���˿���

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.

Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney.

I hesitate to invite colleagues to consider matters at all, because Mr Sweeney’s knowledge is fairly comprehensive. Do you have any suggestions about what the committee might consider doing, Mr Sweeney?

I think that we might get to that. I might quite like to write to the different health boards to ask what the current status within each health board is. The assertion is that provision is a postcode lottery. I have a recollection that, right back at the start when the issue was whether insulin pumps would be provided at all, it was a health board lottery. I think that, all that time ago, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde embraced their provision and other health boards did not.

It would be interesting to know what the provision is within each health board and what policies they have surrounding the award of insulin pumps to children. This sits within a framework in which—I think—it is the case that children are meant to get them if they need them, so we need to find out where we are at with all that.

Diabetes Scotland and the Insulin Pump Awareness Group might be able to help us in that work as well. That would be helpful in the first instance. These are very important matters to those people who in life depend on them.

Do we agree to take that action?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We welcome the petition. Are members content to keep it open and to begin our investigations by following the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we have covered the ground at this stage, mainly. Will we get that evidence first? I am just trying to think where we want to be sequentially—

Thank you very much, Monica. You described the evidence session that we had as tense, which is a fair description. Having read the Official Report of the meeting, I think that you characterise it correctly in many respects. Although it was a slightly tense atmosphere, the Lord Advocate clearly stuck to her view of where her responsibilities lay. The committee got slightly frustrated that it was not clear thereafter where she thought the committee should go to get the correct answers. That is what we have been reflecting on.

Given the evidence that we heard from the pathologists in Lancashire and the other evidence that we have heard, I believe that members of the committee are minded to seek to do everything that we can to advance the aims of the petition. In the light of those remarks, do colleagues have any contributions?

If I can coalesce your view, you would prefer to keep the petition open and go back to the Scottish Government, highlighting the petitioner’s latest evidence. Perhaps we could say—in your words, if I can paraphrase them—that further public toilet closures appear to be taking place, which is placing an unreasonable burden of expectation on local businesses, and that, for those reasons, the Government should have a further think about whether it would be prepared to consider its position. Is that appropriate?

Rather unusually, over the issue of public conveniences, I am invited to come to a casting position. I am minded to close the petition but to accompany that with a directional letter to the Government that sets out our concerns about the approach that it has decided to adopt but which recognises that it appears that the Government is not prepared to reconsider that. That matter will be for others to pursue in a different environment. Thank you all very much.

I am content with that. Are members content with it?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of personal possessions and furniture left in the property; and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

In the background to the petition, Bernadette explains that her sister faced threats and harassment from her ex-husband, whose family emptied their marital home of all furniture, fixtures and fittings. The police were seemingly unable to take any action to prevent that. Bernadette also tells us about the mental and physical impact that that experience has had on her sister and how she was unable to access financial support to replace her possessions and start over.

The SPICe briefing notes that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 introduces two short-term civil protection orders, both of which could exclude a perpetrator of domestic abuse from the place where the person at risk lives. However, the briefing also notes that that part of the act is not yet in force.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety notes that civil legal aid is available in a wide range of actions, including contested divorces, and that around 70 per cent of people are eligible for some form of civil legal aid. The minister highlights other options, such as the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, which offers free legal information and advice to women in Scotland who have or are experiencing gender-based violence. The minister also refers to the work that is undertaken on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse, including options for financial support for women leaving an abusive partner.

The minister refers in her letter to the Scottish Law Commission’s plans, as part of its work on family law, to review the civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse, which the committee is aware of from our consideration of related petitions. In the light of all that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?