Chamber and committees

PE2213, which was lodged by Burntisland Hedgehog Haven and published on 17 June, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce small animal road warning signage, as has been done in England. The petitioner would like the sign displayed in areas with high hedgehog populations to help to save a species that is already on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list as near threatened.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition explains that, although the regulation of traffic signs in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish ministers in 2016, the design, size, location and illumination of traffic signs that are used on roads across Great Britain are defined in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The briefing goes on to explain that the UK Government created a standardised small animal sign for use on English roads in 2019 but that the directions were not amended to include the small animal road sign, meaning that it is not a prescribed sign.

The Scottish Government’s response on the petition sets out that Transport Scotland does not support the use of small wild animal signs in Scotland. It states that such signs could confuse or distract drivers, create road safety risks and have an unnecessary visual impact on the landscape. The response explains that, currently, a standard hazard warning sign can be used where there is strong evidence of the need to warn drivers of a specific wildlife risk. That sign might be supplemented by text providing more information about the specific hazard and, where appropriate, the distance over which the risk applies. The response further notes that Transport Scotland is preparing a sectoral biodiversity strategy, which is due to be published later this year and which will set out objectives that are aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

The petitioner’s written submission suggests that any potential confusion for drivers that is caused by the introduction of a new road sign could be mitigated by introducing one standardised sign for small animals rather than having different signs for different species. The submission further notes that hedgehogs are now more likely to live in urban areas than in rural ones and that placing small animal signs in specific places—for example, where people do not necessarily expect small animals to be present—could reduce the number of deaths of such animals.

Do members have a view?

I second that.

Ms Gallacher joins us and is keen to speak on this petition, so I invite her to address the committee.

We have noted your points, Ms Gallacher. Thank you very much for attending today. We will make sure that the petition is carried forward.

I appreciate Mr MacKinnon’s contribution this morning. There is a significant level of public interest in the petition and, given that it has been under consideration for just a year, it might be useful for us as a new committee to gather further evidence on the matters that pertain to it. I appreciate the invitation to visit Ness, which we will certainly consider.

In the first instance, we should keep the petition open and gain further representations from NatureScot, the petitioner and representatives of the local community to further inform our views before coming to a final view on the petition’s longer-term future in the parliamentary session. There is a reasonable balance to strike at this stage. Does everyone agree on that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Again, I appreciate Mr MacKinnon for joining us on behalf of his constituents. We will keep in touch.

Do we want to write in the first instance? Is that your intended action, Marie?

Our next petition is PE1933, published in April 2022 and lodged by the Fornethy Survivors Group, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

In its legacy report, the session 6 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee invited us to consider reviewing what progress has been made on the issues raised by the petition when it comes to considering next steps. The previous committee indicated that that might include pursuing the request for a chamber debate, exploring whether to refer the petition to a committee that is able to undertake substantive work on the issue of redress or seeking an updated view from the Scottish Government.

In her response, the petitioner asks the committee to seek a debate on the matter. The petitioner also refers to the previous Deputy First Minister arranging a meeting between the survivors and Glasgow City Council, which could not proceed due to an active civil court case.

The response from the current Deputy First Minister states that Richard Pugh KC formally apologised at the Scottish child abuse inquiry on behalf of Glasgow City Council. The Deputy First Minister’s response also states that she plans to meet the Fornethy Survivors Group in the coming weeks to hear its views and to determine whether there are any remaining actions that she can support.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Absolutely. That seems a reasonable action and a reasonable position to take at this point. I know that there has been interest in having a debate. I think that there was a members’ business debate previously, and there might be interest in a further debate, which we will certainly bear in mind as well.

Yes, we can seek an update from the petitioner.

I think, on that basis, we will keep the petition open. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.