Official Report 824KB pdf
Item 3 is consideration of continued petitions.
To all the many people whose petitions are still before the committee, I say that we have now arrived at that point in the parliamentary session when time is pressing, and the committee will be looking at a number of those petitions carefully to determine what more we think we can do in the course of this session, irrespective of the merits of the petitions. We have something like 120 open petitions and little time left in this parliamentary session in which to do justice to them. It may well be, therefore, that, notwithstanding the critical issues that are addressed by a petition, we will reluctantly come to the view that the issues that it deals with will potentially require to be addressed through a fresh petition in the next session of Parliament.
Some of these petitions have been continued because we thought the substance of the petition worth exploring, and I would not want anyone who is joining us online or is present in the room to think that we regard the issues that the petitions deal with to be no longer relevant. If we close such a petition, it is simply because we are not going to have the time in the current session of Parliament to pursue it in the way that we would wish.
RAAC-affected Communities (PE2113)
The first continued petition for us to consider today—which we will discuss after what I am afraid will be a lengthy preamble from me—is PE2113, which was lodged by Wilson and Hannah Chowdhry. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide support to communities affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—commonly referred to as RAAC—by setting up a national fund to assist struggling home owners and tenants affected by RAAC; initiating a public inquiry to investigate the practices of councils and housing associations concerning RAAC, including investigation of how business related to RAAC was conducted, the handling of safety reports and property sales, disclosure of RAAC and responses to home owners’ concerns; and introducing or updating legislation similar to the general product safety regulations to ensure that developers, councils and housing associations are held accountable for the use of substandard property materials. Such legislation should mandate risk disclosure and make surveyors and solicitors liable for untraced defects, and it should also include provision for a comprehensive register of high-risk buildings in Scotland.
We last considered the petition on 13 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and the then Minister for Housing.
The RICS suggests that a national fund of the kind that the petitioner suggests could be useful, but it has questions about the applicability and, indeed, the necessity of such a fund, as existing surveys do not point to RAAC being prevalent.
The Scottish Government reiterates that the local scheme of assistance can in fact provide financial help. It also underlines local authority powers to decide spending priorities, as well as continued challenges to public finances. Although the UK Government has shown reluctance to set up a UK-wide financial support scheme, the Scottish Government continues to insist on one. In a recent response to a written parliamentary question, the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing said that she would engage with the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on the issue, following the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner.
The RICS, the RIAS and the BEFS—the organisations to which I referred a moment ago—were not supportive of a public inquiry, arguing that it would be both time and resource intensive, that it would divert from an immediate response and that it may simply confirm what is already widely known. Their submissions suggested that it would be more appropriate to identify and remediate affected properties that are also in poor condition.
The RICS does not see the third ask of the petition as representing a proportionate approach. It points to existing avenues that can be explored if RAAC has not been properly identified by a regulated surveyor.
The BEFS highlights that the existing buildings at risk register has been paused following a review and suggests that any successor model should be more aligned with activity that renovates and reuses buildings at risk, rather than lists them.
We have also received additional submissions from the petitioners—some of whom, I think, are with us in the gallery today—who continue to highlight the predicament of RAAC-impacted home owners and the urgent need for action, particularly on the financial front.
I acknowledge that most of the submissions recognise the challenges for home owners and are generally in agreement that significant action will require to be taken to address the matter.
As I said earlier, we do not have a lot of time left in this parliamentary session. Obviously, in so far as we might want to take further action, we would have to make sure that it was quite targeted.
I say gently to those who have joined us in the gallery today that it is the Parliament’s position that nothing that is overtly of a campaigning nature should be displayed in committee rooms. I will not bring the heavy hand of bureaucracy to bear in that regard today; I simply mention it in passing for future reference.
Do colleagues have anything to contribute to our thinking on how we might proceed?
With regard to the national fund element of the petition—the first of the three asks of the petition—I note that, the previous time this matter came before us, members suggested that we ask the Scottish Government about the upshot of its work with the UK Government to come up with a solution. In response to that, there has been a submission from the new cabinet secretary, who says that the Scottish Government is continuing to work with the UK Government. In that regard, I note that there is a new Secretary of State for Scotland.
