Chamber and committees

The committee has no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, primarily on the basis that, first, the Scottish safety camera programme allows local communities to request a flexible or short-term deployment of a safety camera at areas of road safety concern; secondly, a site prioritisation process is undertaken each year to determine new safety camera sites across the road network; and finally, enforcement of speed limits is an operational matter for the police. I would urge the petitioner to pursue those routes in the first instance.

With regard to making it a mandatory legal requirement to have speed cameras in front of all schools next to major roads, I am thinking off the top of my head about where that might be applied. Most of the schools that I can think of already have traffic lights, and the danger to pupils, staff and those who pick up usually comes from some form of pavement parking or otherwise. If I think of Kirkhill primary, Mearns Castle high school and Williamwood high school, I would say that it is on the surrounding roads—Broom Road East and Waterfoot Road—where the speeds might be up. However, that would not necessarily be happening close to the schools. I suggest that, if another petition was considered that looked beyond the mechanisms that have been outlined here, it might have more applicability if it focused on specific schools that require such mediation with regard to speeding.

First, I would like to say that the goats are very cute, and I find it bizarre that we are protecting seagulls, which attack humans, and not these lovely, cute goats.

Unfortunately, I believe that the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, as the convener has highlighted, amendments relating to the petition were lodged at stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and, ultimately, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee decided that these precious little animals required no additional protection. That, along with the Scottish Government’s view that it has no plans to provide full legal protected status for feral goats, means that we have no other choice, unfortunately, but to close the petition.

I agree with all the comments that have been made. By way of advice to the petitioner on lodging a new petition, I say that, like colleagues, I have experienced broadly the same complaints from constituents, but I gently point out that remote diagnosing, for example, can be extremely beneficial in rural communities. Indeed, pioneering work is going on at the University of Dundee that will allow remote surgeries where the technology is apparent. That is wonderful for rural communities.

There is a lot in the petition and if the petitioner is considering lodging a new one, perhaps there should be some consideration of what asks are reasonable and could be pursued by the new committee in the next session.

I am sympathetic to the aims of the petition, but, ultimately, as you have highlighted, the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, primarily, the Scottish Government does not plan to subsidise or distribute sensory aids. Furthermore, the Scottish Government has indicated that existing funding frameworks can be, and have been, used by existing providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids to deliver those services. Finally, local authorities and health boards may additionally choose to fund relevant services based on user needs and, in addition, based on their available budgets, which is a critical point in all this.

Unfortunately, because the aims of the petitioner have not been acquiesced to as yet, the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the national fertility group is considering options for expanding NHS IVF treatment for single people—so at least there is a possibility of action from that. Beyond that group’s work on IVF, the Scottish Government has not indicated that work to expand other fertility treatments to single people will take place.

I am cheering this petition on, as are, I am sure, all the beagles, bloodhounds, Labradors, shepherds, terriers and springer spaniels, who ultimately, to use the old adage, reap what we sow. It feels as if some of those excellent companions are not receiving what they should for the value that they clearly put into society.

However, given where we are in the current parliamentary session, and despite my personal views, I think that the committee has to close the petition at this stage under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, first, the Scottish Government’s current priority for the fairer funding pilot is to provide funding to third sector organisations that focus on front-line services and child poverty. That could potentially be expanded, as the petitioner suggests. Secondly, the Scottish Government intends to deliver an interim assessment of the pilot by May 2026 to potentially build the case for further multiyear funding arrangements. As a result of that, if there is to be any progress in this area, it will have to be in the next session, with a new petition.

My personal view is that the legal aid system is a farce and that the situation with regard to the petition is disappointing. Nonetheless, the committee has no choice other than to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government claims that it has taken some short-term actions to improve access to legal aid. Perhaps that claim should be tested.

The Government has also indicated that long-term work is being done to inform the development of legal aid reform legislation in a future parliamentary session. I would welcome the petitioner resubmitting the petition in the next session of Parliament to test that claim, too. Furthermore, the Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a review of the civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse. Again, that could be looked at in the next session. The Government has also said that it is the policy of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to proactively seek the views of the victim when prosecutors decide whether to oppose an application to revoke or vary a non-harassment order.

As colleagues and the petitioner have suggested, vaping more generally is now a major crisis that we face not just in Scotland but across the UK. As the convener said, vapes were initially introduced as a cessation tool, but the position has changed for the next generation of those growing up—in many schools in Scotland, the use of vapes is commonplace, including in toilets, and it is considered to have no risk. There are wider implications relating to access to vapes, particularly for under-18s, and to the flavours—I presume that unicorn flavour and other such flavours are not targeted at over-18s.

Lots of work will need to be done in this area, including what the petitioner has suggested, by the committee in the next parliamentary session. There are two categories of actions. The first relates to cessation tools for people to go from tobacco to vapes or nicotine-based products such as patches. I think that the issues should be considered in the round when such a petition comes our way.

There is potential for the committee to keep the petition open, but my preference is for a new petition to be lodged and for the new committee to consider the wider issues rather than just the specific issue that is raised in the current petition. Therefore, I think that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, for the reasons that colleagues have highlighted and on the basis that current NHS guidance states that users of nicotine-based products should be able to access licensed smoking cessation products and that users of non-nicotine e-cigarettes and vapes can be referred to non-pharmacy specialist smoking cessation services. The reality is that I would be shocked if many of the children who are currently using vapes in schools across Scotland are accessing said services.

More generally, there is an issue with homelessness that we would all want to be rectified. On the petitions that we are considering today, it might be worth highlighting for anyone listening that, if any committee member articulates what the Scottish Government is stating, that is not an endorsement of that statement. It should be regarded as just a statement of fact and not a position of agreement or otherwise.

We should close the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has stated that there are no plans to pay for homeless temporary accommodation or waive outstanding debts. Furthermore, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers does not think that there is any case for the Scottish Government to take on the cost of funding temporary accommodation or write off existing arrears.

The issue warrants further consideration, but, unfortunately, the committee will not be able to give it that consideration at this point in the parliamentary session. We come back, again, to the term “sustainability”, this time in respect of the gannet population, but, ultimately, the committee has to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on this particular island, whose name I struggle to pronounce.