Seòmar agus comataidhean

We can discuss these matters further over a game of Monopoly.

You normally have something to contribute on such matters, Mr Ewing.

Are colleagues minded to accept Mr Russell’s recommendation to close the petition—again, with progress having been made by the committee during the course of this parliamentary session?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay, but we are agreed to close the petition.

The water will be much purer because of that.

Thank you Mr Ewing; I think that the whole committee can agree with that. While there is still life in the current parliamentary session, we might have wanted to see a little more progress, but we would probably have come to the same result. I therefore thank the petitioners and echo everything that Fergus Ewing has just said. Progress has been made, and we can be pleased that that is the case. That is entirely down to the pressure that has been brought, not just through the raising of the petition but by all the work associated in promoting its aims and the meeting with the cabinet secretary.

I take it that colleagues therefore agree that we will close the petition at this point, in the expectation that focus on the issue will not be lost and it will come back to us in the new parliamentary session, reframed to ensure that the aims are met. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE2118, which was lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and to improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

We last considered the petition on 24 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. We have received substantial responses from the cabinet secretary and SEPA that cover the various monitoring and engagement mechanisms that are used and include a breakdown of the specific engagement that has taken place between SEPA and the petitioner over several years. SEPA has also provided a detailed response to the petitioner’s concerns regarding its role in a number of flood prevention actions, the accuracy of its flood maps, its engagement with communities and its approach to future flood risk in Scotland.

The Scottish Government and SEPA have reiterated that it is the responsibility of local authorities to develop and build flood protection schemes. Colleagues may remember from previous evidence that the Scottish Government’s national flood resilience strategy indicates that a flood advisory service will be established to provide the framework and process for flood protection schemes and for supporting communities.

As members will have seen in the cabinet secretary’s response, every six years, SEPA develops flood risk management strategies and plans for implementation by local authorities. The Scottish ministers review, approve and monitor those plans. SEPA is currently consulting on flooding issues and priorities in “potentially vulnerable areas”—that is a formal term—to inform the development of the 2028 to 2034 flood risk management plans. That consultation will close on 26 April.

Wearing my constituency hat, I point out that the flood maps that SEPA currently uses for its forecasting use a different matrix from that which is used by any other agency elsewhere in the world. According to that matrix, this Parliament—believe it or not—is one of the few buildings that SEPA does not think will be under water in early course. I have heard from constituents who have found it difficult to get domestic insurance, because insurance companies look at SEPA’s flood risk plans, albeit that SEPA has advised me that it specifically states that the plans should not be used for that purpose.

That little vignette notwithstanding, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We have the option of keeping the petition open, on the basis that the next committee could further explore the issues that it raises, but on the back of the responses that relate to part of the petition, we could instead recommend that a fresh petition be lodged that focuses on those areas—and potentially the wider issue of digital evidence—which might be of interest for a fresh committee to explore. I am between a rock and a hard place on the matter.

Thank you. Are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Although the pathway has been set up, it is still to be established and understood whether it is adequate and is being effectively resourced and implemented. In the light of whatever the practice proves to be, there might well be merit in a fresh petition being lodged in the next session of Parliament on the basis of future experience. We could write to the petitioner—who might be with us—to advocate that they look to see whether the pathway has addressed the issue and, if it has not, to consider asking for the matter to be re-examined in the next session of Parliament.

As the current petition asks for something that any new committee might feel that it could not advance in the immediate term, it might close the petition. That would bar any further discussion of the matter for a full year, which might not be desirable. Are colleagues therefore content with Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

The next continued petition, PE2178, was lodged by Hazel Margaret McIvor. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory latex labelling on food products that are sold in Scotland if there is a chance of contamination. I was unaware of the issue until we considered the petition on 12 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response states that Food Standards Scotland intends to explore what scope there might be to include statements or warnings about non-food allergens on packaging under general consumer protection law. Officials at Food Standards Scotland will discuss options for packaging-based consumer protection measures with their counterparts in the UK Government and highlight the points that are raised in the petition.

The Scottish Government seems to have taken the issue more seriously in response to what we have said. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed?