Seòmar agus comataidhean

We thank the petitioner very much for raising the issue with us. In the light of the minister’s response, the committee feels that there is no immediate further course of action for us to take, as Mr Golden has summarised. However, I emphasise the point that it is perfectly possible, if the Government’s commitment has not been realised, for the petition to be brought back to us in 12 months’ time.

I hesitated slightly during my earlier comments, because I was struck by the fact that the Government’s submission states—I will repeat this—that recipients of the vaccines are given

“as much information on the potential side effects as possible”

and

“must give informed consent before receiving a vaccination.”

I recall that exactly those phrases were used in relation to the use of mesh in surgical procedures. I vividly remember being told that recipients were given as much information as possible and had given informed consent, but the evidence of many of the women in that circumstance was that that was simply not the case.

I would therefore like to ask the Government how it can assert with confidence that such practice is in place—it might be that it can do so, but I would like to understand how. The committee knows of previous examples in which a similar assurance was initially made but then was not seen to be properly validated by subsequent evidence.

The petition is important, given everything that we are now looking at. Admittedly, it is with the benefit of hindsight, but these issues are on-going in some instances. We will therefore keep the petition open and proceed with inquiries based on the suggestions that members have made. Are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2087 is on passing a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence—those in the public gallery will see that we move across a broad range of public interest. The petition, which has been lodged by Paul Irvine, calls on the Scottish Government to pass a law to make exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement.

Mr Irvine tells us that he lives opposite—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry, but I forgot that Clare Haughey had joined us for the previous petition. However, I think that she is content with the action that we have taken. Apologies—that just occurred to me suddenly.

I go back to Mr Irvine, who tells us that he lives opposite the cemetery where his son is buried and has been upset by the number of people who exercise their dogs in the cemetery and allow them to urinate and defecate on graves, including his son’s. Mr Irvine has raised the issue with his local authority, which has introduced a rule that dogs must be kept on leads in cemeteries but has stopped short of its pre-pandemic rule of permitting only assistance dogs in cemeteries.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it fully recognises the distress—as I am sure the committee will, too—caused by irresponsible dog owners who damage headstones and mementos left at gravesides. However, responsibility for the management, security and upkeep of local authority burial grounds lies with the local authority for the area in which the cemetery is located. Existing legislation gives local authorities the power to make, consult on, publish and display management rules that regulate the use and conduct of people while on land or premises that are owned or managed by the local authority.

Additionally, under the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, which covers all public open spaces, anyone who does not immediately clean up fouling by a dog is committing an offence and could be issued with a fixed-penalty notice of £80. The SPICe briefing also highlights the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which allows the police to issue a dog control notice if a dog is not being kept under control effectively and consistently.

In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I understand the substance of the question, but I am not sure that it is consistent with the petition that we have before us, which is quite specifically a petition in relation to the Scottish Government. I am not sure that that action would be competent in the sense of being within the reach of the petition itself or whether it would have to be the subject of a fresh petition. However, I am willing to take a view from colleagues on that.

Could we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal but combine it with your suggestion? We could perhaps express the view on behalf of the committee that we felt that that was the wrong action for the Government to take, and that, in closing the petition, we would welcome a final report from it in relation to the questions that you have posed? Would that satisfy you?

Yes, it is a comprehensive series of asks.

In your previous answer, you drew an analogy with mountains—I am not sure whether that was simply because you knew that we would now be turning to Edward Mountain.

That draws our questions to an end. Would you like to add anything that we have not touched on?

I thank you very much for joining us and for the candour with which you have addressed the committee’s questions. I am grateful for your time.

I suspend the meeting briefly for us to rearrange the table.

We have that—thank you.