I strongly believe that it is no use Scotland blaming London and London blaming Scotland. The people in the middle, some of whom are here today, are the ones who are suffering—in some cases, from the threat of bankruptcy—and are under severe pressure. I think that the blame-passing approach is just not good enough. We have a new Cabinet Secretary for Housing and a new Secretary of State for Scotland—Màiri McAllan and Douglas Alexander, respectively. Why do they not just meet and come up with a solution? The current situation cannot go on for ever. The longer it continues, the more it brings into disrepute the Scottish Government and the UK Government, which does nobody any good.
I acknowledge that time is short, but we still have about two thirds of a year to go, and we should try to use that time as best we can. I will explain to those members of the public who are here and have a direct interest in the matter that this committee does not have any budget; all that we can do is put pressure on the Governments to do the right thing. That is our job, and I think that we should invite the cabinet secretary to confirm that she will seek a meeting with her counterparts in the UK Government and not only come up with a solution but explain why people in Basildon have had money handed out to them while people in Scotland have not. She should also explain why the money is being restricted to monitoring and surveys and not to actual repair work. None of those questions has been answered at all.
11:00I appreciate the constraints on the committee, and I will not be pleading for every petition to be kept open, for the reasons that you correctly set out, convener. However, in relation to this petition, a lot of human misery has been caused to people by RAAC through no fault whatsoever of their own. If I were one of the people watching the meeting today, I would be pretty disgusted if passing the buck was allowed to happen.
I hope that members will agree that there is more that could be done. The Governments talk all the time about working together positively, do they not? Well, let us see the proof. That is my suggestion.
If I am distilling your point correctly, Mr Ewing, you are asking that we act as a sort of marriage guidance counsellor and write to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the cabinet secretary to encourage them to meet in order to find a pathway forward that might resolve the issues at hand. We could do so on the basis that this is a petition that we take extremely seriously and that, given the time that is left in this parliamentary session, it would be helpful if both parties could respond positively to our suggestion that they have such a discussion. Is that correct?
That is very diplomatically put. However, I think that the ministers would regard me not as a marriage guidance counsellor but more of an agony uncle.
I will say that the suggestion was made by our agony uncle.
I agree with Mr Ewing’s point. In addition, it would be useful to get an update from the Scottish Government on how it is monitoring local authorities regarding their interaction with affected residents. For example, in Aberdeen, there are regular updates and newsletters available to the public. However, such interaction varies from local authority to local authority. In my view, the Scottish Government should be monitoring the situation and perhaps sharing best practice. I hope that that is being done. I do not know whether that is a role for the Government or for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but it should certainly be done. I would appreciate an update from the Scottish Government on that.
Mindful of the fact that time is against us, are we content to keep the petition open, to pursue those two lines of inquiry and to seek to make some further progress on the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Bus Franchising Powers (PE2116)
That brings us to PE2116, which was lodged by Ellie Harrison on behalf of better buses for Strathclyde. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the process for implementing the bus franchising powers that are contained in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 by introducing, without delay, the regulations and statutory guidance that are required to give bus franchising powers full effect; by amending the 2019 act to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner, instead empowering regional transport partnerships to have the final say on approving proposals; and by providing additional funding to support RTPs in preparing franchising frameworks and to assist them with initial set-up costs once frameworks are approved.
I remind those who are joining us today of the remarks that I made a moment ago about campaigning material, which seems to have quietly moved into camera shot during that short interval. I like a bit of pantomime.
I would never have guessed.
Mr Harvie would never have guessed. We will quickly move on to welcoming the colleagues who have joined us to consider this petition: the aforementioned Patrick Harvie and Paul Sweeney. Good morning to you both.
We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the seven statutory regional transport partnerships, the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland, Bus Users Scotland, the traffic commissioner for Scotland, the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Transport for Wales, UK ministers, the Law Society of Scotland and key bus operators in Scotland. I am sure that some of those suggestions were made to us at the time by Mr Sweeney, who was never short of a list of people who we might like to contact.
Many of the submissions that we received recognised the value of franchising, although several of them highlighted work to explore more appropriate avenues within the broader
“toolbox of options for improving bus provisions”
that was included in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. Some submissions suggested that no one model would fully satisfy local needs, and the view was expressed that bus franchising was less likely to be the most appropriate option for rural areas.
Views were mixed on the petition’s ask to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner. SWestrans supported that, while Strathclyde Partnership for Transport recognised that the process is now enshrined in law and expressed some concern that any change might result in further significant delay and introduce more risks for any local transport authority that is considering a franchising framework. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland argued against a local transport authority approving its own proposal and suggested that more robust guidance regarding panel members would be a better solution.
