Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree. Lots of homework is done via mobile phone on Google Classrooms and that is commonly used in classes as well—pupils use it to find out what the homework is and then work off that. It might be interesting to find out how individual schools have implemented restrictions on the wi-fi to limit the apps that pupils can access. As a parallel issue, there seems to be a growing increase in panic attacks among pupils in schools, and one of the ways in which those are mitigated and helped is by calling the parent. Without a phone, that will be difficult to do.

Again, that is anecdotal, but it would be useful to hear more about those issues.

I wonder whether there is just a little bit more in this. I appreciate that the guidance has been updated but, given that this is a new petition, is it worth giving this issue a bit more of an airing to find out more evidence? The petition calls for the most extreme form of a ban, but there may be other variations that produce results. There is probably a gap when it comes to how confident the Scottish Government is that schools are collecting data on mobile phone misuse and understanding the scale of the problem. It would be useful to hear from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland and School Leaders Scotland, in addition to any individual schools that have applied some form of a ban, which may be state schools or independent schools, and the educational attainment results arising from that.

In addition, it would be useful to know what the Scottish Government’s position is on pre-application engagement. My understanding is that—it would be useful to have clarification on this point—pre-application engagement could reduce public participation and make it easier for energy infrastructure to be rolled out without community involvement, but I stand to be corrected on that.

It would also be useful to get the Scottish Government to outline how it sees public participation with regard to decision making in that area and, ultimately, to understand how it considers that that could be improved. That links to the second bullet point in the petition, which is about community liaison and public participation. That is where that aspect gets quite complicated.

The UK Government has a role in providing licence conditions for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, so we should get a position from it as the energy regulator. We should also get a position from the national energy systems operator on how it might highlight the current Kintore to Tealing infrastructure and infrastructure that might be required in future in that place. I think that it has a role in highlighting future infrastructure. There is also a role, as we have heard, for the transmission operators and, potentially, for the distribution network operators, who might be doing smaller-scale energy infrastructure.

There is quite a lot to understand in how all this pieces together. A member of a community might not fully appreciate all the different stakeholders that are involved in delivering energy infrastructure.

Ring fencing?

The timetabling of debates is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau to discuss, and I am sure that the member can discuss the matter of ensuring that the topic is debated in Parliament with her business manager.

There are several aspects that we need to unpack. Several different actors are involved in energy infrastructure, and it would be useful to get opinions from them.

First, on the Scottish Government’s position, it would be useful to understand what discussions and engagement it has had with the UK Government on regulatory powers that would put pre-application engagement for electricity transmission on a statutory footing.

I think that we have progressed the petition as far as possible. I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to take forward the specific proposal contained in the petition at this time, given the wide range of law, duties on public bodies and national guidance that exists to protect children from harm, including that caused by alcohol.

I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the bases that self-testing kits do not give as much information as lab analysis and might not indicate the presence of other substances or the purity of drugs, and that test results could be misrepresented or misinterpreted by individuals.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government suggests that testing in drug-checking facilities is preferable because harm-reduction advice and signposting to support services can be offered.

Finally, work is being progressed to pilot drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow.

I have a final question. The Deputy First Minister suggested in evidence to the committee that a precedent could be set in the case of Fornethy survivors that might lead to a number of other cases. I want to get on the record from Redress Scotland that it does not matter to you, as an independent body, whether a precedent is set in an individual case, even if that would mean that hundreds or, heaven forbid, thousands of more cases would then be set against that bar. In each individual case, if there is wrongdoing, it needs to be redressed. I would like to get confirmation of that from you, if you can give it.

There is quite a lot in this that would be helpful to follow up with the Scottish Government. It is important that the committee notes that there is no such breed as an XL bully. It is the characteristics and type that have been subject to restrictions. We could follow up on the verification of those characteristics and the capacity of vets and other professionals to do that. It is important to ask the Scottish Government, for example, what training it is providing for owners to progress their dog to wearing a muzzle, which is one of the restrictions.

In addition to that, we should seek further details on the planned summit on responsible dog ownership and control, and ask specifically whether that will include owners of XL bully type dogs and provide the opportunity to consider the impact of the regulations on those owners, and what other measures might be put in place by the Scottish Government to ensure more responsible ownership and, ultimately, the welfare of dogs.

I do not think that it is for Redress Scotland to rewrite the rules or make recommendations, but I think that it is your role to flag concerns in this case or in others. It is up to the civil service and the Scottish ministers to say, “These are the recommendations and they are based on that,” or, “We don’t think that”. However, unless there is a feedback loop, how will Scottish ministers know that there are potential issues or flaws in the legislation or the guidance?