Official Report 717KB pdf
Primitive Goat Species (Protected Status) (PE2151)
10:16The first new petition for consideration is PE2151, lodged by Kenneth Erik Moffatt, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help ensure the survival of primitive goat species in the Scottish Borders by granting them protected status. I believe that the petitioner may be with us, and I invite any colleagues who wish to address the committee in relation to the petition to come forward.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing for the petition highlights NatureScot’s position regarding what the body terms “feral goats”. Although NatureScot has indicated that some Scottish feral goat herds have been established for a long time and might be described as naturalised, it considers feral goats to be an invasive non-native species that has the potential to cause serious damage to habitats by way of overgrazing, for which reason they have to be managed. However, NatureScot recognises that feral goat herds are held in affection by people and often have strong local cultural links.
In its initial response to the petition, the Scottish Government makes it clear that it has no plans to provide full legal protected status for primitive goats. The Government echoes NatureScot in supporting the reduction of feral goat numbers to prevent damage to habitats or forestry, in a similar way to how deer populations are managed. Regarding the specific circumstances in the Scottish Borders, the Government submission states that it is for landowners to consider how any reduction in the feral goat population should be achieved in practice.
It is worth noting that the Scottish Government acknowledges that feral goats might have some positive benefits for biodiversity, such as providing food for eagles and carrion feeders and, more important, preventing open habitats from scrubbing over, with goats having already been used for that purpose in Tentsmuir in Fife.
We have received a submission from the Wild Goat Conservation Trust in support of the petition. It argues that granting protected status to wild goats would enable regulation of numbers through licensing, so that there would always be a healthy herd of wild goats in balance with the rest of the upland wildlife.
In additional submissions, the petitioner provides extensive evidence on primitive goat herds’ unique nature, and he objects to NatureScot and the Scottish Government’s use of the terms “feral” and “invasive” as opposed to “wild”. In his view, those terms mischaracterise the importance of an endangered species and make it easier to oppose the granting of protected status. The petitioner also deplores what he calls the “overzealous culling”—his words—of wild goats in the Langholm and Newcastleton hills, which he sees as unethical and unsustainable.
We have received a submission in support of the petition from our colleague Emma Harper, and we are joined by our colleagues Rachael Hamilton and Craig Hoy. I invite them to offer the committee any pearls of wisdom ahead of our consideration of the steps that we might take. I take it that Rachael Hamilton will go first.
Thank you for the welcome, convener. I thank Kenneth Moffatt for lodging the petition. He is not able to make it today, but I welcome members of the Wild Goat Conservation Trust.
In March 2023, an investment company called Oxygen Conservation acquired 11,000 acres of Langholm moor to protect and promote carbon sequestration and generate carbon credits. In February this year, the same company culled more than 80 per cent of the herd of ancient wild goats during the breeding season, which prompted widespread concern across the local community.
Not only are the goats ecologically significant, they form part of the cultural and natural heritage of the Scottish Borders. They have roamed freely between Langholm and Newcastleton for centuries, contributing to the biodiversity of the uplands and attracting visitors from across the country.
As committee members will be aware, despite their long-standing presence, wild goats have no legal protection in Scotland. The Scottish Government has stated that it has
“no plans to provide full legal protected status for primitive goats, or feral goats”.
Unlike other species, such as pigeons or parakeets, the goats can be culled during the breeding season with no safeguards for pregnant or nursing animals. Such a lack of statutory protection leaves them vulnerable to actions that can severely impact herd viability.
The recent cull has highlighted the fragility of their status, and more than 13,000 people have signed PE2151, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to grant protected status to primitive goat species in the Borders. Their message is clear—these animals matter and their future must be safeguarded.
Concerns about landscape damage, as highlighted by the convener, or about population control are not supported by the evidence. Goat numbers have remained broadly stable across Scotland, and they are easier to manage than deer. With traditional livestock numbers declining in upland areas, wild goats might even help to fill ecological gaps. Losing the herd would be a loss not only to biodiversity but to the identity of the Langholm and Newcastleton communities.
