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.

I share your sentiments, convener. It is with regret that I have to ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has suggested that the work that has been commissioned to produce planning guidance for battery energy storage systems is still under way. The Scottish Government intends to publish a call for evidence on battery energy storage systems later in 2026 to inform the future policy statement on the technology. In addition, the committee has raised the relevant issues as part of its thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.

In closing the petition, I highlight to the petitioner that, if significant progress has not been made by the Scottish Government, he can bring a fresh petition in the next session of Parliament.

In the light of the evidence that is before us and the decision taken by Parliament, the committee should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the relevant planning authority must consider whether a proposed development requires an environmental impact assessment; that, under existing regulations, SEPA must assess the risk that is posed to the water environment by a proposed development, including cumulative effects with other activities; that SEPA has stated that it has restricted or suspended abstractions in areas that are affected by water scarcity, and that new permits may include stricter conditions; that the Scottish Parliament debated broader amendments related to the petition as part of its consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill; and that the committee has raised relevant issues as part of a thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.

I think that everybody on the committee is highly pleased with the outcome. When we saw your face with Stanley the eagle on your arm outside the garden lobby, it made us all smile.

On a serious note, the committee has worked really well, as has Barry. I will quote from his submission:

“The fact that … a humble citizen like me can take the government to task on things they need to do, or correct things they got wrong, is a wonderful part of the constitution. Its existence is what allowed me to correct the wrong done to falconers. Scotland should be proud of this system.”

That shows that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee can work. I know that we do not get it right for everybody but, out there, the committee has improved the lives of falconers, and of other people who put petitions forward. The general message—as you know, because we have been there together, as we have been on the committee for a long time—is that the committee makes huge differences. It is a great part of the constitution of the Scottish Parliament.

That said, will the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Parliament has voted to allow falconers the rights that were requested?

Would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated that work to update existing good practice guidance is under way; that the reporter who is in charge of examining applications that are objected to by planning authorities may decide to hear representations from any person as appropriate; and that the committee has raised relevant issues as part of its thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy?

I also suggest highlighting to the petitioner that, if they do not feel that significant progress is made, they can submit a new petition in the next session of the Parliament.

I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that British standard BS 8300 makes recommendations on the use of light reflectance values in buildings and signage to establish tonal contrasts between elements; that, when guidance is produced by the Scottish Government, the recommendations of BS 8300 are either cited directly or inform its production; and that the committee has no further time available to progress the issue that the petition raises.

In the light of the Scottish Government’s stance, I wonder whether we could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government will not take forward the development of guidance on the interaction between child contact dispute processes and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018; that it plans to make regulations to give the courts the power to make an order in relation to a person who has behaved in a vexatious manner in civil proceedings to require them to obtain permission from the court before raising further specified actions; and that it is preparing a policy paper for the Scottish Civil Justice Council to propose court rule changes to ensure that the civil courts receive information on domestic abuse at the outset of the case.