Many welcomed the reintroduction of the bus infrastructure fund for 2025-26, although the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland argued that, with any financial support that is provided to Scotland’s local transport authorities, all options should be considered with a view to meeting local needs.
The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee undertook extensive scrutiny of the issue of franchising, including in relation to the secondary legislation that the petition asks for, when the most recent regulations were introduced ahead of the summer recess.
In a response to the convener of the NZET Committee on 25 June 2025, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity explained that the draft statutory guidance was undergoing an internal review ahead of final engagement with stakeholders. The minister added that final timescales for publication
“will depend on the capacity of these stakeholders to consider and engage with the draft document.”
The minister also indicated that the Government has no plans to modify the franchising process, arguing that the current model
“provides for rigorous scrutiny of local transport authority franchising proposals to safeguard the protection of passengers and the wider bus network from potential damage of a poorly developed franchise.”?
Before I invite committee colleagues to consider how we might proceed in the light of all that I have said, I invite Patrick Harvie and Paul Sweeney to make some comments to the committee.
Thank you, convener. Good morning. I appreciate that you have told us that we are tight for time and that you are focused on deciding whether to keep petitions open, in the hope that substantial progress will be made in the remaining time available in this session. I would like to argue that it is urgent to get some clarity during the current session on how we can move forward with bus franchising.
The committee is well aware from its previous consideration that Parliament has already legislated in favour of allowing a local approach to franchising and that it is Scottish Government policy to allow a local approach to the development of franchising. Moreover, it has recently been announced that SPT has decided to press ahead with its proposals on franchising. In the area that I represent, this is a matter of parliamentary consent, national Government policy and local intention.
SPT’s consultation showed very strong public support for that approach: 83 per cent of respondents said that they were not satisfied with the current situation and that they supported franchising. In fact, the loudest voices that are against it are those of the people who have made themselves very wealthy by operating the current system, which does not have public support and is not meeting people’s needs.
Despite the existence of national policy, legislation that has been agreed by Parliament, local intention and public support, there are still significant barriers to franchising. Notwithstanding the recent decision on the regulations that the convener referred to, there remain barriers to progressing a franchising model and a lack of clarity on the degree of political and financial support that will be available from central Government to enable us to make progress.
If we do not get some clarity and some clear recommendations before the end of this session, I fear that there is a real risk that it will be the 2030s before people in Scotland, including in the area that I represent, are able to benefit from Scotland’s catching up with those other parts of the UK that are already well ahead of us when it comes to operating bus services in the public interest.
I ask the committee either to make a recommendation itself or to refer the matter back to the NZET Committee and to seek a clear and specific set of recommendations on how, in the next session, Parliament will remove the barriers that exist and provide the support that is necessary to enable much more rapid progress to be made.
Thank you, Mr Harvie.
It is a pleasure to join you again in support of the petition. The unanimity that SPT has shown in progressing the Strathclyde regional bus strategy, with support from parliamentarians across the region, demonstrates the level of public will to see a bus franchise implemented across Strathclyde, particularly in the greater Glasgow urban core. However, as is identified by the petitioner, the regional transport authority faces constraints—particularly resource constraints—in implementing the franchise. SPT has estimated that it will cost £50 million to complete the complex processes that are set out in the act. Of course, if the act were simplified, as the petitioner has suggested, in line with the 2017 act covering the rest of the UK, the cost could be reduced. SPT has set aside £12 million in reserves to finance that work, but it estimates that, between 2028 and 2031, it will cost £100 million to £200 million to roll out bus franchising. Therefore, there are resource constraints that have not really been addressed, which might delay the implementation of the franchise.
The Government has identified the Clyde metro as a major investment priority in the context of the strategic transport projects review, and bus franchising will clearly underpin an effective Clyde metro. Therefore, there is a need to move bus franchising forward at pace, because the transport authority needs to get ahead, and the Government needs to be in synchronicity with the transport authority in the region to allow that. We cannot waste any more time. We have already had significant delays in getting bus franchising off the ground, relative to other major British cities.
My suggestion is that the committee consider bringing the Cabinet Secretary for Transport in, to inquire in detail about the resourcing of the franchising process and simplification of the legislation where appropriate, as well as—as my colleague Mr Harvie suggested—referring the petition to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, which I understand has some capacity to consider the matter in more detail before dissolution. There could be an opportunity for collaboration between this committee and the NZET Committee.
