Stewart and Mr Torrance are keen to jump in.

We will therefore write to organisations involved in order to do that and ask the Parliament’s engagement team to develop a programme for us. Are members happy for that to happen?

Members indicated agreement.

Would members like us to visit anywhere in particular, bearing in mind that, given our timetables, any visit is not likely to happen until the new year, or is the committee happy for the engagement team to come back to us?

We move on with our consideration of continued petitions. PE1854, on reviewing the adult disability payment eligibility criteria for people with mobility needs, was lodged by Keith Park. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20m rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or to identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs.

When the committee last considered the petition, it agreed to ask the Scottish Government to engage with stakeholders on the review of the adult disability payment. The Scottish Government has now confirmed that engagement with relevant stakeholders will be included in the remit for both stages of the ADP review. We also have a further written submission from the petitioner, which calls on the committee to seek further evidence from stakeholders and to report directly to the review.

We are joined by our colleague Carol Mochan. Good morning, Carol, and thank you for your patience. Do you have anything to contribute to the committee’s thinking on the issue?

That would be very helpful. Mr Park lodged the petition on behalf of the MS Society. It would be interesting to drill down into the very specific complications arising from the condition itself.

PE1907, on the provision of funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland, was lodged by Claire Beats. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove the eligibility criteria for access to services.

The committee last considered the petition on 23 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government for further information, including on its plans to address concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on the development of children born during the pandemic.

We have received a response from the Scottish Government, in which it refers to its

“commitment to expand early learning and childcare to 1 and 2 year olds, starting in this Parliament with children from low income households.”

The response also states:

“the Scottish Government is funding a range of ... learning resources for ELC practitioners, which are directly relevant to supporting COVID-19 recovery”.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?