Official Report 851KB pdf
We move to consideration of new petitions. For those who are tuning in to hear how their petition is going to be resolved, I will start, as I always do, by saying that the committee takes advice on the issues that are raised in each petition from the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe—which is the Parliament’s independent research body. We also invite the Scottish Government to offer a preliminary view because, historically, those were the first two actions that we would take, and this process allows us to expedite the discussion of the petition.
Wild Wrasse (Protection of Stocks) (PE2110)
The first new petition is PE2110, which was lodged by Charles Millar. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop and introduce a statutory fisheries management plan that is focused on protecting wild wrasse stocks in Scottish waters, beginning with a data collection exercise and introduction of precautionary fishery management measures ahead of the next fishing season, which commences in May 2025.
The petitioner tells us that wrasse are used as a cleaner fish to tackle lice in aquaculture facilities, and that their unusual reproductive patterns make them vulnerable to overcatching. The SPICe briefing notes that there
“is currently no Total Allowable Catch ... applied to commercial wrasse fishing”.
That means that
“there is no limit to the number of wrasse above a certain size limit ... which can be fished during the fishing season”,
which runs between 1 May and 30 November each year.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights the mandatory management measures that were introduced in 2021. Those require Scottish vessels to successfully apply, on an annual basis, for a letter of derogation from the Scottish ministers in order to fish for wrasse. The response also refers to the UK joint fisheries statement, which contains
“a statutory commitment for the production of 43 Fisheries Management Plans”.
The Scottish Government indicates that it is
“unable to confirm or commit to the production of additional”
fisheries management plans
“beyond those that are currently in development”.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner expressing concern that
“the mandatory measures ... are insufficient to ensure the sustainability of”
the wrasse fishery. The submission also highlights the development of a wrasse fisheries management plan for England.
Ahead of today’s meeting, we have received an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands indicating that the Government will be undertaking “an appropriate assessment” of wrasse fishing interactions, along with assessments of special areas of conservation and marine protected areas, ahead of the next fishing season opening in May 2025.
The cabinet secretary’s update prompted a late submission from the petitioner, which has been circulated to members. It raises concerns that the Scottish Government received a report that was mentioned in the cabinet secretary’s submission in 2020, but has failed to act on it until now.
Members will also have noted that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee is exploring issues relating to wrasse fishing as part of its consideration of amendments to the joint fisheries statement and its follow-up inquiry on the salmon farming industry.
Therefore, the Government will—however belatedly—do something in respect of the monitoring of all this. I wonder whether colleagues feel that that leads us in a particular direction.
I am going to surprise you, convener. I want to keep the petition open, so that I can get information from the Scottish Government on what consideration it has given to the total allowable catch limits on commercial wrasse fishing and what discussions it has had with the UK Government on the development of its wrasse complex fisheries management plan. Specifically, I want to know what consideration has been given to developing similar measures in Scottish waters.
In an unexpected further burst of interventionist action, Mr Torrance has come forward with a proposal that we keep the petition open and try to track down a bit more detail. Are colleagues content that we do so?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and pursue it on that basis.
Early Learning and Childcare (Funding from 9 Months) (PE2111)
PE2111, which was lodged by Julie Fraser, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide families with financial support for early learning and childcare when their child reaches nine months of age. The SPICe briefing notes:
“Funded ELC is available to all three- and four-year-olds and some two- and five-year-olds. Eligibility for children under three is not currently universal, but is based on parents/carers being in receipt of certain benefits or the child or parent/carer having experience of care.”
It also notes that, in the programme for government in 2023-24, the Government said that the expansion of childcare support would cover children from nine months old when it stated that it would
“Work with Local Government and other partners to develop the local infrastructure and services needed to provide childcare from nine months to the end of primary school in specific communities in six local authority areas.”
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is
“working on the initial stages of an expanded national offer for more families with two-year-olds, focusing first on those who will benefit most.”
It explains that expansion work is currently focused on “insights and engagement”, including
“piloting new approaches through the Whole Family Wellbeing Fund and learning from the six early adopter communities.”
Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government to ask how the engagement, pilots and investment in the early adopter communities will benefit children at nine months old in those communities, and how that work will inform its development of a targeted offer for one and two-year-olds.
We are interested in keeping the petition open. Are colleagues content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s proposals ?
Members indicated agreement.
Early Learning and Childcare (Independent Review) (PE2112)
PE2112, which was lodged by Carole Erskine on behalf of Pregnant Then Screwed, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of publicly funded early learning and childcare in Scotland, in order to better understand and address the challenges that families face when trying to secure and afford childcare.
The background to the petition provides details of the petitioner’s survey that looked at childcare in Scotland, in which 83.7 per cent of parents said that their childcare costs are the same or more than their income, with 70 per cent of mothers and 50 per cent of fathers responding to say that it does not make financial sense for them to work. The SPICe briefing notes that, although data from surveys conducted by Coram Family and Childcare shows that childcare costs in Scotland are rising, they remain lower than the average prices that have been reported for England and Wales.
In its response to the petition, which is similar to the response that we received on the previous petition, the Scottish Government states that it is investing nearly £1 billion in high-quality early learning and childcare in 2024-25. The response goes on to highlight the funding follows the child approach for the delivery of the 1,140 hours ELC offer, which allows parents and carers to
“access their child’s entitlement from any setting in the public, private or third sector ... who meets the National Standard, has a place available, and is willing to enter into a contract with their local authority. ”
The Scottish Government’s response also refers to independent research that suggests that
“97% of parents with a three- to five-year-old were satisfied that they could access funded ELC in a way that meets their needs.”
It notes that an evaluation of the 1,140 hours entitlement is due to report in 2025.
We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which comments on the Scottish Government’s response and draws our attention to a review of the early years sector in England, which was commissioned by the UK Labour Party before it entered government. The petitioner has called for a similar review to take place in Scotland. The second submission highlights the mostly negative experiences of the childcare system that parents have encountered, including issues around availability, council boundary changes, and the inflexibility of the current system to meet families’ needs.
Submissions have also been received from the University of the West of Scotland, drawing our attention to research that it has undertaken on the challenges that are faced by mothers who are working in the performance arts and entertainment industry, and from our MSP colleague Tim Eagle in support of the petition’s aim.
In the light of the information that we have received from the Scottish Government and SPICe, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?
I wonder whether the committee would like to write to the National Day Nurseries Association, the Scottish Private Nursery Association, the parents group—Connect—and COSLA to seek views on the issues that have been raised by the petition. The committee could also write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, highlighting the submissions that the committee has received and the call that was raised in PE2111 to fund early learning and childcare from nine months old. The committee could seek an update on the work to develop new childcare offers, including details of any discussion that the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government on the issue, specifically the financial support that is available to families.
Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of new petitions. Our next meeting will be on 13 November. We now move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5.
12:34 Meeting continued in private until 12:45.Previous
Continued Petitions