Official Report 552KB pdf
High-caffeine Products (PE1919)
Under our second item, we will continue consideration of petitions that we have considered previously. 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—a high-caffeine product—for performance enhancement to under-18s due to the risk of serious harm. We previously considered the petition on 20 September 2023, at which point we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.
We have received a response confirming that the independent analysis of the Government’s consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people has been published and that the responses to the consultation
“did not raise any issues associated with fast release caffeine gum”,
although the consultation was not focused specifically on that area. The response also confirms that the Government
“will not be pursuing research on fast release caffeine products”
at this time—in essence, for financial reasons—but that the Government
“will keep this under review for future years.”
We have also received two written submissions from the petitioner, who suggests that labelling for high-strength caffeine gum should include a health warning about potential risks,
“particularly when taking it immediately before or during intense physical exercise”.
The petitioner also believes that the promotion of caffeine gum at public events might be in breach of health and safety regulations. It might be worth noting that workplace health and safety regulation is reserved and that much of the health and safety legislation derives from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which focuses primarily on the safety of employees in a workplace.
Colleagues, we were quite struck by the evidence that we heard last September about there being something of a risk here. The Government has not sought to validate that argument and does not feel that it is in a position to do so at the moment. I am reluctant to close the petition at this stage, because I am not yet satisfied that there is no issue of major concern—I do not know yet.
If members have no suggestions for what we might do, I am minded to ask the clerks to give the matter some thought and to come back to us with some suggestions about where we might go. I am not sure how far we can go, but we could find out a little bit more, because I would not want us to have moved on quite so quickly if the issue became a more obvious health problem.
Do members agree with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Motorhomes (Overnight Parking) (PE1962)
PE1962, on stopping motorhomes being parked overnight outwith formal campsites, caravan parks and aires, was lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are parked only in designated and regulated locations.
The Scottish Government’s recent submission states that the work of the camper van and motorhome working group is still under way and that no formal report has been submitted to the visitor management steering group. It was agreed that a formal report would be provided at the end of last year. I understand that that group has met and that that information is now on the Scottish Government’s website.
The petitioners have shared information about the prevalence of motorhomes being parked outwith campsites or aires and the associated issues. The information includes figures on roadside waste disposal, scorch marks and litter. The petitioners believe that, if the tourist levy is applied to campsites but not to motorhomes on roadsides, the number of people who opt to stay outwith formal sites will “increase significantly”. The submission also highlights the positive economic impact of the holiday park and campsite sector. Here we are in May 2024, going into the summer season, when I imagine that such issues will be at their most prevalent.
Do colleagues have any suggestions?
I would like to raise two issues that the Scottish Government has not addressed satisfactorily throughout the petition’s history. I will not refer to any particular businesses in the Highlands, but I will raise two points of principle.
First, earlier in the passage of the petition through the committee, I suggested that funding might be made available for things called aires, which are serviced areas that can be used for the parking of camper vans. They are frequently found in France, for example, and are designed to provide a safe and secure place for camper vans to park—with water and toilet replacement facilities, which are obviously needed—and to stop the antisocial behaviour that results from camper vans being parked illegally overnight in lay-bys and so on, blocking single-track roads.
The reason why I mention that is that, in its reply, the Scottish Government said, “Yes, we’re looking into this.” That was positive, and I think that it was agreed that aires should, indeed, qualify for funding under the rural tourism infrastructure fund. However, at about the time when that was agreed, the fund ran out of money.
We learned from the clerks that VisitScotland’s capital budget, from which the fund is derived, was reduced from £7.9 million to £2.6 million last year. If those figures are correct, that is, according to the Scottish Tourism Alliance, a fairly swingeing cut, given that the overall capital budget was depleted by 8, 10 or 12 per cent. This particular tourism budget seems to have been axed in a savage manner.
The sad thing is that I have just learned in response to a letter that I had written to Malcolm Roughead of VisitScotland about funding for maintenance of the south Loch Ness trail—that is a constituency matter that has been raised with me, and I have sent a copy of the letter to the clerks in case it is required for the record—that no less than £20 million has been provided through the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which has allowed many good things to be done, but that, sadly, things are now difficult.
I am sorry that I am taking so long, but I want to set out the details. We should ask the Scottish Government, given the new regime, to reflect that a 67 per cent reduction is just absurd and to consider adjusting it.
Incidentally, I think that aires should be run commercially. The Government’s role is to provide the servicing of the plots, but aires should operate commercially so that the Government does not provide an unfair subsidy that would disadvantage existing camping and caravan sites.
