Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—that is fine.

I do not want to lose sight of the issue of consent. The research that Dr Fossey put together came to the view that there was no evidence of parental consent—at least, no documented evidence. Have you come to the conclusion that there is such evidence?

I also note that 78 per cent of land managers in Perth and Kinross were against a national park. At present, the issue that probably has most traction in the minds of many people is that of the Flamingo Land park, which is being proposed within the national park in that area. Something like 94,000 people have objected. People then wonder just exactly what the basis of a national park is. I suppose that it is open to the committee, through our interrogation of other witnesses beyond even the petitioners, to potentially establish an independent assessment of how these matters are progressing.

Are colleagues content to write to the Scottish Government in the first instance, on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

I will just say in conclusion that your empathy with the position that people find themselves in is apparent from the evidence that you have given. I am very grateful to you for everything that you have volunteered to us. As Mr Ewing said, and as you have almost said, the responsibility maybe lies with the committee to be much more directional with the Scottish Government in our findings on these matters. However, I am grateful to you for everything that you have volunteered this morning.

Is there anything further that you would like to say that you feel has not emerged during our conversation?

In that case, thank you both very much. We agreed to consider the evidence that we have heard later. In the meantime, I suspend the meeting briefly to allow everyone to settle.

We proceed with our consideration of continuing petitions. The next petition is PE1877, whch has been lodged by Alex Wallace and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line national health service staff and paramedics in Scotland.

When we previously considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service to request information about the outcome of its evaluation of a trial of body cameras. The Scottish Ambulance Service’s response explains that a plan was being developed to trial body camera equipment; however, it did not progress to a live trial because of staff concerns. The submission states that

“The full purchase and roll out of equipment ... would likely attract a capital cost in excess of £1,500,000 and a recurring revenue cost of around £400,000”.

As a result of the cost and staff concerns, the work on body cameras has been “paused” by the Scottish Ambulance Service. In the light of that, what action do members feel that we might consider taking?

Mr Wallace has not responded. He is aware of the submissions that we have received and has had the opportunity to make a further submission, but has chosen not to. I am slightly reluctant to establish a precedent that, if a petitioner does not come back in response to evidence that the committee has heard, we will actively solicit a further response. I do not think that that is our normal practice.

Right. That is a bit different. Do you think that we could combine those two proposals in some way? In closing the petition, might it be possible to take forward Mr Choudhury’s recommendation that we write to the Minister for Higher and Further Education to draw his attention to the evidence that we have received and encourage the Government in the work that it is doing? Would that satisfy Mr Choudhury?

How strongly would you like that to be worded, Mr Ewing?

PE2090, lodged by Stephen Henson, is on updating the legislation on granting permission for digital display boards.

I see that some people are leaving the room—I gather that they were attending especially to hear consideration of the petition on national parks. I thank them for being with us this morning.

PE2090 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) (Regulations) 1984 to require application for express consent to advertise using a digital display, including where a site has been upgraded from a traditional paper-based display.

The SPICe briefing that we received notes that large digital display boards are very likely to fall into the “express consent” category of planning regulations, which means that permission must be obtained before they can be installed. It also notes that many local authorities already set limits on where digital advertising displays can be located.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government details the requirements for notification of a planning application for digital advertising, including the statutory requirement for a planning authority to notify in writing any neighbours whose property is within 20m of the site of the application. Therefore, the Scottish Government considers that the existing provisions are appropriate and that there is no requirement to amend them at this time.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which notes that many of the notification requirements mean that members of the public must be proactive, for example by checking online planning portals for submissions of new applications.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?