³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Rona, I am sorry—you were off screen, so I did not see that you were seeking to come in a moment ago. Would you like to contribute on this matter and on the other question that I asked?

Thank you. From the evidence that the committee received, that seemed to me to be a deficiency. As there are no further comments from colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and seek that additional information?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final petition this morning, PE2054, lodged by Colin Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish an independent review into the proposed Spaceport 1 development on Scolpaig farm in North Uist that focuses on examining: whether there is any conflict of interests for Western Isles Council—Comhairle nan Eilean Siar—as the authority that approved the plans and is taking the project forward; the process for purchasing the land on Scolpaig; potential errors and omissions in the environmental impact assessment of the proposal; and the economic case for pursuing the project.

Mr Anderson tells us that the spaceport proposal has attracted little public support, with public objections outweighing support by a ratio of 45:1. The petitioner also raises concerns that the proposal has been fast tracked, which has limited the public scrutiny of the process.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that a direction requiring planning authorities to alert it to new planning cases for spaceport-related development was issued in June 2020. That allows the Government to have a national overview of such development in the planning system, while offering it the opportunity to put in place additional safeguards and intervene, if necessary, by calling in applications. In this case, it is stated that ministers gave full and proper consideration to the proposal and determined that it did not merit call-in. The response also states that the Scottish Government is supportive in principle of space projects that will contribute to its ambitions to become a leading European space nation and to deliver economic benefits to the local region.

We have also received submissions from the petitioner and from Angus McNab, a local resident, which set out their concerns about the way in which the process to determine the application has been carried out. Those include, but are not limited to, errors in the economic impact assessment, lack of effective and timely public consultation, and a general lack of transparency around the council’s intentions for the Scolpaig site.

Western Isles Council has also provided a submission that responds to the issues raised by the petition, as well as highlighting that a stakeholder and community consultation is due to begin in the new year—in January—as part of the airspace change proposal that has been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority.

This is clearly a live planning application. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you very much, Mr Ewing. It is open to the committee to take action if the focus of a petition is a national issue. However, the focus here is much more specific to an individual planning consideration that is live. In those circumstances, Mr Ewing, you are probably correct to suggest that we move to close the petition, given that it would be inappropriate for us to involve ourselves in that process. Are members content that we pursue that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Rona and Naomi, would either of you like to say anything before we move to questions? If you would like to speak, will you please just raise a hand? If you indicate anything below that level I will not see it because the screens are so far away. Okay—we will move to questions.

I will ask a general question. What are the petitioners’ views on the Scottish Government’s approach of addressing representation on boards through their recruitment processes? If anyone would like to speak, please just let me know.

Following Mr Choudhury’s comments and Maurice Golden’s suggestions of organisations for us to write to, do members have any other suggestions for action?

Members: No.

Mr Ewing, do you have a suggestion?

Our next continued petition, PE1993, lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third-year and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements, reforming the assessment criteria and adequately funding the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements.

The committee last considered the petition on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Higher Education and Further Education and Minister for Veterans, and to the Scottish Social Services Council.

The response from the Scottish Social Services Council notes that the budget for postgraduate social work bursaries has remained at £2.655 million since 2012-13 and that 321 bursaries are made available. It undertook a review of the bursary policies, procedures and processes in 2021-22 to ensure that funding was disbursed as equitably and efficiently as possible. A review of the models that support practice placements was due to conclude in the summer of this year.

The minister’s response states that work is on-going to explore the potential for changes to the support that is available for social work students in the context of workforce planning. It also mentions that the Scottish Social Services Council is working with universities and the social work education partnership to explore additional funding models across social work education.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in light of the fact that the fund for bursaries has been frozen for more than a decade?

We have two new petitions to consider this morning. I explain for those who might be joining us for the first time that, in advance of our consideration of all new petitions and in order to assist that consideration, we invite the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to give some comment on and information in respect of the petitions.

The first new petition, PE2039, lodged by Amy Lee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pay student nurses for their placement hours. The petitioner’s experience on placement has been challenging: she states that she has been used as a spare member of staff to cover absences during her previous three placements. She also shares that she took a £1,000 pay cut to study nursing.

The SPICe briefing explains that, over the three-year nursing programme, students are required to complete 2,300 hours of clinical practice and 2,300 hours of theory before they are eligible for registration. The briefing also notes that applications to study nursing have fallen from just under 8,000 in 2022 to 6,450 in 2023. That is rather a dramatic drop in a very short space of time.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is not possible for student nurses to be employed as nursing staff before programme completion and entry to the nursing register. Regarding financial support, it states that eligible student nurses and midwives in Scotland receive the highest level of support across the United Kingdom.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Good morning, and welcome to the last meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

First, I will make a general comment in respect of certain social media commentary that has been promoted since our meeting a fortnight ago. It is important to understand that all the members of the committee act impartially in support of advancing the aims of our petitioners. We do not necessarily do that with any personal commitment to a petition or because we support it or oppose it. Our responsibility is to seek to advance the aims of the petition, as requested by the petitioner.

However, when it becomes clear to us that we are unable to take the matters in a petition forward, we have, in fairness to other petitions that we can advance, no option at that point but to move to close the petition. In closing a petition, we are not expressing a view about its merits or giving the personal view of any member of the committee. It is simply that, at that stage, we are unable to take the aims of the petition any further forward.

Of course, it is open to any petitioner, after a period of time, to lodge a fresh petition. It may well be that, in the circumstances that exist at that point, the aims of a petition that could not previously have been advanced can be taken forward.

I wanted to explain that, because our situation is different from the positions of other committees. All the members here act in the best interests of advancing a petition, as long as we are able to do so. The matter harks back to one of the conclusions that arose from our inquiry into deliberative democracy, which was that a distinction is to be drawn between Parliament and the Government. This is not the Government; this is Parliament. We are not the ones who are develop national legislation; we are the ones who hold Government to account, insofar as we are able so to do.

That brings us to agenda item 1, which is consideration of whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Those items will be to discuss the evidence that we hear today and how we might want to take forward our inquiry into the A9. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.