The Parliament has the opportunity to act now by reviewing the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which, because of their non-native status, excludes goats from protection. We must consider changes that reflect their ecological role and cultural value and extend appropriate safeguards, particularly during the breeding season, to ensure their continued presence in the Scottish Borders. Thank you for listening.
I am attending alongside Rachael Hamilton to speak in support of the petition lodged by Kenneth Moffatt, which reflects the real sense of public anger and concern at the culling of wild goats by Oxygen Conservation in February. The petition was signed by more than 13,000 concerned citizens, which is, I believe, one of the largest-ever groups to petition the Parliament and the committee.
The Langholm goats have grazed the hills peacefully and quietly for generations without any significant issues, and with careful and sensitive management. If anyone wants to know more about the history of the goat population in Scotland, I note that the committee has listed on its website a reference to the paper “The ‘Poor Man’s Mart’: history and archaeology of goats in Scotland”, which was authored by Catherine Smith and is useful for putting the issue into context.
In February, we saw those with outside commercial interests go too far in a rush after maximum financial return. They dramatically reduced the goat population for entirely the wrong reasons, and they did so without undertaking proper and meaningful community consultation. The petition that we see before us reflects the community’s response. Worse still, alternatives such as fencing around tree planting or working more closely with neighbouring landowners, including the Tarras valley nature reserve, were not properly explored.
Companies such as the natural capital organisation Oxygen Conservation need to better understand the need to work in partnership with communities in the Scottish Borders and Dumfriesshire rather than work against them, which is what has occurred in this instance. NatureScot and other bodies should not turn a blind eye when those commercial entities do not take cognisance of community concern. Sadly, in this case, I think that NatureScot has done so and that it is too remote and bureaucratic. I encourage the committee to explore that directly with NatureScot.
My constituents feel that, in the case of the hundreds of wild goats that graze the 30,000 acres between Newcastleton and Langholm, NatureScot came down on the side of big commercial and corporate interests rather than serving the local people, who care deeply about their local landscapes and their ecosystem. That reflects the fact that the present processes fail to recognise or understand the strength of local feeling. They fail to recognise and understand how important it is to the local community that the goats are free to roam the Langholm hills. Therefore, anything that the committee can do to address that imbalance must be explored.
The petition makes a strong case for more robust protection measures and processes for locally important species, such as the wild goats of Langholm moor. As Rachael Hamilton said, without some form of designated protection, it is clear that NatureScot and other bodies will not intervene in such cases. In future, important local heritage and biodiversity could be lost. I therefore ask the committee to urge the Scottish Government to grant protected status to this primitive goat species—or, as the goats are described by the popular local newspaper, the Eskdale & Liddesdale Advertiser, “our feral friends”.
That is the dead hand of NatureScot—sorry, my prejudice has been provoked again. At times, I find it difficult to understand what the connection is between NatureScot and the people on the ground and in communities. Do colleagues have any thoughts or suggestions?
Believe it or not, I have been climbing to the Grey Mare’s Tail for many years and I have spent many hours watching the goats there, which has brought great pleasure not only to me but to every scout I take up during the summer holidays. I have a personal connection with the goats at the Grey Mare’s Tail.
Will the committee consider writing to the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee to seek its views on the matter and writing to the Scottish Government to seek clarity on how it plans to ensure the survival of primitive goat species, given its acknowledgment of their benefits to biodiversity?
We could couple that with a reference to the fact that the petition has attracted an unusual degree of public support and we could draw attention to the number of individuals who have supported it. We could also reference the fact that some of the evidence that the Scottish Government apparently believes NatureScot has acted on has been directly challenged by those in the communities, who I imagine know more about the subject than NatureScot does.
To follow on the theme of commenting on NatureScot, it seems that all species are equal, but some are more equal than others. Goats seem to be the species that does not merit any care or attention from NatureScot. Why that is the case is completely baffling, but NatureScot could no doubt explain it. I suggest that we ask NatureScot to explain why goats are apparently not worth anything as a species, and on what value judgment basis it has come to that apparent conclusion.