The second point that I want to raise relates directly to overnight stops of camper vans. I understand that that will not be covered under the visitor levy but that camping sites and fixed caravans will. That seems to be anomalous. It will almost provide an incentive not to have a fixed site but to have a camper van and move around. I am not a wild fan of the visitor levy anyway, but it seems that that will create an obvious anomaly that will cause a great deal of upset, especially in the Highlands and particularly among people who run camping and caravan sites. When I was the tourism minister, I went round a great many such sites and developed great admiration for people’s professionalism, hard work and diligence, as well as for the high standards of cleanliness and safety that were maintained at almost all the sites. For them to be discriminated against in this way seems to be prima facie unfair.
If committee members agree that that is a fair point, given that the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill is at stage 2, we could ask the Scottish Government whether it has any intention of removing the anomaly. If it does not, the matter will come back to bite it, as so many things do when there is ill-considered legislation.
We can do that if members are happy with that. You asked whether the Government would consider afresh the 67 per cent reduction in funding. We could also ask the Government what it thinks the consequences of such a reduction would be for the industry and communities.
Yes. The industry is of huge benefit to the Highlands, so I have a particular interest. However, the funding benefited a huge number of projects all over Scotland, and most of my colleagues at the time regarded the fund as very popular, successful and simple to operate, relative to many others.
Do members agree to keep the petition open and to pursue the issues that Mr Ewing identified?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (PE1964)
Our next petition is PE1964, which was lodged by Accountability Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set up an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, to assess the quality of its work and decisions, and to establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.
We have considered the petition before; colleagues may remember the submissions. The petitioner has brought to our attention the fact that the ombudsman stated her support for a review of the legislation governing the SPSO during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the SPSO’s annual report. Her view is that the current legislation is not
“as adaptable as it should be, for the different ways of delivering services and making complaints.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 5 December 2023; c 16.]
It is worth noting that while the ombudsman has stated her support for a review of the legislation, the petitioner is also calling for an investigation into complaints made against the SPSO and an assessment of the quality of its work. From different starting positions, the ombudsman and the petitioner are seeking such a review.
We are aware, and it is important to note, that the SPSO’s functions are independent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—which met the ombudsman recently—ministers and MSPs to ensure that there is no interference in the decisions that are made.
We are in the slightly unusual position that there has never been a review of the ombudsman. In previous evidence, there was an expectation that a review would take place at some point of the way in which the arrangements are structured. The Government seems reluctant to undertake the review that the petitioner would like, but the ombudsman herself is quite open to the idea that a review should take place.
I wonder whether Mr Torrance has a burning suggestion for us.
In the light of the ombudsman’s comments, would the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will consider undertaking a review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2022?
Are we content to do that?
I add to that suggestion, with which I agree, the fact that any review must be an independent review. It cannot be done by the SPSO, nor should it be done by the Scottish Government. It should be done by somebody who is entirely independent.
Given that we are supposed to be in a time of fiscal difficulty and pressure, I respectfully ask whether the public get any gain from having an SPSO. That is no imputation on the professionalism of the SPSO, but it is restricted in its powers and remedies. I no longer recommend to any constituents that they go to the SPSO because, first, those who go to the SPSO do not get anywhere; secondly, they do not get a result; and, thirdly, they often end up even more fed up than they were in the first place because they feel that the whole process is, frankly, pointless.
Those sound like harsh words, but should we not be looking to see whether we can prune back some of the public money that is spent on such things and put it into the health service, for example?
Given what you have said, I wonder whether we might also draw the petition to the attention of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is currently undertaking a formal inquiry into office-holders, as part of which it is looking at the whole sweep of the office-holding positions. I know that the corporate body is due to give evidence to that committee, and I have previously—on behalf of the corporate body—raised issues of concern that the corporate body has had when I have presented the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It might be useful for that committee to be aware that the petition exists and that the ombudsman herself is keen on a review, although the Government does not seem minded to pursue one.
Are members content that we take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (PE1975)
Our next petition is PE1975, by Roger Mullin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as they are known, which we have heard much about recently.
Members will recall that we took evidence on the petition from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and that, when we did so, we were encouraged by the news that a consultation on SLAPPs would be progressed in the autumn. Therefore, with that information in mind, given that the Government is to pursue matters, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
09:45
I wonder whether the committee could write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to ask how the petitioners and contributors to the petition can meaningfully engage with the consultation and to request that the committee be updated as the Scottish Government’s work progresses. Once we have done that, I am not sure that we could take the petition any further. Therefore, would the committee consider closing the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is progressing the issue that the petition raised?
I am quite happy that we write to the Government on that basis and that, thereafter, we close the petition. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
I think that, on this occasion, the petitioner has had some success, in that they achieved their end result.
They achieved a change in policy on the part of the Scottish Government.
Concessionary Bus Travel Scheme (Asylum Seekers) (PE2028)
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, convener. I would like to take the opportunity to commend the petitioners, Pinar Aksu of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer of the VOICES Network, who, for several years, have worked tirelessly, alongside people with lived experience of the asylum system, on the campaign to extend access to free bus travel, which has been running for at least two years.
