Chamber and committees

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.

The ways in which the legislation is applied by local authorities vary considerably. Anecdotally, I have experienced that, in many cases, it is not enforced at all. Nonetheless, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, although the Scottish Government had considered designating specific roads for pavement parking bans, as the petition highlights, it decided that that would cause confusion and put pavement users at risk. Furthermore, the decision to allow exemptions for narrower roads is one for local authorities. Finally, the parking standards group can address further concerns and clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.

I am concerned that the Scottish Government has indicated that, due to “on-going developments”, it has been unable to produce its energy strategy. In my entire time working in the energy sector, I do not think that there has ever been a time when there have not been “on-going developments” in some part of the sector. I do not see that as any reason for what has been a two-and-a-half-year stall on the strategy.

I stand to be corrected. If, over the past 15 years, there has been a point when there has been no on-going development in the sector, the Scottish Government will surely write to the committee about that.

Given that two and a half years have passed, with agencies and dozens of civil service staff poring over the strategy, the Scottish Government could, at the very least, provide information on where it is with the strategy, producing an “energy strategy 1.0”, rather than risking further delay, even though the strategy will need to be updated. I would certainly offer my help to the Government in delivering that.

The issue should be added as part of the thematic session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, which is looking a lot more interesting after today’s discussion.

I appreciate where the petitioner is coming from, but I certainly feel that the ask might be counterintuitive in some respects with regard to the application of the waste hierarchy and the circular economy.

Looking at the legislative programme, I note that the circular economy legislation was passed in 2024, and the Scottish Government is currently developing a strategy that would consider the petitioner’s ask in the round. I would say to the petitioner, though, that I am very frustrated at the progress that has been made in that respect. A circular economy strategy was produced in 2016; since then, the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation, the sum total of which is to produce another strategy a decade after the previous one.

Nonetheless, we are where we are, and I hope that the Scottish Government, in producing and delivering the strategy, will be able to meet the petitioner’s general asks. On that basis, I recommend closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I have two quick follow-up questions on that. It is often new start-up companies and entrepreneurs that are getting involved in the health tech sector and, in my experience, NHS boards have historically tended to associate too much risk in relation to contracting with those. I understand that—you obviously need to engage to be at the forefront, but doing so carries a significant risk. I am keen to hear your thoughts on the risk matrix.

My concern with the app is in regard to the timescale for the roll-out, assuming that that is successful, because the technology that sits behind it might well become outdated. For a historical example, it is like developing a web-based system. By the time that you have gone through all the protocols and controls and worked it up, no one is using a web-based system any more. What are your thoughts on that?

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.

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 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.