Seòmar agus comataidhean

I share your sentiments, convener. It is with regret that I have to ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has suggested that the work that has been commissioned to produce planning guidance for battery energy storage systems is still under way. The Scottish Government intends to publish a call for evidence on battery energy storage systems later in 2026 to inform the future policy statement on the technology. In addition, the committee has raised the relevant issues as part of its thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.

In closing the petition, I highlight to the petitioner that, if significant progress has not been made by the Scottish Government, he can bring a fresh petition in the next session of Parliament.

In the light of the evidence that is before us and the decision taken by Parliament, the committee should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the relevant planning authority must consider whether a proposed development requires an environmental impact assessment; that, under existing regulations, SEPA must assess the risk that is posed to the water environment by a proposed development, including cumulative effects with other activities; that SEPA has stated that it has restricted or suspended abstractions in areas that are affected by water scarcity, and that new permits may include stricter conditions; that the Scottish Parliament debated broader amendments related to the petition as part of its consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill; and that the committee has raised relevant issues as part of a thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.

I think that everybody on the committee is highly pleased with the outcome. When we saw your face with Stanley the eagle on your arm outside the garden lobby, it made us all smile.

On a serious note, the committee has worked really well, as has Barry. I will quote from his submission:

“The fact that … a humble citizen like me can take the government to task on things they need to do, or correct things they got wrong, is a wonderful part of the constitution. Its existence is what allowed me to correct the wrong done to falconers. Scotland should be proud of this system.”

That shows that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee can work. I know that we do not get it right for everybody but, out there, the committee has improved the lives of falconers, and of other people who put petitions forward. The general message—as you know, because we have been there together, as we have been on the committee for a long time—is that the committee makes huge differences. It is a great part of the constitution of the Scottish Parliament.

That said, will the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Parliament has voted to allow falconers the rights that were requested?

Would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has indicated that work to update existing good practice guidance is under way; that the reporter who is in charge of examining applications that are objected to by planning authorities may decide to hear representations from any person as appropriate; and that the committee has raised relevant issues as part of its thematic evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy?

I also suggest highlighting to the petitioner that, if they do not feel that significant progress is made, they can submit a new petition in the next session of the Parliament.

I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that British standard BS 8300 makes recommendations on the use of light reflectance values in buildings and signage to establish tonal contrasts between elements; that, when guidance is produced by the Scottish Government, the recommendations of BS 8300 are either cited directly or inform its production; and that the committee has no further time available to progress the issue that the petition raises.

In the light of the Scottish Government’s stance, I wonder whether we could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government will not take forward the development of guidance on the interaction between child contact dispute processes and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018; that it plans to make regulations to give the courts the power to make an order in relation to a person who has behaved in a vexatious manner in civil proceedings to require them to obtain permission from the court before raising further specified actions; and that it is preparing a policy paper for the Scottish Civil Justice Council to propose court rule changes to ensure that the civil courts receive information on domestic abuse at the outset of the case.

You are right, convener.

In the light of the written evidence, the committee should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has set its key objectives and eligibility criteria for the Scottish 2025-26 flu and Covid-19 vaccination programme, based on JCVI advice, and has not indicated that it intends to deviate from that advice. The committee has no further time remaining in this parliamentary session to progress the issues that are raised in the petition.

What evaluation has been undertaken of the impact that the bill might have on specialist programmes that have historically had higher levels of non-UK graduates, such as general practice and psychiatry?

Thank you for that. In addition to the green theatre programme, which you have just touched on, what specialties are being considered for action by the centre for sustainable delivery? Secondly—and this is really important—how are you engaging with clinicians on being innovative in reducing emissions, and what challenges are you facing in that respect?

Thank you. I have no further questions, convener.