I welcomed the Scottish Government’s announcement in October that £2 million would be allocated in the budget for the financial year 2024-25 to enable the roll-out of free bus travel for people who are seeking asylum in Scotland. However, I speak to the committee today in order to urge caution and to encourage members to keep the petition open for the time being. Although the funding that has been announced is welcome and, indeed, overdue, the detail of how it will be utilised and what it will actually mean for people who are seeking asylum remains to be seen.
The original ask of the petition was that the concessionary bus travel scheme be extended, but, in its announcement, the Scottish Government gave no indication that that is what the funds will be used for. There has been no sign of a draft statutory instrument, no indication of the logistics and no details on the design of the scheme.
There is a risk that the funds will simply be used for more information gathering and research or for a temporary scheme, rather than to make free bus travel a permanent reality for people who are seeking asylum in Scotland. Frankly, we do not need more data. We have had a pilot in Glasgow and another one in Aberdeen. We know that there is a need, and we know how to meet it at a relatively marginal extra cost to the public purse.
I urge the committee to write to the Scottish Government to seek written confirmation of the detail of the plans for the roll-out of the £2 million scheme. I also ask the committee to assess whether that funding will be used to deliver on the petition’s ask, which is that the national concessionary travel scheme be extended to people who are seeking asylum, before it considers closing the petition.
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.
From listening to Mr Sweeney, I think that we should write to Transport Scotland to seek an update on the work that is being undertaken to explore options for extending the concessionary travel scheme and to ask, in particular, how the £2 million budget that has been allocated is being used.
I am a bit puzzled—maybe I have misunderstood something—but, in his previous evidence to the committee, Mr Sweeney said:
“rough and ready cost estimates suggest that it would cost around £500,000 per annum”.—[Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 20 September 2023; c 18.]
Given that £2 million is enough to fund the whole caboodle for four years, what is happening to that money? What is the point of saying, “Here’s £2 million,” if it would cost only £500,000 a year? Why does the Government not just do it? I do not quite understand. If that money has been set aside, it cannot be used for anything else. It has been allocated from the budget, and it seems that it would be sufficient to run the thing for four years. What is going on?
The First Minister and the then cabinet secretary said that, first, there are issues in identifying who an asylum seeker is, because it is not like being a pensioner or being under 21, as those groups are self-defined. How do we define an asylum seeker?
The second issue is that the Government is concerned about the fact that the scheme would have to operate in such a way that it did not contravene the Home Office guidelines on what constitutes earnings or benefits. I do not think that asylum seekers are entitled to receive benefits, so being in receipt of free travel could potentially alter their status. My understanding was that there was some detail to be worked out in relation to how what was proposed would come about.
However, after six months, it is perfectly in order for us to try to establish—as Mr Sweeney suggests—what on earth is going on, because we are well into the financial year and the scheme is not helping anyone to travel anywhere. As Mr Sweeney says, there is then the contingent risk that the money will end up being used to finance the carrying out of a whole lot of research rather than to put people on buses, which is what the intention is.
It could be frittered away in consultants’ reports, which would be farcical and rather grotesque.
The petition has achieved nominal success, but we want that to be followed by substantive success.
Do members agree to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries that Mr Choudhury suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Venice Biennale 2024 (PE2030)
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?
Did we get an update on the Creative Scotland review?
We did. That is the matter to which I just referred. It explained the basis of the pause that was implemented. The review that Creative Scotland is undertaking to look at the value of Scotland’s participation is due to conclude, but that was why it paused our participation. I think that there was a previous evaluation at an earlier date that did not lead to a pause in our participation, but it has this time. That was the explanation.
I think that we should keep the petition open until the review is concluded. Maybe the convener will want to organise a committee visit to Venice as well. [Laughter.] However, I feel that we should wait until Creative Scotland’s review is concluded.
Do you want me to formally record that as the recommendation, Mr Choudhury? Is a committee visit to Venice part of your consideration?
Yes—both things. [Laughter.]
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.
I would love to go to Venice, but I do not think that I would ask the taxpayer to fork out for that, for the avoidance of any doubt.
I have been to Venice on a number of occasions, but that was under my own steam and not for the arts and culture festival.
In all seriousness, I read recently that the daily volume of visitors to Venice is now almost intolerable given the ability of the infrastructure to cope. I certainly know that, if you are staying in Venice, you really have to be up at 5 o’clock in the morning to have a wander around. Otherwise, you cannot move. The city is definitely under a lot of pressure. Nonetheless, it has a series of famous and celebrated arts festivals through the year, and Scotland’s participation in those is to be valued.
Next
New Petitions