Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2206, which was lodged by Jack McConnel, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the single-lane road weighting in the road maintenance funding formula and to either consider increasing it or adapt the formula to reflect static or similar overheads for any road width, and to conduct an assessment of single-lane road overhead costs for rural local authorities and their impact on funding formulas across all road-related allocations.

We received a very succinct response from the Scottish Government, which, somewhat disappointingly, only minimally engages with the core issues of the petition. That is certainly the case with the second ask, which is on assessing costs. Essentially, we are informed that the needs-based formula, which is used to distribute the quantum of funding available for local government, is subject to constant review and is agreed each year with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The Government states that it is always open to suggestions to improve the funding formula but that any such proposals must go through COSLA in the first instance.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Are members content with Mr Golden’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

If members have no other comments, are members content to close the petition?

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.

Any of us who is a parent, even if that was perhaps some time ago—well, we are always parents, but even if our children are no longer children—thinks, “There but for the grace of God.” To think that something might have been avoided if the issue had not been dismissed simply because of a prejudice against the idea that young people might have cancer is deeply disturbing.

Are colleagues content, given the position of the Scottish Government, notwithstanding the importance of the issue, to accept that we will not be able to advance the petition during this parliamentary session?

Are there any other comments or thoughts? If not, are colleagues content to support Mr Golden’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

The first new petition for consideration is PE2191, lodged by Robin Pettigrew, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the legislation concerning the Scottish outdoor access code in order to explicitly prohibit camping in a vehicle outside designated camping zones, and to make the provisions of the code legally enforceable by introducing dedicated enforcement teams and fines for code violations.

The right of responsible access to land was introduced by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and is guided by the SOAC, which is a voluntary code of conduct. Currently, access rights apply only to non-motorised vehicle access.

The Government recognises the potential challenges that are posed by the behaviour of some road users. It states that infringements of the SOAC are a matter for local authorities, roads authorities and Police Scotland to manage. The Scottish Government considers that the creation of a new team with enforcement powers might create confusion over roles and, it implies, a less effective response to SOAC infringements.

On illegal or antisocial behaviours that fall outwith the scope of the code, the Government’s response suggests that a range of mechanisms are available to tackle those behaviours and that reviewing Scotland’s system of non-motorised access rights would not make a substantial difference to the enforcement of any such actions.

I read all that from the Government and thought that it was rubbish, to be frank. A serious issue has been raised in the context of the petition, but I am sorry to say that this is one of the petitions that I have identified for which we would need to initiate considerable work. If the committee proposes to close the petition, I hope that the petitioner will raise the issue in the new session of the Parliament when it convenes in May.

Do colleagues have any suggestions or thoughts?

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.

We will therefore hold the petition open and act on that basis. I thank Jackie Baillie for her contribution and the people in the gallery for being with us this morning.