Colleagues will note that we have enjoyed the presence of the convener of said committee during our consideration of matters this morning.
Do colleagues have suggestions of how we might proceed in the light of the responses that we have received and the appeals that have been made to us?
If we dive into this matter at present, when the funding is not secure, we could be on very thin ice. In order for a proposal to go ahead, you need to ensure that the funding is secured to sustain it, because it is a significant change. There is no point unless the funding is secured.
I agree. Plainly, you cannot press the button on a project until you are really certain about how much it will cost and what the design and the timescale will be. This building is an example of what can go wrong when you try to go ahead prematurely instead of festina lente, as the Romans might have said.
It has been brought to my attention by the submission from McGill’s—I have no judgment on or prior knowledge of this—that, as it says, the experts have costed the funding requirements for the SPT case at between £45 million and £400 million. I imagine that our colleagues here would disagree with that. However, the fact that McGill’s avers that experts say that that is the case means that, were the committee to take the petition further, we would have to pursue a very full investigation. With the best will in the world, I do not honestly think that we have the capacity or the time to do that. It is just a matter of fact that, between now and next year, we do not have the time to take evidence from all the people from whom we would require to take evidence.
Given that there is serious doubt about the cost, that there are severe pressures on finance—as has been pointed out, there is a massive shortfall in local government finance—and that people who are losing their jobs in some local authorities might regard their jobs as a greater priority than a scheme that has not yet been costed, I cannot see that we can do much today other than urge the petitioner to come back in the next session of Parliament and to continue to press the Government to work with SPT and other colleagues to devise a solution.
11:15
We received a late submission from McGill’s, but I imagine that it might be one of the parties to which Mr Harvie referred earlier—I say that just because he might have tried to catch my eye otherwise. Do any other colleagues want to comment?
I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, as Mr Ewing and Mr Russell have highlighted, such a move would require funding. Moreover, the Scottish Government has reiterated that there is no plan to modify the current franchising process.
In closing the petition, we should do two things. First, we should write to the net zero committee—it is helpful that its convener is present today.
That does not mean that he is listening.
I am trying not to. [Laughter.]
He will listen once we have written to him.
Secondly, we should highlight to the petitioner that there is an opportunity to submit a new petition in the next parliamentary session.
This is quite an interesting petition, which is why it has attracted a considerable degree of interest and engagement. The Scottish Government has reiterated that it has no plans to modify the current franchising process, so there does not seem to be any movement from the Government at this point on that aspect of the petition.
I hear what colleagues have said. Is it our view that it is likely that we will be unable to take the petition forward but that another committee of the Parliament might be able to pick up on aspects of it in the lifetime of this parliamentary session? If so, as Mr Golden suggests, we would write to the convener of that committee while closing the petition and would potentially suggest to the petitioner that it might be useful to return to Parliament with such a petition in the next parliamentary session. We have only something like half a dozen further meetings of the committee, so we are quite constrained. Are we agreed on that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
I think that we are, although it is not entirely the outcome that our colleagues would have wished for. I am slightly reluctant about our conclusion.
Mr Harvie is keen to come back in.
Convener, I acknowledge what you say about it being the Government’s stated intention that it does not wish to make changes to the legislative and regulatory process at the moment. However, the committee will recall that the vote in Parliament on those regulations was on an absolute knife edge, so we must accept that, although that decision has been made, a very strong counter case exists.
Moreover, the petition is not only about the regulatory and legislative framework; it is also about the level of resource and support that is necessary to allow the local, publicly supported intention to be taken forward. Beyond the legislative and regulatory aspects, on which the Government does not intend to make changes, there are aspects that will require further progress and movement from the Government, and I think that the committee still has the opportunity to secure that movement in the last months of this session.
Another committee might be able to do more than we can, given the limited scope that there will be for us to return to the issues that are raised in the petition.
Ordinarily, I would not invite our colleagues to debate the matter with me, but I will bring Mr Sweeney back in.
I draw the committee’s attention to the fact that, in June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £15.6 billion investment in public transport for English city regions, with each receiving around £1 billion to £2.5 billion over the next five years to deliver or enhance bus franchising and to deliver new bus infrastructure. That will result in a Barnett consequential of approximately £1.3 billion, so the position is not as fatalistic as the committee might have assumed initially. There is a significant envelope of investment, and we are not aware of what the Government will do with it.