I want to pick up on a point that Lynda Graham made in her submission on 27 August, which is that, unless there is grazing of moorland upland by cattle, sheep or feral goats—I am told that the cattle and sheep have gone, which just leaves the goats—a fire load of tinder will be created. We have seen that in my constituency with the largest recorded wildfire in Scotland’s history—in Dava, Carrbridge and Lochindorb—and also, I gather, with fires in the Borders during the Easter period.
10:30I am told that in the local press—perhaps the august journal that Mr Hoy mentioned as well as others; I do not know—the fire service has expressed concern that, unless there is grazing, vegetation will increase the propensity for fires to become even more serious than they have been in the past.
Therefore, I would be grateful if we could write to the chief of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ask whether the service has a view on the desirability of moorland being subject to grazing. After all, it seems to be a pretty obvious and sound management practice, although, again, it is a practice that seems to have gone by the attention of NatureScot.
Are we all content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank our colleagues for coming along. You will be pleased to hear that we are keeping the petition open and are acting robustly in light of the evidence that you, the petitioners and all those who have supported the petition have brought to the committee.
Council Tax (Single Person Reduction) (PE2153)
PE2153, which has been lodged by Lisa Williams, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reduce council tax by 50 per cent for single persons.
The SPICe briefing for this petition explains that most single-person households receive a 25 per cent council tax discount, which is also available if only one person living in a property is liable for council tax. Additionally, the Scottish Government’s response explains that, apart from the single-person discount, there is the council tax reduction—or CTR—scheme, which is designed to reduce the council tax liabilities of any household based on an assessment of income, capital and other circumstances. The Government indicates that currently more than 450,000 households in Scotland benefit from the scheme, and it encourages the petitioner to reach out to their local council to check their eligibility for CTR.
The Scottish Government and COSLA are undertaking a joint programme of engagement to consider potential council tax reform, aimed at improving fairness and sustainability. The Government suggests that the evidence gathered as part of that engagement work will form the basis of a Scottish Parliament debate in early 2026, with a view to informing the Parliament in the next session of the findings and potential directions for reform of the wider council tax system. However, I note that the minister concerned has already suggested that there will be a revaluation of council tax for properties in the next session, which, I would have thought, might have its own consequential issues.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the evidence in front of the committee, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, in addition to the existing 25 per cent single person discount, the Scottish Government’s council tax reduction scheme can provide additional council tax relief to those eligible to receive it. The Scottish Government has also committed to having a parliamentary debate in 2026, following its joint work with COSLA, with a view to informing Parliament in the next session and suggesting potential directions for council tax reform.
Are we content with that suggestion, in light of the strong direction that has been given by the Government and our inability to take the issues raised in the petition forward?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner, but she will understand that there is little that we can do in light of the very direct view expressed by the Scottish Government.
Battery Energy Storage Systems (Planning Advice) (PE2157)
We move to PE2157, which has been lodged by Ben Morse on behalf of Cockenzie and Port Seton community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the advice for planning authorities when considering applications for energy storage and ensure that it includes clear guidance about the location of battery energy storage systems—or BESS—by setting out a minimum baseline level of practice around the location and proximity of such systems in relation to residential properties, public buildings and community amenities.
The SPICe briefing states that BESS use lithium-ion batteries to store electricity at times when supply is higher than demand. BESS are generally considered to be grid-scale systems, often over 100MW in capacity, which can release electricity when needed. The briefing also makes reference to the common concern about the potential fire risk of lithium-ion batteries, with a number of examples of BESS fires but with no reliable, publicly accessible record of the number of such fires.
The Scottish Government’s response mentions commissioning consultants in April 2025 to produce planning guidance on battery energy storage systems, and it anticipates that that work will be completed this autumn. The guidance is intended to promote good practice in determining BESS applications and to set out information on other relevant regulatory regimes that are applicable to BESS in Scotland.
The Government also makes reference to existing and well-established consenting procedures for renewable energy and electricity grid infrastructure, which include consideration of residential amenity and cumulative impacts. The Government’s position is that, although national planning framework 4 stipulates that the potential impacts on communities and nature are important considerations in the decision-making process for energy projects, it is for the decision maker to determine on a case-by-case basis what weight to attach to NPF4 policies, with all applications being subject to site-specific assessments.?
