Chamber and committees

Unfortunately, as we have experienced a number of times over the past decade, the will of the Parliament sometimes overrules our personal views. In this case, the Parliament has spoken. Often, we hear only from the Scottish Government, but when it comes to this petition, it is beneficial that much of what the petitioner suggested has been duly debated and voted on by the Parliament. Unfortunately for the petitioner, members came down against much of what he suggested.

As a result, the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that relate to the petition’s asks have been debated. Additionally, under current regulations, SEPA must assess the risk to the water environment, including the cumulative effects of other activities, when deciding whether to authorise a proposed development. SEPA may not grant authorisation if it considers that a proposal is likely to have a significantly adverse impact on the water environment, unless certain conditions are met.

I appreciate that the decision-making process could undoubtedly be up for debate, but, nonetheless, SEPA is responsible for that. Unfortunately, the committee has done as much as it can with respect to the issue.

The issue is that there is polka dot provision of childcare across Scotland. In some areas, it works very well; in other areas, although provision is there, it might not balance with the needs of the parent or parents and their work schedule. That is incredibly problematic.

I have a lot of concern about the provision but, by the same token, I think that the petitioner would be best served by lodging a new petition after the evaluation report has been produced.

I just wanted to make an additional comment. I agree with the previous comments, but there is a concern that a moratorium on battery energy storage systems might be announced in the next session of Parliament. We had a similar moratorium on incineration facilities earlier this session, after which incineration capacity in Scotland doubled and, indeed, is set to increase even more. Once planning consent is given in this area, it will be extremely difficult for any Government, no matter what statement is made, to withdraw that consent without undermining Scotland’s entire planning system. As a result, the lack of an energy strategy, which has already been highlighted, the lack of guidance in this particular area, and—as we have seen across many petitions—the lack of meaningful community engagement or local empowerment are ultimately detrimental to many communities throughout Scotland, and they are aghast at what is happening.

Not quite. I will try to think of an explosive one for hydrogen, I suppose. I think that it burns with a squeaky pop—is that correct?

In closing the petition, to help the petitioner, could the committee write to the United Nations centre for water law, policy and science, which is based at the University of Dundee, to inquire whether any research is going on in the area? The committee might also flag the earlier petition. If there is research under way—if not at PhD level, it might be at master’s level—it might be helpful for the petitioner to know that work is going on in the area.

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.