There could perhaps be an opportunity for the committee or the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to drill down into exactly what the Government’s intentions are for that consequential, particularly in relation to Strathclyde’s well-advanced proposals for bus franchising to enable it to catch up with those other city regions. It might be prudent for the committee to hold the petition open until it at least receives a response from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee about the way it intends to proceed.
I have a dreadful feeling that my sympathy for this matter is drawing me deeper into an abyss. Is Mr Mountain trying to catch my eye?
I was, indeed. I hear these calls and I have heard them in the committee before. I cannot answer at the moment whether the net zero committee can look into the issue, but I cannot see there being any capacity for that in the committee’s programme between now and the end of the parliamentary session. You may wish to write to the committee, and the committee will consider doing that. However, I am gently saying that there is a climate change plan that is behind schedule, there are carbon budgets still to agree and there is an ecocide bill that is already with the committee. I do not want to discourage people from doing things, but, realistically, the problems that this committee faces on petitions are multiplied in the net zero committee because of the lateness of the climate change plan.
Okay. I am reluctantly coming to the view that, if that is the case, and given the limited time that we have, the route will have to be that we invite the petitioners to bring a fresh petition to the next session of Parliament. I do not say that happily, but that is the conclusion that I am drawn to. I am not sure that exercising the suggestion of writing to the NZET Committee would progress matters. Are colleagues reluctantly content with that position?
Members indicated agreement.
I apologise to the petitioner. Writing to the NZET Committee would have been our strong recommendation, but I feel that we are boxed in on this particular issue. There are one or two other petitions that are still open, which we can directly make progress on, and it would be at their expense if we were not now to come to some difficult decisions.
I thank everybody for their contributions on the petition, but that is the decision of the committee.
Flood Risk Management (PE2118)
Petition PE2118, lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and to improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.
We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Government. The Government’s response confirms that its approach to flood risk management planning complies with the European Union floods directive and that its approach to river basin management planning complies with the EU water framework directive.
On our question regarding a single body being responsible for, and appointed to provide leadership on, river basin management, the Government reiterated that SEPA is responsible for the preparation of river basin management plans on behalf of Scottish ministers and that it is legally required to engage with stakeholders and consult with communities on flood risk management plans.
The response concludes that ministers are satisfied with the current strategic framework, and it highlights the publication of the Government’s flood resilience strategy last December.?The strategy will establish a flood advisory service that is designed to provide the framework and process for flood protection schemes, as well as support to communities.
On our question regarding membership of local advisory groups, SEPA showed that those include representatives from various disciplines and organisations but not engineers, economists or geomorphologists as stand-alone members. However, SEPA indicated various ways in which it collaborates with such technical experts throughout the flood risk management planning process.
In his latest submission, the petitioner suggests that SEPA’s flood maps are inaccurate and have no community input and that locally commissioned reports are ignored despite containing more flood scheme options. The petitioner highlights that SEPA consults with organisations that have no legal responsibilities for flooding but does not engage major landowners in the process.
I should say that I have been in contact with Mr Jim Mackie, who, I believe, has been involved with the petition, or at least with issues surrounding the petition. As far as I can see, the petitioner responded on 15 January 2025, and I cannot see any further response to that. I mention that in case I am wrong, but the papers before me do not show any response to the petitioner. If I am wrong, maybe the clerks could let me know.
The reason why that seems significant is that the petitioner’s submission of 15 January contains some serious criticisms of SEPA—that its maps are inaccurate, that it does not give out any flood prevention advice, that it stymies schemes, that it makes it almost impossible to get sediment and gravel out of rivers, that it does not address the considerable barriers to doing any prevention work, that it does not involve communities at all—there is no community input whatsoever—and that it does not have a remit to assist communities in the design or building of flood defences. I mention only a few of the criticisms, as we do not have time to go through all of them. When a petitioner raises salient and serious criticisms, our job is to try to get answers. I know that there is pressure to close all petitions, but, in this case, I think that it would be very simple to ask SEPA to deliver a detailed response to each and every one of the petitioner’s various serious allegations.
The last thing that I will say is that I recently had a constituency case in which a scheme for affordable housing—around 20 units—took about 10 years to get through SEPA. It was supposed to be in a flooding area, but the houses were going to be built higher up than existing houses that have never been flooded—the development was in Nethy Bridge, where there has been no flooding since 1837. SEPA was a constant stumbling block to any progress whatsoever.
