Chamber and committees

Good morning. To what extent has Food Standards Scotland achieved its stated outcomes and statutory objectives over the life of its previous strategy?

This is my final question. What particular challenges does your organisation face over the next five years?

You know where I am going now. Could you describe and explain the mission and outcomes of the new strategy? How was the new strategy developed, and how has your outlook on the role and remit of Food Standards Scotland changed over the past five years?

Thank you. I have no further questions.

If the policy is not published in autumn 2027, a petitioner could quickly bring a fresh petition to the committee.

In light of the evidence that the committee has collected, will the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government’s position is that powers to mandate community benefits and shared ownership are reserved to the UK Government?

The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated her engagement with the UK Government on mandating community benefits and facilitating shared ownership. The Scottish Government has highlighted a number of initiatives to encourage developers to offer shared ownership opportunities, and the committee has raised relevant issues as part of a thematic evidence session with the cabinet secretary.

In light of the evidence that the committee has taken, I wonder if we would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has undertaken research to establish case studies illustrating how local authorities resolve issues relating to defective or dangerous listed buildings as a direct result of the petition; that research has found that structural engineers possess the necessary expertise and experience to provide robust and reliable assessments; that the Scottish Government will expand the building standards enforcement handbook and the procedural handbook to reflect the recommended best practices, as indicated by the research findings; that the Scottish Government will not recommend using only conservation-accredited engineers to support decision makers, because there are insufficient numbers to meet the need across Scotland; and that the cabinet secretary does not consider that legislative review is required at this time.

In the light of the evidence that is before us, I do not think that the committee has any other option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, once in force, will require the court to consider whether any delay in proceedings would negatively affect a child’s welfare. Cases can vary significantly, and a standardised timetable would not recognise the different complexities in individual cases. There are case management rules in place in respect of family actions, and one of the key aims is greater judicial case management resulting in cases being resolved more quickly. The Scottish Government does not consider the ask of the petition to be practical or achievable.

The petition’s asks are not achievable. I sit on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and we have seen the vital role that technology has played in rural areas to enable people to communicate and to be diagnosed over great distances, and we will never change the GP contracts.

In the light of that, I wonder whether we could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, in 2004, the obligation to provide out-of-hours services was removed from the GP contracts for most GP practices; that the Scottish Government does not believe that the profession would support any revision to its contract that would introduce out-of-hours requirements and considers that any such revision would endanger progress towards recruiting more GPs; that the Scottish Government is not taking action to return out-of-hours services to general practitioners of delivery or to make all GP appointments in person; that modern general practice is based on the services provided by a range of disciplines, which means that a GP receptionist needs to be able to signpost patients to the right clinician, which in turn means asking patients for some information; and that the committee has no further time within this parliamentary session to progress the issues that were raised in the petition.

In light of that evidence, and the evidence from the cabinet secretary, I wonder whether the committee might consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is currently consulting on increasing the 50MW threshold that determines who should decide on applications for onshore electricity generating stations and because the reporter in charge of examining applications that are objected to by planning authorities may decide to hear representations from any persons, as appropriate. Also, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated that work to update existing good practice guidance is under way and the committee has raised the relevant issues as part of its thematic evidence session with the cabinet secretary.

In closing the petition, we could advise the petitioner that she could bring a fresh petition to the next session of Parliament if sufficient progress is not made.