Seòmar agus comataidhean

A little earlier, I heard you say—as others, possibly Nick Kempe, have said—that there are alternative or complementary mechanisms to the designation of a national park that might achieve a similar outcome. Can you give examples of alternative or complementary ways forward that might deliver those results?

The first new petition is PE2113, lodged by Wilson and Hannah Chowdhry, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide support to communities that are affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.

The petition calls for a national fund to be set up to assist struggling homeowners and tenants who are affected by RAAC; and for the initiation of a public inquiry to investigate the practices of councils and housing associations on the issue, including investigation of how business related to RAAC was conducted, the handling of safety reports and property sales, the disclosure of RAAC, and responses to homeowners’ concerns. It also calls for legislation that is similar to the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 to be introduced or updated to ensure that developers, councils and housing associations are held accountable for using substandard property materials. Such legislation should mandate risk disclosure and make surveyors and solicitors liable for untraced defects, and it should include provision for a comprehensive register of high-risk buildings in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes that, although the Scottish Government is not currently providing financial support to homeowners or local authorities for RAAC remediation work, it previously operated a scheme to support those who had a bought a home designated as having inherent structural defects.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government set out that

“the presence of RAAC in a building does not necessarily mean that the building is unsafe”,

and recommends that homeowners follow the risk-based approach of the Institution of Structural Engineers, as there may be no issues to address at some properties. The response goes on to state that Scottish Government is committed to working with the UK Government on the issue, and also references the requirement for local authorities to have in place a scheme of assistance strategy, which should set out the support available to private homeowners to make repairs to their home.

The response also mentions plans to review the Scottish home report, which is expected to consider how to ensure buyers can make an informed decision in relation to undertaking more detailed surveys, including structural reports establishing how the property is built, what materials are used and how these will perform in the future.

The petitioners have also provided two written submissions, the first of which comments on the Scottish Government’s response and raises concerns about the action, or lack thereof, that has been taken by local authorities to address this issue. In particular, the petitioners highlight that, although Scottish councils offer advice and guidance through the scheme of assistance strategy, none of them offers financial support to homeowners aiming to retain and remediate their properties.

The petitioners’ second submission follows the recent UK budget and the announcement of an additional £3.4 billion for Scotland, and calls for a portion of that funding to be allocated to support the needs of homeowners who are affected by RAAC. We have also received submissions from our MSP colleagues Edward Mountain and Murdo Fraser in support of the petition’s aims.

We have received comprehensive information in advance of our consideration of the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed with what is an important petition? Many of us will have seen documentary coverage of the issues arising from buildings that are affected by RAAC.

Will you get an academic, arm’s-length organisation to take a look and analyse that?

Our next continued petition is PE1896, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle that is provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable reusable metal bottle. The petition was lodged quite some time ago by Callum Isted—in fact, it was so long ago that we are on to our third First Minister since then.

Once again, we are joined for our consideration of the petition by our colleague Sue Webber. Good morning, Ms Webber.

Our most recent consideration of the petition was on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Members will recall that the cabinet secretary had asked each local authority for information on how water is provided to pupils in their schools, how that meets sustainability requirements and whether local authorities would be interested in participating in a national procurement exercise for reusable metal water bottles. We asked whether the cabinet secretary would be willing to progress a procurement exercise with the local authorities that had indicated that they had an interest in obtaining reusable bottles.

In her response, the cabinet secretary explained that, because only 13 local authorities were interested, with six of them noting that their developing their interest was contingent on the exercise being centrally funded, the Scottish Government has determined that it will not take forward work on a national procurement exercise at this time.

Before we decide on what options are left open to us, I invite Sue Webber to address the committee.

He was seven when he started his campaign.

Do you mean that we have had three First Ministers in two years? [Laughter.]

That is an interesting thought.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, but we are unable to take the petition further for the reasons that Mr Torrance stated.

That brings us to the final of the new petitions that we are considering this morning. PE2117, lodged by Bruce Whitehead, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of any chemical labelled “Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects” or carrying the dead fish pictogram, on coastal jetties or slipways.

The key legal framework in Scotland for protecting the water environment is provided by the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, or CAR, regime. The framework covers both direct discharges into the water environment and situations where there is a risk of diffuse pollution from activities on land. Under that regime, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s role is to assess the risk of proposed activities before deciding whether to grant an authorisation. The Scottish Government considers this to be a regulatory matter and points to the Great Britain regulatory framework, which is in place to prevent or minimise harm to people and wildlife from the use of biocides used in amenity settings. Its response to the petition states that it does not believe that the Scottish Government has a role or that there is a reason for Scottish ministers to intervene.

The petitioner explains that he is concerned about the use of chemicals at Hawes pier and believes that the conditions of SEPA’s authorisation have been breached. He says that manual application of the authorised chemical has led to spillages over the pier edge into the river and in unpermitted weather conditions.

Are there any suggestions for action?

It might be that these things get teased out as we go along, in any event.

What impact do you consider that our existing national parks have had on the economies and communities within their boundaries? Are the national parks achieving the statutory aim of promoting the sustainable and economic development of those communities? If there is a concern that the national parks are not meeting that statutory obligation, what lessons need to be learned or considered before anything further comes to us?