Chamber and committees

Okay. That is noted.

Great. We will note that, too. I thank the petitioner.

So, we have a set of actions that involve writing to the Scottish Government, COSLA, Connect and the centre for public policy at the University of Glasgow.

In the light of my casework, I do think that this is an issue, particularly where there are awkward local authority boundaries—I am thinking of the boundary between Glasgow and East Dunbartonshire and potentially between West Dunbartonshire and Glasgow. There are areas where the geography is very tight and can produce bizarre situations, so I think that this will be a useful thing to do.

I thank the petitioner.

That will ensure that we do not duplicate any work. I think that there is significant interest in this. It might also be something to note as a potential topic for a committee debate in due course.

There is strong overlap between petitions PE2230 and PE2231, so grouping them in the correspondence makes sense. Generally, if we are progressing this issue as a committee, we should liaise with the committees that Julie MacDougall mentioned. We have noted the particular stakeholders to correspond with, along with the Government, and we will wait to see their responses. I think that, if it is to be a debate topic in due course, there will be strong interest from members across the Parliament.

Those are a good set of actions. I thank the committee members, colleagues who are in the public gallery and the clerks for all the work that they do. That concludes today’s meeting.

Meeting closed at 11:04.

In light of what David Green and Julie McDougall have said, I think that it is important to keep the petition open and refer it to another committee. I understand that the Rural Affairs Committee is considering an inquiry into outdoor access. The petition seems timely in light of that work. Perhaps it would most appropriately sit with that committee in the first instance, although we note some of the proposed actions.

If members are in agreement, we will refer the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee, noting some of the suggested actions in correspondence, and see how that committee progresses with it. If the petitioner is not satisfied that that committee has made enough headway with the petition, they will be entitled in due course to seek that it be referred back to us. That would be a good move.

Members indicated agreement.

I appreciate your taking the time to make representations. Good luck with your next meeting.

Those comments related to PE2226 and PE2227, which is the one on ballot issues in relation to BIDs that we will hear about shortly. Do members have views, particularly on PE2226 on levies?

Our first and only item of business is consideration of new petitions. We have 13 new petitions to discuss today.

Our first petition, PE2217, which was lodged by Johnny Lee Kimberley and published on 24 June, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the Food Standards Agency hygiene scale that is used in England and to make display of the scale mandatory in all food establishments. The petitioner highlights their experience of anxiety in relation to food hygiene and their belief that the current pass or fail scheme does not provide enough information for consumers.

The Scottish Parliament information centre’s briefing on the petition explains that food hygiene and food standards are devolved, with Food Standards Scotland having responsibility for food hygiene in Scotland. The briefing sets out that the legal framework, consumer information system, rating scale and rules on displaying ratings differ across the United Kingdom. For example, a six-point food hygiene rating scale is used in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas businesses in Scotland are either awarded a pass if they have met the legal requirements for food hygiene or given an “improvement needed” rating if they do not meet the legal requirements and need to make improvements.

The Scottish Government’s submission on the petition confirms that provision for mandatory display already exists in the Food (Scotland) Act 2015. The response highlights that consideration of whether to make the display of compliance ratings mandatory would require significant consultation with stakeholders. The Government confirms that the introduction of such mandatory signage would include a review of whether the pass and “improvement required” classifications continued to meet the needs of consumers.

The Government’s response highlights that the Scottish authorities food enforcement rebuild—SAFER—programme will explore new methods to advise consumers of compliance standards, including mandatory display.

Do committee members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Exactly. I am sure that the Education and Gaelic Committee will be looking into the issue, and there will be an opportunity for the petitioner to engage with that process. We will certainly keep an eye on that. I hope that the petitioner is listening in to the meeting and will take note.

Our next petition is PE2224, which was lodged by Robin Pettigrew and published on 2 July 2026. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the legislation that concerns the Scottish outdoor access code in order to explicitly prohibit camping in a vehicle outside of designated camping zones and to make the provisions of the code legally enforceable by introducing dedicated enforcement teams and fines for code violations.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition explains that part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides for a right to be “on land” or to “cross land” for recreational, educational or commercial purposes. Those rights apply equally to all non-motorised modes of travel—motorised vehicles and vessels are specifically excluded. Further guidance on that is available in the Scottish outdoor access code.

The petitioner lodged a similar petition—PE2191—in the previous session. That petition was considered by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee and was subsequently closed prior to the end of the session on the basis that legal access rights and the outdoor access code were designed to apply only to non-motorised access to land.

The Scottish Government’s written submission on the petition states that it does not intend to extend the scope of access rights legislation or to make the Scottish outdoor access code legally enforceable, because it considers that there are already a range of ways in which irresponsible behaviours, such as those that have been identified by the petitioner, can be addressed. The Government further notes that the Scottish Parliament determined that the Scottish outdoor access code should be established as a voluntary code. In addition, the Scottish Government considers that the promotion and management of responsible access is best delivered through the existing network of local authorities, national park authorities, ranger services, land managers and enforcement agencies.

The petitioner’s submission includes statistical analysis of VisitScotland’s figures in relation to visitor numbers and types of visitors, as well as visitor spends. The petitioner states that the analysis demonstrates that the premise that increased visitor numbers equate to increased visitor spend is flawed.

The Rural Affairs Committee has agreed to undertake a short inquiry into outdoor access.

Before I come to members of the committee, I note that we are joined by our colleague David Green MSP, who has expressed a particular interest in the petition. I invite Mr Green to speak to us.