Chamber and committees

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that it is expected that draft regulations will be laid this year and that an alkaline hydrolysis regulations working group has been established and has begun exploring issues to inform the development of the draft regulations.

I agree with Mr Torrance. However, in the next parliamentary session, it might be helpful for the petitioner to look at the effectiveness of the ban. I note that the petition called for a full or partial ban. I would agree that, in practical terms, the current ban is a partial ban and there are, unfortunately, numerous shops in Scotland where people can still buy disposable vapes.

I agree with the member’s comments. We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, given the time constraints and the likely requirement for an exemption under the UK 2020 act, the Scottish Government’s track record with regard to exemptions under that act, and the lack of the delegation of powers and governance in relation to the application of that act in the UK, the timescales mean that the committee could not progress the petition before the end of the parliamentary session. However, in closing the petition, I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government regarding how, from a circular economy point of view, it might look to tackle the issue of disposable barbecues and to ask whether it has engaged, or plans to engage, on that specific issue with the UK Government, including on guidance, as the member highlighted.

The petitioner might want to consider whether it is worth while lodging a new petition in the next session, and, if so, to consider the fact that, were we to ban disposable barbecues, it would be relatively simple to redesign said barbecues to make them reusable. As the member will know, we already have examples, such as hexamine stoves. With regard to tackling wildfires, a ban on disposable barbecues would take us no further forward. There would still be a risk; it is just that the risk would be from a reusable, rather than a disposable, product.

The aim of the petition, which is to ban ultra-processed food in school meals, is quite a big ask. Nonetheless, the response from the Scottish Government is extremely disappointing. As you have highlighted, convener, the Scottish Government says that an outright ban on ultra-processed food would mean that products such as bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals would no longer be provided in schools. I cannot fathom how that would be the case, and I am happy to provide the Scottish Government with examples of bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed and that can be provided.

It would be helpful for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a percentage of school meals to be provided that are fresh, which is one of the Scottish Government’s priorities. I know what I would consider to be sustainable, but it would be useful for the Scottish Government to define “sustainable produce”. We should, as I have highlighted, ask the Scottish Government whether it believes that there are no alternatives to bread, yoghurt and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed. Finally, if the Scottish Government could highlight and put in the public domain the data on how it monitors the local authority provision of school menus, that would at least help to inform consideration of the petition.

In addition, we might want to consider writing to the providers of school meals, given the position that we are in and our need to progress quickly. For example, in my region, Tayside Contracts would be one such provider that we could ask for similar information. It is important that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have an overview of school meal provision across Scotland.

I agree with Mr Russell. However, we should highlight to the petitioner that the Scottish Government intending to introduce a bill in the next Parliament should not be grounds for any solace. There are instances in which the Scottish Government has said that it would introduce a bill in the same session, while it is in government, and has not done so. A commitment for a future Government, when we do not know the make-up of it, should not be grounds for such consideration. Nevertheless, the wider issue of legal aid is incredibly challenging and it needs to be looked at by the next Scottish Government.

As per your remarks, convener, the Scottish Government is ultimately committed to meeting the ask of the petitioner, which is a positive result. Therefore, I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is of the view that existing legislation takes into account the needs of communities that wish to establish a denominational school, and that the current framework for decision making around the establishment of a denominational school is sufficient.

I recommend that the committee closes the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, although the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, it considers that they can be achieved only in the long term. Furthermore, sentencing is a matter for the courts. Finally, the sentencing and penal policy commission is currently examining the effectiveness of sentencing and community interventions.

Given the stage of the parliamentary session, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, as the convener highlighted, the Scottish Government has reiterated its commitment to the Verity house agreement and thereby will not intervene in decisions regarding the hire of public land owned by local authorities.

I highlight to the committee and to anyone else who is watching that in my voluntary declaration of interests there is an entry that highlights a trip by Conservative Friends of Israel to Israel in 2016.