Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is always a pleasure to shine a light on the events of 1837.

I will add the observation that SEPA has not been responding to the petitioner’s submissions or directly on the issues that have been raised, which is not atypical. The Scottish Government should understand that that is so.

Yes, it appears to be typical.

Are we content to proceed on the basis that has been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2121, which was lodged by Carolyn Philip, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to run a campaign targeted at companies to raise awareness of the harms that are caused by roadside litter and the penalties that can be brought against responsible parties. We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

We are joined by our colleague Rachael Hamilton. Welcome, Rachael—I spotted you in the gallery, waiting for the sun to burst forth on the interest that you take in the matter.

We have received a written submission from Transport Scotland that states that, as there has been an increase in discarded litter over the past few years, it believes that there needs to be a change of mindset and a campaign undertaken to discourage people from dropping litter. It continues:

“We will work with our Operating Companies, Keep Scotland Beautiful and Zero Waste Scotland to run a campaign targeted at companies and also the public to raise awareness of the harms caused by roadside litter and the legislation that is in place to penalise those who drop litter.”

The Scottish Government’s response lists the organisations that have delivered publicly funded litter prevention campaigns and details the funding that has been provided to roadside litter campaigns since 2007. The response also states that the Scottish Government remains committed to the principle that extended producer responsibility—EPR—for packaging should cover the full net costs of both binned and ground litter clear-up and disposal. The submission notes that the EPR scheme administrator is expected to set out its plans for public information campaigns and its strategy, and the specific activities that it proposes to conduct for the coming year in its operational plan.

Before I invite colleagues to decide what we might do with the petition—I note that it would appear that Transport Scotland wants to take forward the objective that is contained in it—I invite our colleague Rachael Hamilton to say a few words.

Are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

If colleagues are content to proceed on that basis, we will close the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

It means as quickly as possible.

Sometimes, the committee is alerted to conditions that we had not heard of before. It can be easy to follow the pathway when you are talking about high-level services, but that does not apply to some conditions, such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The committee will hear about the particular circumstances of a petitioner who will explain what their condition leads to, the difficulties that they have and the fact that they would get a more sympathetic response and level of treatment in another health board. These conditions are slightly below the radar, for want of a better term, in that they are not part of day-to-day household conversations, which can be quite difficult. The responses that the committee gets from health boards do not always advance matters, and it can be difficult for us to understand the justification for the different levels of treatment in different areas.

Why do you think that those gaps exist? It is sometimes perplexing that a certain level of service, which seems quite critical, is available to people who present in some health boards but not to people who present in others. Is there any collective thinking between health boards to review the different ways in which they approach these matters, or do they very much operate in their silos and decide everything without reference to more widespread practice? To be fair, we see that issue with regard to some public transport options, which vary depending on which local authority is responsible. However, in healthcare, it is sometimes difficult to explain why somebody who is on the wrong side of a health board boundary feels that they cannot get the same level of service as somebody on the other side.

In that case, I want to look at the centralisation of services, which has become a more common phenomenon in relation to the services that we provide. As you know, this morning, we are not discussing the petition on the Wishaw neonatal care unit, which the committee visited. Leaving that petition aside, how do you assess the centralisation of services such as perinatal care or the absence of services such as full abortion care or other specialised services, and how do you ensure that, in providing what, through centralisation, is arguably meant to be a higher level of service—because of the skill sets that are available—you are not restricting access through boundaries that are then in the way of people who were trying to access those services in the first place? How do you ensure that centralisation does not physically restrict some people from being able to reasonably access a service? The matter comes up in the chamber time and again, and it is a common theme of a number of the petitions that the committee is dealing with.