Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will be considering which petitions are likely to be kept open in the committee’s next couple of meetings, so I am content on this occasion to hold the petition open while we consider whether that would be the appropriate action. If it has to close, it will be for the reasons that we have suggested.

My late colleague David McLetchie used to observe that this Parliament had only two buttons: ban it or make it compulsory. In this instance, the Government appears be sitting on the fence somewhat—as you say, in defence of camper vans. There must be a sticker in that somewhere.

Notwithstanding that, and without trying to convey any comprehensive sense of levity—I would not want the petition not to be taken seriously—I think that there is a serious issue in the petition that is worth exploring, and this is the committee that is best placed to do it. It is one of those issues that the committee is best able to tease out. I hope that, if colleagues support the recommendation to close the petition—I see that members are saying yes—the petitioner will bring the petition back to the new Parliament immediately after it assembles in May. Do colleagues agree with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

So, this is another petition that we might want to leave on the short list of petitions that will be held over until the next session, as we think that there are issues here that we would like to be explored. We will defer a decision on whether to close it until we decide whether we feel that that is the appropriate route or whether a fresh petition would need to be submitted in the next session. Are our colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the final continued petition this morning, PE2209, which was lodged by Joanna Kerr, as was the previous petition that we considered. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make CCTV mandatory in all taxis and private hire vehicles.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, although the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for the overarching legislation, the day-to-day administration of the licensing regime is devolved to independent licensing authorities. The submission states that the licensing authorities—in this case, the 32 local authorities—have discretion to determine appropriate licensing arrangements for vehicles according to local needs and their own legal advice. That includes decisions in relation to the installation of CCTV in vehicles as a requirement of licensing. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s position is that that is a matter more appropriately for individual licensing authorities to consider.

The submission notes that a task force on civic licensing is reviewing a range of licensing provisions, including provisions in relation to general taxi and private hire car licensing. It is expected that a report setting out recommendations will be presented to the Scottish ministers by spring 2026. Although the focus of the group is not specifically on CCTV, that issue might arise as part of its considerations.

Obviously, the issue is a matter for local licensing bodies, which are the local authorities. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

As there are no suggestions, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government’s view is that it is more appropriately a matter for individual licensing authorities to consider. In any event, the committee has limited time ahead of it to consider the issue further.

Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I also urge the petitioner to write to his MP, given that the matter is reserved, and to seek to pursue the issue in relation to Ofcom. Although I saw the Ofcom assertion of the support that is meant to be in place, it did not tell me whether it is in place. It is all very well to say that organisations should enable such access, but do they? Unfortunately, there is no scope for us to pursue the issues that are raised by this petition. If I were Mr Bowles, I would write to my local MP and ask him to take the issue up with Ofcom and try to get a satisfactory response. Given that position, are we minded to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes today’s meeting.

Meeting closed at 11:08.

Well, we could have a petition on banning that culling as well.

Are colleagues agreed that we will keep the petition open and add it to the small list of petitions that we will consider referring to the next committee, so that it has a working agenda when it first meets?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2203, on making schools in Scotland safe for pupils with allergies, was lodged by Helen Blythe and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to close the allergy safeguard gap by introducing legislation to mandate and fund all schools to hold an in-date adrenaline autoinjector; to have an allergy policy; and to provide allergy training for all school staff on emergency response, preventing reactions and allergy awareness.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing sets out that

“Allergies are thought to affect approximately 30% of children in Scotland.”

The Scottish Government has written guidance to support schools, local authorities and health boards as they consider what action they need to take in order to safeguard pupils with healthcare needs. The guidance states that schools may obtain adrenaline autoinjectors

“without prescription, for use in emergencies”.

It also states that

“Education authorities and local NHS Boards may wish to consider whether to implement their own local policy in relation to the use of emergency adrenaline auto-injectors in schools.”

The guidance outlines specific issues that the policies could cover. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that

“local authorities already have the power to use funding to take the action they deem necessary to protect children and young people with allergies from harm while at schools.”

The submission states that

“decisions about … what staff training may be required need to be made taking into account local circumstances within each individual school.”

The Scottish Government’s view is that

“There is already sufficient legislation in place to require schools in Scotland to take appropriate action to safeguard children and young people with allergies as well as financial and practical support for local authorities to do so.”

The younger members of my parliamentary team, whose experience of living in the world of a school is more current than mine, thought that the Scottish Government’s response was a bit inadequate. If we are teaching pupils how to use defibrillators and about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, why are we not teaching them how to assist with adrenaline injectors and how to properly understand the issues that arise from allergy policy, leaving those issues more open to chance? I do not know that we can do anything more in this parliamentary session, given the Government’s response.

In closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has set out its position that there is already sufficient legislation in place to require schools to take appropriate action, I wonder whether the committee would agree that we should urge the petitioner to submit the petition again in the new parliamentary session. Perhaps the future committee could interrogate the evidence a bit further in the light of other training that appears to be perfectly within the capabilities of children to understand and that, as we have heard, in relation to defibrillators, could save the lives of people in school—or, subsequently, outside school—as a consequence. Does that meet with the committee’s agreement?

I am uncomfortable, because the petition raises issues that the committee, in other circumstances, would have been happy to interrogate further. Certainly, we have interrogated NatureScot positions previously. Irrespective of that, though, we would have wanted to take the views of those on the island into consideration, too.

The petition has attracted more than 80,000 signatures, but, as we said at the start of the meeting, the committee has only a handful of meetings left in this parliamentary session. In closing the petition, which I think is what colleagues might be minded to do, I very much urge the petitioner to submit the petition again as soon as the new Parliament assembles. That will not require gathering the number of signatures that have already been gathered; one signature is all it takes for the petition to have the opportunity to be properly heard. However, there would be an opportunity for our successor parliamentary committee to tease out and interrogate in more detail some of the issues raised by the petition.

It is with some reluctance that I suggest that, given that we have only a handful of meetings left and given that, if we make any inquiries now, we will simply not get any responses back in time to take anything further forward, we close the petition at this point.

I suggest to the clerks that we add this to the list of petitions that we will give further consideration to. We will leave just a handful of petitions open for the new Parliament to consider, and we will have a further meeting in which we will have to decide which petitions, from a shortlist, we would recommend that action for. I am minded to add the petition to that list.