In rural Scotland—I am sure that Mr Mountain has experience of this—when you try to do things that everyone wants to do, such as build affordable housing, the proposals are blocked behind the scenes by quangos that will not come out and meet people, will not explain their actions and will rely solely on desktop information. I add that local anecdote merely by way of spice to support the petitioner’s criticism of SEPA.
I do not think that it would take up much more of the committee’s time if we were to wait for SEPA to provide the petitioner with a detailed forensic reply to every single one of his criticisms, and that would take matters further.
It is always a pleasure to shine a light on the events of 1837.
I agree with Mr Ewing and support the general idea of writing to SEPA, although perhaps not quite in the manner in which my colleague suggested. Nonetheless, the pertinent points have been made.
I think that the issue goes back to the question behind many petitions, which is about who is responsible. That question was raised earlier in relation to RAAC.
I have seen the issues that the petitioner raises in Angus. In 2023, Milton of Finavon was flooded and, a year later, no measures had been put in place to protect the community. Subsequently, in the past year, there has been some support from Angus Council as well as from Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, for which I thank them. However, it was only by the grace of God that we did not have a bad storm season in 2024. The situation is unacceptable.
The Scottish Government has said that the governance structure for assisting communities with flood risk management is adequate, but that is not what I hear on the ground. I hear that it is slow, that there are limited opportunities for action and that no one is taking responsibility for what needs to be done. I think that, in addition to following Mr Ewing’s suggestion, we should write to the Scottish Government, asking how it is monitoring the governance structure and the interaction between communities and SEPA, local authorities and landowners, where appropriate.
I will add the observation that SEPA has not been responding to the petitioner’s submissions or directly on the issues that have been raised, which is not atypical. The Scottish Government should understand that that is so.
It is par for the course, convener.
Yes, it appears to be typical.
Are we content to proceed on the basis that has been outlined?
Members indicated agreement.
Roadside Litter (PE2121)
PE2121, which was lodged by Carolyn Philip, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to run a campaign targeted at companies to raise awareness of the harms that are caused by roadside litter and the penalties that can be brought against responsible parties. We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.
We are joined by our colleague Rachael Hamilton. Welcome, Rachael—I spotted you in the gallery, waiting for the sun to burst forth on the interest that you take in the matter.
We have received a written submission from Transport Scotland that states that, as there has been an increase in discarded litter over the past few years, it believes that there needs to be a change of mindset and a campaign undertaken to discourage people from dropping litter. It continues:
“We will work with our Operating Companies, Keep Scotland Beautiful and Zero Waste Scotland to run a campaign targeted at companies and also the public to raise awareness of the harms caused by roadside litter and the legislation that is in place to penalise those who drop litter.”
The Scottish Government’s response lists the organisations that have delivered publicly funded litter prevention campaigns and details the funding that has been provided to roadside litter campaigns since 2007. The response also states that the Scottish Government remains committed to the principle that extended producer responsibility—EPR—for packaging should cover the full net costs of both binned and ground litter clear-up and disposal. The submission notes that the EPR scheme administrator is expected to set out its plans for public information campaigns and its strategy, and the specific activities that it proposes to conduct for the coming year in its operational plan.
Before I invite colleagues to decide what we might do with the petition—I note that it would appear that Transport Scotland wants to take forward the objective that is contained in it—I invite our colleague Rachael Hamilton to say a few words.
Thank you, convener. You are absolutely right to note that the sun bursting through on this September day is relevant to the petition, as I think of driving along the A1 as the urine-filled bottles by the side of the road glint in the sun, along with all the rubbish.
That brings me to the substance of the petitioners’ targeted campaign. In February, when the petition was last before you, I highlighted the tremendous voluntary efforts to clear Scotland’s roadsides. Groups such as the Berwickshire anti-litter group, which is led by Carolyn Phillip and Myra Watson—who are, I am glad to say, here in the gallery today—and many others across the country dedicate their free time to tackling what Keep Scotland Beautiful has rightly described as a litter emergency.
In Berwickshire alone, volunteers are out on the aforementioned A1 and in local lay-bys week after week, simply because they care about the environment and their local community. I joined the Berwickshire anti-litter group in Duns in April and, in just one hour, we filled a bag with litter weighing 7.3kg. That is proof of how much can be collected in just a short space of time. It was rewarding, but the situation is frustrating for the volunteers, because we know that the litter is going to return very quickly. That is why we need systemic action and not just good will.
