Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2175, which was lodged by Paul White, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce new legislation that would immediately ban the sale of disposable or instant barbecues by retailers and introduce on-the-spot fines for anyone using a disposable barbecue in Scotland.

We have been joined by our colleague Edward Mountain for our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Mr Mountain.

The petitioner believes that, in recent years, there has been a rise in irresponsible outdoor access, which, combined with climate change, has increased wildfire risk significantly. The Scottish Government’s response states that the ask of the petition is “not achievable” in Scotland. The submission states:

“Product standards and safety, and the regulation of the supply of goods to consumers are reserved matters. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 generally prevents banning the sale of an item in one part of the UK which can be freely sold in the others.”

However, the SPICe briefing notes:

“Scottish Ministers can introduce regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit or restrict the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles for conservation purposes.”

The restrictions on single-use plastic and single-use vapes are examples of instances when the Scottish Government has sought to do that. The briefing explains that new product restrictions of that nature could require a UK-wide approach or an agreed exclusion from the 2020 act’s principles. Local authorities have the power to introduce byelaws that put in place temporary bans on the use of barbecues, including disposable ones, in the whole of, or any part of, their area. The SPICe briefing notes:

“The Cairngorms National Park Authority has recently submitted a ‘fire management byelaw’ proposal to Scottish Ministers which, if approved, would ban the use of disposable and other (non-gas) barbecues in the Cairngorms National Park ... between 1 April and 30 September”

except in certain circumstances.

Before I ask my colleagues whether they have any suggestions on how we might proceed, I would be delighted to hear from Mr Mountain.

It is just that data is gathered through a different mechanism.

Thank you, Mr Torrance. We have identified those three points.

The next of our petitions is PE2176, lodged by Warren Mitchell, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce penalties for organisations that fail to comply with Mental Welfare Commission recommendations in relation to duty of candour.

The petitioner submitted the petition after the tragic loss of his wife. He believes that there were organisational failures surrounding the circumstances that should have been addressed. The petitioner believes that the Mental Welfare Commission lacks the necessary powers to take organisations to task when recommendations for improvement are not actioned.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights that the Scottish mental health law review recommended strengthening the commission’s powers. The suggestions included that the legislation should include a level of direct accountability to the Scottish Parliament. That would include the power to make a report to Parliament if there is a serious failure by a public body, including the Scottish Government, to follow a recommendation. The review also recommended that the MWC should have the power to initiate legal proceedings to protect the human rights of any person or group that is covered by mental health and capacity law.

The response notes that the Scottish Government previously considered whether the legislation should be amended to include sanctions or penalties against organisations that fail to comply with the law, but it concluded that legislation is already in place that would hold organisations to account, if it was deemed necessary. The Scottish Government is therefore not minded to amend the regulations or the overarching legislation to include sanctions or penalties. The submission also points out that health professionals are subject to professional standards relating to their own profession, and that they can be subjected to an investigation and disciplinary action from their own regulatory body should they be found to be in breach of their obligations.

The Scottish Government states that it will consider strengthening the powers and responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission within the context of a wider long-term reform to mental health law.

This is a petition that has been motivated by tragic personal circumstances, and where we can go is identified for us.

We thank the petitioner and hope that the development of the code of conduct will address the matter in hand.

The next continued petition is PE2084, which was lodged by Randall Graeme Kilgour Foggie. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 to allow alkaline hydrolysis, accelerated composting and other more eco-friendly methods of disposal of human cadavers. We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, at which point we had all of that explained to us, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government’s response states that an alkaline hydrolysis regulations working group has been established and that its first meeting took place on 3 March 2025. It is currently expected that draft regulations will be laid later in 2025, although the exact date is still to be decided. The eventual timeline will be informed by the considerations of the group and the development of the regulations.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Those seem to be the asks of the petitioner. Are colleagues content that we close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I would only say to Mr Golden that he coined the phrase “circular economy” in the Parliament, and I hope that they are the last two words that he says before he departs the chamber in 2026.

I thank Mr Mountain.

We thank the petitioner very much for raising the issue, but there is clearly no time for us to adequately pursue the petition in the balance of the parliamentary session.

Either the code of conduct will address the issue or it will not, and the petitioner could return the issue to us. Do colleagues agree with Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.