In an additional submission, the petitioner further argues that rigorous guidelines on the suitability of BESS sites would provide immediate clarity to the consenting and planning process and ease the burden on local authorities and communities. The petitioner insists that the Government has not addressed the central question that has been posed by his community, which is to do with the appropriate level of proximity of BESS sites to communities such as his, in light of concerns regarding the lack of safety and emergency procedures, noise and loss of amenity or agricultural land.
Before I invite members to comment, I declare an interest in that I have an active case in my constituency, where I am challenging the criteria by which approvals have been granted. That is very similar to the aims and objectives that have been raised by the petitioner, so I place that interest on record. Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?
I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to ask for an update on the work to produce planning guidance on battery energy storage systems, including the Scottish Government’s view on any additional recommendations. I also wonder whether it would ask for clarification by the Scottish Government on its position regarding concerns that were further highlighted by the petitioner’s additional submission, particularly the point on the proximity of BESS to communities.
I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, and I add that guidelines to assist local authorities would be of clear benefit, because they presently do not have them. There is a degree of concern about the fire risks, but in the absence of the Government providing any guidelines or analysis of the work that is being done, which is to be completed in the autumn, local authorities have one hand tied behind their back and are in a very unenviable position.
I hope that the Scottish Government acts more swiftly than it normally does. You said that the work that Ironside Farrar is doing is to be completed this autumn, which is around about now, given that the leaves are falling from the trees. Let us see the guidelines and get on with it, because they are required for many reasons that the petitioners have identified.
I wholly agree with that. There are a lot of live applications around the country, because many developers are seeking to establish sites. There is concern that the volume of sites that are being identified and progressed through the planning process is wildly in excess of the potential immediate requirement. Since most of the sites that are being established will create a new base of energy storage, many of the risks that are associated with them are as theoretical as the practice of the storage itself, which has not been around long enough. However, we know that there have been fires in other parts of the country and the world where such sites have been established.
A framework is needed fairly urgently. As Mr Ewing said, local authorities that are predisposed to look favourably on environmentally friendly forms of future energy generation are erring on that side over the concerns of people in the community and the potential unknown risks that are yet to be properly quantified.
Another thing is that, because most of the sites have over 50MW of storage, local authorities are bypassed. They consult with local authorities, but such sites are primarily placed into the same category as wind farms, so local considerations are not fully taken on board.
Also, I do not think that they provide many jobs. I could be wrong, but that is what I have heard anecdotally. Therefore, the benefits are unclear—apart, possibly, from those with regard to storage capacity.
They are also not lovely to look at. We will keep the petition open and we will seek to expedite Government guidance on all this on the basis that there are many live applications and that we are concerned that, in the absence of guidance, consideration of local concerns and unknown consequences arising from battery storage plants are not being properly accommodated or reflected.
Hot Liquids in Childcare Settings (Maximum Temperature) (PE2158)
PE2158 calls for the introduction of a maximum temperature for serving hot liquids to children in childcare settings.
The SPICe briefing tells us that existing legislation sets out the temperatures at which foods must be cooked and maintained but not the maximum temperature at which foods, or indeed liquids, should be served. In line with their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, local authorities set their own temperatures for serving food in schools. My apologies, but my note does not actually tell me who lodged the petition.
It was lodged by Terri Gunning.
Thank you. The Scottish Government states that it has carefully considered the issues raised in the petition with key partners and considers that current guidance in this area is appropriate.?In October 2024, the Scottish Government published “Setting the Table: Nutritional standards and practical guidance for early learning and childcare providers in Scotland”, which was produced by a working group consisting of national statutory bodies, clinical and nutritional experts, and ELC sector representatives. The guidance states that food should not be served to children at the temperature at which it needs to be cooked. Instead, it should be left to cool a little in a safe area, away from children, and it should be tested by tasting before serving.
The Care Inspectorate, with which the Government has engaged, has reinforced the message in the public guidance, indicating that ELC staff should not assume that food that comes from the kitchen is ready to be served immediately. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it expects all ELC providers to adhere to all duties and guidance relating to food provision, in order to ensure the safety of children in their care. Do members have any comments?
In the light of the evidence before the committee, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that current guidance advises leaving hot food to cool in a safe area and testing it before serving; the fact that most local authorities have set temperatures for serving food; and the fact that the Scottish Government expects all early learning and childcare providers to ensure the safety of children in their care and to adhere to all duties and guidance relating to food provision.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?
I do not think that there is any alternative, given the time that we have remaining in the parliamentary session. I just point out that the petitioner’s daughter was scalded, badly injured and scarred for life as a result of eating soup in a nursery. I would think that children in kindergartens and nurseries are particularly vulnerable, because they are not able to assess risks in the way that older children can. Therefore, in supporting Mr Torrance, I wonder whether we might also write to the minister to ask that reminders be issued, through the appropriate authorities, to those in charge of nurseries and kindergartens in particular with regard to this risk.
That particular family was denied any redress because there was a lack of guidelines. I think that the Care Inspectorate, rather disingenuously, pointed to the lack of guidance as indicating that it could not do anything for the family. In itself, that seems pretty pathetic and absurd, but, be that as it may, you cannot help but feel sympathy for the predicament that those parents found themselves in. As Mr Torrance says, the recommendation is that food be left to cool, but, plainly, that recommendation was not followed in that case, and maybe there are other cases, too. Therefore, reminders to those who run these establishments would not go amiss, if the minister wants to be proactive about it.
Those are fair points, and I am happy to incorporate them with the suggestions from Mr Torrance. Does the committee agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Play Parks (Prevention of Filming and Photographing by Strangers) (PE2162)
Our penultimate new petition is PE2162, which was lodged by Sharon Glen and Alex O’Kane. Colleagues will recall that Alex O’Kane is also the petitioner in relation to the child violence petition that we discussed earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it illegal for strangers to film or photograph children in public play parks.
10:45The SPICe briefing explains that it is not illegal to take photographs or film video footage in public places, unless for criminal purposes. It is possible, however, for the police to charge an individual who behaves in that manner, under existing provisions for offences. There exist both a common-law offence and a statutory offence of breach of the peace. Under either offence, the police do not require to know or prove the intended use of any photographs or footage; the behaviour itself can be enough to constitute an offence.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights Police Scotland’s statement on the issue earlier this year. That statement notes that Police Scotland is aware of concerns being shared on social media about filming in and around play parks, and that individuals have been charged with alleged offences of breach of the peace in connection with some incidents. The statement explains that police officers balance the rights of people to film with the potential to cause fear or alarm, and that they make decisions based on individual circumstances. The statement also explains that a small number of unconnected reports of filming were found to involve parents filming their own children, or other individuals who were not filming children, and no criminality was established.
The Scottish Government response states that, although it may be possible to create a specific offence, it is not clear what in practice any such offence would provide to the police, prosecutors and courts in terms of powers that they do not already have, using existing mechanisms, to address the inappropriate filming or photographing of children in public places.
The petitioners have provided the committee with two written submissions that outline their concerns. The first submission shares their view that the current arrangements fail to properly protect children. It states that the current legislation was not designed, and has not evolved, to consider the fact that most people carry phones with video and photography capability. The petitioners suggest that photography and videoing be either prevented entirely or conditionally permitted as long as the police have new powers to investigate and reasonable explanations are given by those who are questioned. The final written submission suggests that we consider the possibility of signage being put in place in play parks to ask that no videoing or photography take place.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed, or any comments?
In light of the evidence that is in front of us from the Scottish Government and Police Scotland, would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans to take forward the action that is called for in the petition? The police are required to balance the rights of people to film with the potential to cause fear or alarm, and they make decisions that are based on individual circumstances. It is possible for the police to charge an individual for inappropriate filming or photographing of children under existing offences, and existing mechanisms allow for individuals to be charged with a breach of the peace for inappropriate filming and photography. The Scottish Government submission shows, with examples from earlier this year, that that power has been used.
