���˿���

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.

I just want to explore that point. You have detailed quite specific technical specification and availability issues with regard to the ability to comply. What has been the response to that reality?

Mr McLean, I assume from your contribution a moment ago that you take a similar view. Do you want to articulate that?

Either Mr McLean or Mr Fleming can come in.

PE1942, on encouraging peer support programmes in public sector organisations, was lodged by Fiona MacRae. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer support programmes such as trauma risk management, or TRIM, and sustaining resilience at work, or STRAW, in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health.

The petitioner has told us that use of the TRIM and STRAW processes could help to create psychological safety at work by encouraging employees to complete an incident report when they experience or witness behaviours that might affect employees’ mental health. She has also suggested that early intervention could help to reduce the number of employees experiencing mental health problems and contribute to a safer and more positive workplace culture.

In responding to the petition’s aims, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has provided information on a range of actions that are being taken to promote mentally healthy workplaces, including a mental health transition and recovery plan, funding for a national trauma training programme, and the establishment of a peer recovery hub by the Scottish Recovery Network.

Do members have any suggestions or comments with regard to further action?

PE1943, which is on helping to prevent the destruction of greenfield sites by providing financial incentives for the remediation and reuse of brownfield sites, has been lodged by Victoria Mungall and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use, while discouraging developments on greenfield land.

Victoria Mungall tells us that brownfield sites can often be difficult and expensive to remediate due to contamination, unstable ground and other challenges. That results in greenfield sites being targeted for development, as they can be far less expensive for developers to build on. She also highlights that, in England, grants have been introduced that allow local authorities to contribute to the remediation of brownfield land.

In its response, the Scottish Government provides details of the vacant and derelict land investment programme, which was launched in March 2021. That £50 million fund is available on a competitive basis to all Scottish local authorities and to the Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company.

Members might be aware that the draft national planning framework 4 proposes an updated and expanded policy on vacant and derelict land that discourages development on greenfield land, unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available.

Do members have any thoughts or comments?

PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Clerkin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for temporary accommodation for homeless people, including writing off the £33.3 million debt that is owed by homeless people to local authorities for temporary accommodation.

Sean Clerkin tells us that vulnerable homeless people, including working people,

“are being forced into serious debt.”

His recent submission highlights the increase in the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation over recent years and states that the situation will worsen given the cost of living crisis. He says that, without the action that is called for, the financial burden and further poverty will drive many people into physical and mental ill health.

The SPICe briefing that the committee received states that councils use different methods of calculating charges for temporary accommodation and that a Social Bite report found that there was wide variation in costs, which ranged from £65 to £400 per week. The Legal Services Agency published a report that noted

“varying levels of detail in local authority policies and varying regard for, and definition of, the affordability of temporary accommodation.”

The LSA recommends that, in the longer term, charging individuals for temporary accommodation should be prohibited.

The Scottish Government’s response highlighted its forthcoming housing bill, which will seek to prevent homelessness through principles of shared public responsibility, earlier intervention and increased housing choices for individuals. It has also established a temporary accommodation task and finish group, which will review charging practices and affordability concerns.

Do members have any suggestions or comments in relation to the petition?

We have a proposal to hear from the petitioner. It might be useful to seek further information from a variety of other organisations ahead of that. Do members have any suggestions in that respect?

Thank you very much. We will next meet on 9 November. That concludes the public part of the meeting.

We can draw that together with the recommendation when we refer the petition. Given that the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee is already exploring the issues, do we agree to refer the petition to that committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Would Mr McLean and Mr Fleming like to address the question?