Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have just a final thought. In response to my first question, you referred to the fact that a large part of the responsibility is the care and maintenance of the existing estate. I am interested in those cases where something goes wrong. For example, there is suddenly a need for a major injection of capital to resolve the issue at the M8 Woodside viaduct, and we have had, and considered, petitions suggesting that it be grassed over and various other things. What impact might that have on the other projects that you are seeking to pursue?

Please pause until the cabinet secretary has finished.

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. In our dry way, the first item on the agenda is for the committee to decide whether to take in private items 5 and 6, which are consideration of the evidence that we are about to hear and of our work programme. Are members content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Which one?

Thank you very much. It has been a while since I have been up the A82—has the 30-year-old traffic light finally gone?

Having looked at the petition, my own preference was to move to close it. Paying respect to the views of our two colleagues, is the committee content to let the petition run on the basis of the further inquiry to Mr Robertson that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final petition is PE2140, lodged by James Bruce. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a new parking badge to assist women to be able to get in and out their cars—I do not suppose that the parking badge would do that in itself—when they are pregnant and in the initial months after their pregnancy.

The petition’s background highlights that pregnant women often face difficulty getting in and out of their car when the vehicle next to them has parked too close. The SPICe briefing provides us with information on the blue badge scheme, which supports disabled people to access parking bays that are situated closer to where they want to go. Members will likely be aware that the blue scheme applies to on-street parking and does not generally apply in off-street car parks, such as supermarket car parks. The briefing also includes information about the use of parent-and-child parking bays by pregnant women, and insurance companies and organisations such as Mumsnet and Money Saving Expert have said that if you are heavily pregnant and need to park in a parent and child space then you should do so.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland states that the blue badge scheme is designed to allow disabled people who experience severe barriers in their mobility to park closer to their destination, and the eligibility criteria is based on functional mobility rather than diagnosed medical conditions. While pregnancy and postpartum recovery would not automatically qualify under the legislation, individuals may still apply if significant long-term complications arise. The Transport Scotland response goes on to say that there are no plans to create separate concessionary badges or widen the blue badge scheme’s automatic eligibility criteria, and decisions to offer alternative parking concessions for off-street car parks are the relevant authority or landowner’s responsibility.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I notice that we have been joined by Paul Sweeney and Jackie Baillie. In order to facilitate what I am sure is a busy morning for them, I will reorder the petitions that we will be considering today.

PE1976 is on backdating council tax discounts for people with dementia to the date of general practitioner certification. The petition, which was lodged by Derek James Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

We previously considered the petition on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Scottish Government states that removing the requirement for a person to be entitled to a qualifying benefit in order to be disregarded from council tax would require changes to legislation. The Scottish Government was due to explore the issue further in partnership with local government at what was then to be the next meeting of the joint working group on council tax reform at the end of summer 2024.

I think that we were quite impressed by the petition when we first heard about it, as it raises legitimate issues, and I do not think that we have had an update on the outcome of that conference in 2024. Do colleagues have any suggestions for how we might proceed?

PE2021, which was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals, as contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

We previously considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Government states that it

“does not consider there is a need to clarify the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance.”

It remains the Government’s view that the sheep on St Kilda are

“protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, in the same way as any unowned and unmanaged population of wild deer.”

We had requested a copy of the June 2009 communication between the Scottish Government and the National Trust for Scotland, but the Government has been unable to locate that document, which was likely to have been deleted from its system in 2019, in line with its retention and disposal policy.

We have received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which comments on submissions from the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Government and refers back to the passage of the 2006 act and the provision of detailed guidance to explain exactly which animals are protected under the legislation.

The petitioners make comparisons with similar legislation in England and Wales. There, the United Kingdom chief veterinary officer’s interpretation of animals

“of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands”

is such that Soay sheep found in Lundy, an island off the north coast of Devon, are considered to be feral sheep. That means that the sheep are protected under the equivalent legislation in England and Wales and have been subject to humane culling to control the population.

The petitioners’ second submission provides information on the various freedom of information requests that they have made. The responses have revealed that UNESCO has raised concerns that mismanagement of the sheep population on St Kilda could be adversely affecting the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site, which is recognised for its natural and cultural significance.

I would like to hear colleagues’ thoughts on how we might proceed. We can either have another go at this or take the view that we have run out of steam.