Are there any other comments? If not, given the direction from the Government in relation to the use of existing powers, as opposed to creating a specific additional offence, are we content to close the petition? Otherwise, it might be quite a large piece of work for the committee to adequately pursue at this stage in its life. I am therefore minded to accept David Torrance’s suggestion but perhaps also to suggest to the petitioners that the Parliament in the next session might have an opportunity to look at the issue in a little more detail. Given the Government’s assessment of existing powers, are we content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioners and I hope that they will have noted the accompanying remarks that have just been made.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (Neurodivergent People) (PE2161)
Our final petition for consideration is PE2161, which was lodged by Ivor Roderick Bisset, who had hoped to be with us this morning but is not well enough to be present. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to allow for the complaints period for people with cognitive disabilities to be extended to two years.
Section 10 of the 2002 act sets out the time limits and procedure for complaints. It states:
“The Ombudsman must not consider a complaint made more than 12 months after the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matter complained of, unless the Ombudsman is satisfied that there are special circumstances which make it appropriate to consider a complaint made outwith that period.”
The SPSO website states that special circumstances can include demonstrating a good reason to delay because of health or personal difficulties, such as a defined disability that impacts upon daily living tasks and functioning.
The petitioner had applied for a time extension from the SPSO believing that he would get a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, on the grounds that he is neurodivergent. However, his request was rejected.
The Scottish Government’s response shares the SPSO’s position that decisions on special circumstances are made on a case-by-case basis, with guidance available to decision makers. Its submission states that if the SPSO decides not to waive the time limit, that decision is subject to the SPSO’s review process under which the decision can be looked at again and which provides an opportunity for a complainant to supply new information. The Scottish Government is therefore of the view that the current legislation has a degree of flexibility and offers the SPSO a wide range of discretion in deciding whether to waive the time limit, with any such decision also being subject to the SPSO’s review process.
Edward Mountain MSP has provided a written submission in support of the petition. Mr Mountain believes there should be a separate category to the existing special circumstances category that allows for people with cognitive disabilities to have their complaints considered outwith the 12-month period.
I suggest that we write to the SPSO to ask for further information that it holds on requests for extensions to the 12-month time limit. If that information is unavailable, we should ask for an explanation of how the SPSO can be confident that its policies and processes are working for neurodiverse people, given the issues raised in the petition.
I was made aware by Mr Bisset, whom I commend for lodging the petition, that the process has been difficult for him and has resulted in some pressure and anxiety. That is most unfortunate and would not have arisen had the SPSO exercised the flexibility that it would surely be reasonable to expect it to exercise. I feel very strongly that that is a fault on the SPSO’s part, and it must be called to book. That is what we are here for.
Moreover, the fact that a rejection can be taken to judicial review is phooey. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to raise a judicial review. A huge amount of money is involved—massively more than would result from the additional workload for the SPSO if it just exercised flexibility in the first place. I thought that we in Scotland were supposed to be sympathetic to people such as Mr Bisset who have needs related to their neurodiversity. I commend my colleague Mr Mountain for taking the case on, and I hope that we can get some answers from the SPSO to prove that it is not just another unaccountable quango.
To be fair to the SPSO, I do not think that it says that cases should go to judicial review; it says that its decisions can be looked at again, and that it affords complainants the opportunity to supply new information.
It would be interesting to know how many times the SPSO has extended the time limit.
I think exactly that, and I am grateful for that suggestion. It was very much on my mind, too.
First, we would ask what the guidance is, because I do not think that it is public. Secondly, we would ask how many times the time limit has been waived in each of the past five years and, on an anonymised basis, what the circumstances were that led to any waivers.
The judicial review point was raised by the Scottish Government on page 8 of the annex to the submissions—that is what I was referring to. You are quite correct that there is a process, but it is the Scottish Government that is pointing to an absurd course of action that nobody in their right mind would dream of taking.
We are grateful to Mr Bisset for lodging the petition. The committee is minded to keep the petition open, and it will proceed as colleagues have variously suggested. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our meeting for today. We will meet again on 24 September.
Meeting closed at 10:54.Previous
Continued Petitions