Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final question is to cover off the matter of funding, although witnesses have touched on that. There are a number of options for Scottish Government funding. It might be a case of taking a bird’s-eye view and targeting the funding directly or it could be done via councils or a community fund. The risk with a community fund is that it is generally the most established community groups that will apply. If it were done through a community fund, the Isle of Eigg would definitely have a defibrillator, if it does not already, because it does a fantastic job of applying for funding. Do you have any thoughts on public sector funding but also any examples that could be spread out, by linking to public funding of excellent third sector work in this area or even to private sector work?

I highlight to the committee and to anyone else who is watching that in my voluntary declaration of interests there is an entry that highlights a trip by Conservative Friends of Israel to Israel in 2016.

I recommend that the committee closes the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, although the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, it considers that they can be achieved only in the long term. Furthermore, sentencing is a matter for the courts. Finally, the sentencing and penal policy commission is currently examining the effectiveness of sentencing and community interventions.

Given the stage of the parliamentary session, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, as the convener highlighted, the Scottish Government has reiterated its commitment to the Verity house agreement and thereby will not intervene in decisions regarding the hire of public land owned by local authorities.

The aim of the petition, which is to ban ultra-processed food in school meals, is quite a big ask. Nonetheless, the response from the Scottish Government is extremely disappointing. As you have highlighted, convener, the Scottish Government says that an outright ban on ultra-processed food would mean that products such as bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals would no longer be provided in schools. I cannot fathom how that would be the case, and I am happy to provide the Scottish Government with examples of bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed and that can be provided.

It would be helpful for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a percentage of school meals to be provided that are fresh, which is one of the Scottish Government’s priorities. I know what I would consider to be sustainable, but it would be useful for the Scottish Government to define “sustainable produce”. We should, as I have highlighted, ask the Scottish Government whether it believes that there are no alternatives to bread, yoghurt and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed. Finally, if the Scottish Government could highlight and put in the public domain the data on how it monitors the local authority provision of school menus, that would at least help to inform consideration of the petition.

In addition, we might want to consider writing to the providers of school meals, given the position that we are in and our need to progress quickly. For example, in my region, Tayside Contracts would be one such provider that we could ask for similar information. It is important that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have an overview of school meal provision across Scotland.

I agree with Mr Russell. However, we should highlight to the petitioner that the Scottish Government intending to introduce a bill in the next Parliament should not be grounds for any solace. There are instances in which the Scottish Government has said that it would introduce a bill in the same session, while it is in government, and has not done so. A commitment for a future Government, when we do not know the make-up of it, should not be grounds for such consideration. Nevertheless, the wider issue of legal aid is incredibly challenging and it needs to be looked at by the next Scottish Government.

As per your remarks, convener, the Scottish Government is ultimately committed to meeting the ask of the petitioner, which is a positive result. Therefore, I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

The ways in which the legislation is applied by local authorities vary considerably. Anecdotally, I have experienced that, in many cases, it is not enforced at all. Nonetheless, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, although the Scottish Government had considered designating specific roads for pavement parking bans, as the petition highlights, it decided that that would cause confusion and put pavement users at risk. Furthermore, the decision to allow exemptions for narrower roads is one for local authorities. Finally, the parking standards group can address further concerns and clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.

I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is of the view that existing legislation takes into account the needs of communities that wish to establish a denominational school, and that the current framework for decision making around the establishment of a denominational school is sufficient.

I understand the connectivity difficulties, particularly in rural areas but even in urban ones, and I appreciate that the petitioner must be frustrated by them. Ultimately, however, and with a heavy heart, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plan to develop a distinct digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. It will publish a new Highlands and Islands plan this year—any month now—that will integrate digital connectivity with other key priorities, and it will also publish a refreshed digital strategy that will take connectivity priorities into account.