Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Our next petition is PE2031, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that children and young people in Scotland who have type 1 diabetes and would benefit from a life-saving insulin pump are provided with one, no matter where they live.

I am reminded that that was a key issue in the very first session of Parliament in which I was elected, from 2007 to 2011; it is always intriguing to see how things develop. At that point, insulin pumps had just come on the scene, and we were very keen to have them made available through the NHS.

I welcome again Edward Mountain, who has remained with us since our earlier discussion on the A9 inquiry as he has an interest in this petition. I will invite him to say a few words in a moment.

The committee last considered the petition on 20 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to Diabetes Scotland, the Insulin Pump Awareness Group and the NHS regional health boards. The committee has received responses from eight of the 14 health boards, copies of which are included in our meeting papers.

A number of the responses refer to utilising additional Scottish Government funding to increase the number of children and young people who are accessing insulin pump therapy and the need for further Scottish Government funding to support on-going staffing and resource requirements that are now necessary to meet the demand for insulin pump therapy. It is also the case that, since the third session of Parliament, from 2007 to 2011, the incidence of diabetes has continued to increase dramatically within the population.

We have received a response from Diabetes Scotland that highlights the benefits of diabetes technology for people with type 1 diabetes, which include the improvement of blood sugar management and a reduced risk of complications such as stroke, eye damage and kidney disease. The response draws our attention to the “Diabetes Tech Can’t Wait” report, which Diabetes Scotland published in November last year. The report includes a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government and to health boards to support the faster roll-out of diabetes tech, with the aim of ensuring that 100 per cent of children and 70 per cent of adults living with type 1 diabetes are able to use hybrid closed-loop tech by 2030.

Before I invite the committee to share thoughts on how we might proceed, I invite Edward Mountain to comment.

Good morning, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from the deputy convener, David Torrance.

Our first item is a decision on whether to take in private items 5 and 6. Under item 5, we will consider the evidence that we hear this morning. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.