���˿���

We will keep the petition open; I thank the petitioners for raising the issue. We will proceed as I set out in the first instance, and I expect that we might potentially take further evidence on the issue later in the year.

I take your point that the Scottish Government did not really address the issues of the petition in its initial response. I also take your point about drawing attention to the Scottish Government’s own homework as evidence of anything. It would be surprising if the Scottish Government came back and said that it did not think that it had been doing a good job or that the whole thing was not a stunning success—that does not tend to be what Government reports on its own homework do. Therefore, there is nothing particularly independent in the character of that.

Should the committee be quite strong in the recommendation that the Scottish Government should respond seriously to the issue that the petitioner has raised and that an independent voice should be appointed to conduct a review of the petition?

Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our colleague Fergus Ewing will join us shortly. He is at a breakfast meeting in the Parliament and will come along to proceedings as soon as that has concluded.

The first item on our agenda is, as always, the technical one, which is simply for colleagues to agree that we will take in private agenda item 4, which is consideration of evidence that we will hear. Are members content to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I will just say in conclusion that your empathy with the position that people find themselves in is apparent from the evidence that you have given. I am very grateful to you for everything that you have volunteered to us. As Mr Ewing said, and as you have almost said, the responsibility maybe lies with the committee to be much more directional with the Scottish Government in our findings on these matters. However, I am grateful to you for everything that you have volunteered this morning.

Is there anything further that you would like to say that you feel has not emerged during our conversation?

In that case, thank you both very much. We agreed to consider the evidence that we have heard later. In the meantime, I suspend the meeting briefly to allow everyone to settle.

I also note that 78 per cent of land managers in Perth and Kinross were against a national park. At present, the issue that probably has most traction in the minds of many people is that of the Flamingo Land park, which is being proposed within the national park in that area. Something like 94,000 people have objected. People then wonder just exactly what the basis of a national park is. I suppose that it is open to the committee, through our interrogation of other witnesses beyond even the petitioners, to potentially establish an independent assessment of how these matters are progressing.

Are colleagues content to write to the Scottish Government in the first instance, on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

We proceed with our consideration of continuing petitions. The next petition is PE1877, whch has been lodged by Alex Wallace and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line national health service staff and paramedics in Scotland.

When we previously considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service to request information about the outcome of its evaluation of a trial of body cameras. The Scottish Ambulance Service’s response explains that a plan was being developed to trial body camera equipment; however, it did not progress to a live trial because of staff concerns. The submission states that

“The full purchase and roll out of equipment ... would likely attract a capital cost in excess of £1,500,000 and a recurring revenue cost of around £400,000”.

As a result of the cost and staff concerns, the work on body cameras has been “paused” by the Scottish Ambulance Service. In the light of that, what action do members feel that we might consider taking?

Mr Wallace has not responded. He is aware of the submissions that we have received and has had the opportunity to make a further submission, but has chosen not to. I am slightly reluctant to establish a precedent that, if a petitioner does not come back in response to evidence that the committee has heard, we will actively solicit a further response. I do not think that that is our normal practice.

Right. That is a bit different. Do you think that we could combine those two proposals in some way? In closing the petition, might it be possible to take forward Mr Choudhury’s recommendation that we write to the Minister for Higher and Further Education to draw his attention to the evidence that we have received and encourage the Government in the work that it is doing? Would that satisfy Mr Choudhury?

How strongly would you like that to be worded, Mr Ewing?