���˿���

If we were to have a public awareness campaign that included more symptoms, can you highlight what risks you feel that there would be?

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2025.

Our first item of business is to make a decision on whether to take in private agenda items 4 and 5, which are on consideration of evidence that we are about to hear and our work programme. Are members content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The first new petition is PE2121, which was lodged by Carolyn Philip, who I believe is with us in the public gallery. Welcome. The petition 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 could be brought against responsible parties. We are joined for consideration of the petition by our colleague, Rachael Hamilton MSP—welcome, Rachael.

Keep Scotland Beautiful reports that 50 tonnes of litter are abandoned on Scotland’s roadsides each month. The charity’s annual Scottish litter survey of 2024 set out that 88 per cent of respondents viewed roadside litter as a problem in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s response highlights the 2023 national litter and fly-tipping strategy and year 1 action plan. The response states that that work recognises the importance of prevention through education and communication and of effective approaches to enforcement. On enforcement, section 18 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, when commenced, will enable the issuing of civil penalties for littering from a vehicle.

The response informs us that the national litter and fly-tipping strategy delivery group has established a communications sub-group that will explore the best ways to deliver effective communication messages on litter and fly-tipping. Proposals put forward in the petition will be shared with the sub-group so that it can consider them as part of its on-going work to look at improving communications at the national level. However, the Scottish Government has indicated that direct mailing to local businesses and roadside signage would be a matter for local authorities or Transport Scotland.

The petitioner’s response states that, although her group commends the amount of work that has been done in producing the action plan, she does not agree that the fundamental steps have been taken to address the point that is made in the petition. She points out that the action plan does not mention making companies responsible for securing loose items on open-back lorries. She states that large sums of money are spent each year to clean up litter and suggests that the money would be better spent on applying a workable and enforceable way of reducing litter in the first place.

Before I invite comments from the committee, I ask Rachael Hamilton whether she would like to contribute.

Do members have any suggestions or comments?

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Dr Cook, this question is specifically for you. NHS 24 is a point of contact for most of the public. You are preparing a revised stroke training package. Have you seen it and does it cover the symptoms that we are talking about?

Our next petition is PE1812, which was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation to give Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow in November 2021.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and to the Confederation of Forest Industries—Confor. We have received a response from the Acting Minister for Climate Action, restating the Scottish Government’s commitment to addressing biodiversity loss and noting some of the action that it is already taking to deliver nature restoration in advance of the natural environment bill being introduced in Parliament for consideration.

Members will have noted from our papers that, since the minister’s response was received, the Scottish Government has published a summary of the responses received on its consultation on the strategic framework for biodiversity, as well its biodiversity delivery plan for 2024 to 2030, which indicates that the new register of ancient woodlands is due for delivery by mid-2027.

Members will also be aware that the programme for government included a commitment to introduce a natural environment bill during the current parliamentary year. The response from Confor notes its commitment to sustainable forestry management and support for efforts to find balanced solutions that respect environmental considerations as part of that.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which draws our attention to a Scottish Environment LINK strategy to tackle invasive non-native species in Scotland, noting that forthcoming legislation offers an opportunity to ensure that commercial forestry plays a responsible role in managing the impact of Sitka spruce spreading from plantations on to neighbouring land. Their second submission welcomes the update on plans to develop the register of ancient woodland, while raising concerns that that will not necessarily result in additional legal protection for ancient and native woodland.

Do members have any comments?

Do members agree to close the petition and to write to the Scottish Government?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE1979, which was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, who join us in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to you all. We are also joined for consideration of this petition by our MSP colleagues Edward Mountain and Ash Regan. Good morning to both of you.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine concerns about gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries in the future.

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 6 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. Copies of the responses that we received are included in the papers for today’s meeting.

Members will note that, although the SPSO suggested that there is merit in exploring an independent national whistleblowing officer role for education and children’s services, its experiences with the establishment of the national health service whistleblowing service demonstrate that it is not a straightforward process and “would require careful design”.

The response from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner echoes that sentiment and notes that, although she supports the exploration of a potential whistleblowing officer role, it is not a role that could be fulfilled by her office, nor does she have any evidence of children and young people wanting the commissioner to take on such a role.

We received two responses from the minister, the first of which refers to the Scottish Government’s determination

“to ensure that robust child protection measures are in place across Scotland”,

through implementing updated national guidelines.

The minister also indicated her willingness to meet with the petitioners. I understand that that meeting took place on 4 December and that the minister committed to keeping the petitioners updated on her work to support more robust and consistent investigations of specific cases. As the minister noted in her second response, and in response to recent questions in the chamber, that work includes engaging

“with Association of Directors of Education in Scotland representatives about the issue of how safeguarding concerns ... are investigated at local level”,

as well as establishing a national public protection leadership group

“to discuss ways public protection process in Scotland can and should improve”.

We have also received several submissions from the petitioners, which welcome the constructive and thoughtful submissions from the SPSO and the CYPCS. They highlight continued concerns about fragmented investigation systems and the power imbalance experienced by those raising safeguarding concerns, and the need to ensure that those with lived experience of such issues are part of designing an independent whistleblowing system.

The petitioners’ most recent submission comments on their meeting with the minister. Although they

“welcome any action that strengthens the protection of children and young people”,

the petitioners remain concerned that the Scottish Government has, so far, failed to address “fundamental points” such as public confidence in child safeguarding when systems, networks and personnel involved in historical and current allegations of abuse continue to be in place.

That is quite a lot of information. I ask my colleagues Edward Mountain and Ash Regan whether they have anything to say before we begin the discussion.