Since February, the committee has received fresh submissions on the petition. Transport Scotland has recognised that roadside litter is increasing, that clean-ups are futile without behavioural change and that a campaign is needed to discourage people and companies from discarding their waste on our roads. The Scottish Government’s response acknowledges the role of commercial vehicles, and I recognise that section 18 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 provides for civil penalties when litter escapes from vehicles, even unintentionally. That is a welcome step, but it must be matched with communication and enforcement.
The petition does not ask for the earth. It calls for a targeted awareness campaign to ensure that companies understand their responsibilities and the penalties that apply.
We know from previous campaigns, such as the “Give your litter a lift” and “Scotland is stunning, let’s keep it that way” campaigns, that well-designed messaging can shift behaviour. However, in recent years, there has been no consistent national campaign focused on roadside litter, despite strong public demand and cross-party support. We cannot keep relying on volunteers such as Myra and Carolyn. The Scottish Government is delaying taking action, and the petitioner is right: we just need definitive action. A targeted roadside litter awareness campaign is overdue, and I urge the committee to support the petition.
If I may say so, your specialised knowledge of the contents of bottles on the A1 is impressive, if alarming. I thank you for your contribution.
Do members have any suggestions for action? I note again that Transport Scotland proposes to take forward the aims of the petition.
I totally agree with what Rachael Hamilton said. In a former life, I was the director of roads, transport and environmental services for Glasgow and, every now and again, we had the sort of campaigns that she suggests, working with Keep Scotland Beautiful and Zero Waste Scotland. Those worked to a reasonable extent, but education is also really important. We need to get to the kids so that they chastise their parents for throwing stuff out of the car window. We did not have the budget to carry through on the educational part, which links to what Rachael said. It is all right to have processes for cleaning and emptying bins, but that is not where we need to be. We need education so that people do not do litter: that is the bottom line. We need a mindset change, and the only way to get that is through education.
I welcome those comments. We now have a situation in which Transport Scotland has acquiesced to the petitioner’s request and will run a campaign, which will be targeted at companies and the public, to raise awareness of the harms that are caused by roadside litter, with legislation being in place to penalise those who drop litter. On that basis, and in a positive sense, I recommend that we close the petition in line with rule 15.7 of standing orders.
Are members content with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner and hope that we have achieved some progress on the petition. If that progress fails to materialise or satisfy, we very much encourage the petitioner to come back to Parliament during the next session and tell us that that is so.
I guessed that that was what committee members would say today. I am really grateful for what has been done to gather information on some of the steps that will be taken in light of the circular economy act. However, I am concerned that the national litter and fly tipping strategy delivery group
“recognises that there is an interest in a campaign on litter”
but says that
“it is not currently something that can be achieved within the resources available to delivery partners”.
I put that on the record because it is really important. The Government cannot say that it is going to do something but then not allocate the resource to carry out that commitment.
That comment is duly on the record, as you hoped.
Digital Connectivity Plan (Highlands and Islands) (PE2127)
PE2127, which was lodged by John Robert Erskine—who was formerly media officer to this committee—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands with the aims of addressing digital infrastructure gaps, improving mobile internet coverage, establishing public-private partnerships and supporting economic growth, education and healthcare.
We last considered the petition on 19 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response that we received says that the Government has no plans to develop a distinct digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. It explains that there is substantial on-going activity to improve connectivity across the region but that it is not apparent that developing a separate approach for the Highlands and Islands in isolation would add any immediate value.
The response points out that the Scottish Government will be publishing a refreshed digital strategy, taking into account connectivity priorities and a new national islands plan, that will integrate digital connectivity with other key priorities, making a separate connectivity plan unnecessary.
Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
I understand the connectivity difficulties, particularly in rural areas but even in urban ones, and I appreciate that the petitioner must be frustrated by them. Ultimately, however, and with a heavy heart, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plan to develop a distinct digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. It will publish a new Highlands and Islands plan this year—any month now—that will integrate digital connectivity with other key priorities, and it will also publish a refreshed digital strategy that will take connectivity priorities into account.
If colleagues are content to proceed on that basis, we will close the petition.
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
HealthcareNext
New Petitions