���˿���

I apologise to the petitioner. Writing to the NZET Committee would have been our strong recommendation, but I feel that we are boxed in on this particular issue. There are one or two other petitions that are still open, which we can directly make progress on, and it would be at their expense if we were not now to come to some difficult decisions.

I thank everybody for their contributions on the petition, but that is the decision of the committee.

Petition PE2118, lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and to improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Government. The Government’s response confirms that its approach to flood risk management planning complies with the European Union floods directive and that its approach to river basin management planning complies with the EU water framework directive.

On our question regarding a single body being responsible for, and appointed to provide leadership on, river basin management, the Government reiterated that SEPA is responsible for the preparation of river basin management plans on behalf of Scottish ministers and that it is legally required to engage with stakeholders and consult with communities on flood risk management plans.

The response concludes that ministers are satisfied with the current strategic framework, and it highlights the publication of the Government’s flood resilience strategy last December.?The strategy will establish a flood advisory service that is designed to provide the framework and process for flood protection schemes, as well as support to communities.

On our question regarding membership of local advisory groups, SEPA showed that those include representatives from various disciplines and organisations but not engineers, economists or geomorphologists as stand-alone members. However, SEPA indicated various ways in which it collaborates with such technical experts throughout the flood risk management planning process.

In his latest submission, the petitioner suggests that SEPA’s flood maps are inaccurate and have no community input and that locally commissioned reports are ignored despite containing more flood scheme options. The petitioner highlights that SEPA consults with organisations that have no legal responsibilities for flooding but does not engage major landowners in the process.

It is always a pleasure to shine a light on the events of 1837.

I will add the observation that SEPA has not been responding to the petitioner’s submissions or directly on the issues that have been raised, which is not atypical. The Scottish Government should understand that that is so.

Yes, it appears to be typical.

Are we content to proceed on the basis that has been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2121, which was lodged by Carolyn Philip, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to run a campaign targeted at companies to raise awareness of the harms that are caused by roadside litter and the penalties that can be brought against responsible parties. We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

We are joined by our colleague Rachael Hamilton. Welcome, Rachael—I spotted you in the gallery, waiting for the sun to burst forth on the interest that you take in the matter.

We have received a written submission from Transport Scotland that states that, as there has been an increase in discarded litter over the past few years, it believes that there needs to be a change of mindset and a campaign undertaken to discourage people from dropping litter. It continues:

“We will work with our Operating Companies, Keep Scotland Beautiful and Zero Waste Scotland to run a campaign targeted at companies and also the public to raise awareness of the harms caused by roadside litter and the legislation that is in place to penalise those who drop litter.”

The Scottish Government’s response lists the organisations that have delivered publicly funded litter prevention campaigns and details the funding that has been provided to roadside litter campaigns since 2007. The response also states that the Scottish Government remains committed to the principle that extended producer responsibility—EPR—for packaging should cover the full net costs of both binned and ground litter clear-up and disposal. The submission notes that the EPR scheme administrator is expected to set out its plans for public information campaigns and its strategy, and the specific activities that it proposes to conduct for the coming year in its operational plan.

Before I invite colleagues to decide what we might do with the petition—I note that it would appear that Transport Scotland wants to take forward the objective that is contained in it—I invite our colleague Rachael Hamilton to say a few words.

Are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

If colleagues are content to proceed on that basis, we will close the petition.

Members indicated agreement.

It means as quickly as possible.

Sometimes, the committee is alerted to conditions that we had not heard of before. It can be easy to follow the pathway when you are talking about high-level services, but that does not apply to some conditions, such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The committee will hear about the particular circumstances of a petitioner who will explain what their condition leads to, the difficulties that they have and the fact that they would get a more sympathetic response and level of treatment in another health board. These conditions are slightly below the radar, for want of a better term, in that they are not part of day-to-day household conversations, which can be quite difficult. The responses that the committee gets from health boards do not always advance matters, and it can be difficult for us to understand the justification for the different levels of treatment in different areas.