Seòmar agus comataidhean

:I will speak to my amendments 46, 47, 91 and 58. The first point is that data on safety is lacking in the sector. That is one of the reasons why it needs to be regulated. However, even in regulated settings, there is difficulty in accessing data on exactly when things unfortunately go wrong and at what point issues occur, both in situ and beyond. Nonetheless, the amendments in this group are about ensuring that there is a proportionate risk-based approach in the absence of that data. Ultimately, my amendments in the group seek to provide a proportionate approach to the new regulated practice in this space. I foresee that, depending on how the amendments in the group are voted on, there might be a requirement for some condensing and tweaking at stage 3.

:I have nothing further to add except to say that I wish to withdraw amendment 76.

Amendment 76, by agreement, withdrawn.

:Amendment 56 in my name seeks to ensure that HIS inspection and enforcement of non-surgical procedures is proportionate, transparent, fair and focused on public safety. Amendment 57 is designed to provide safeguards on governance and accountability.

11:45

:Amendment 100 seeks to ensure that HIS publishes standards and guidance on non-surgical procedures and that providers of non-surgical procedures comply with any such standards and guidance. It is a relatively simple amendment that should be beneficial in providing safety standards and guidance for the sector.

:My amendments 45, 48, 49, 52, 90, 53, 54 and 55 would make further provisions in relation to ensuring that regulations are fit for purpose. My amendments in group 6 were largely focused on costs and financial provisions; my amendments in this group relate to a range of facets including training, timescales for compliance and phased implementation, as well as the assessment of any regulations as defined by the Scottish Government. The amendments would help to provide a pathway to future regulations and ensure that those regulations were fit for purpose.

I move amendment 45.

:I have nothing further to add. I wish to withdraw amendment 45.

Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Unfortunately, as we have experienced a number of times over the past decade, the will of the Parliament sometimes overrules our personal views. In this case, the Parliament has spoken. Often, we hear only from the Scottish Government, but when it comes to this petition, it is beneficial that much of what the petitioner suggested has been duly debated and voted on by the Parliament. Unfortunately for the petitioner, members came down against much of what he suggested.

As a result, the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that relate to the petition’s asks have been debated. Additionally, under current regulations, SEPA must assess the risk to the water environment, including the cumulative effects of other activities, when deciding whether to authorise a proposed development. SEPA may not grant authorisation if it considers that a proposal is likely to have a significantly adverse impact on the water environment, unless certain conditions are met.

I appreciate that the decision-making process could undoubtedly be up for debate, but, nonetheless, SEPA is responsible for that. Unfortunately, the committee has done as much as it can with respect to the issue.

The issue is that there is polka dot provision of childcare across Scotland. In some areas, it works very well; in other areas, although provision is there, it might not balance with the needs of the parent or parents and their work schedule. That is incredibly problematic.

I have a lot of concern about the provision but, by the same token, I think that the petitioner would be best served by lodging a new petition after the evaluation report has been produced.

I just wanted to make an additional comment. I agree with the previous comments, but there is a concern that a moratorium on battery energy storage systems might be announced in the next session of Parliament. We had a similar moratorium on incineration facilities earlier this session, after which incineration capacity in Scotland doubled and, indeed, is set to increase even more. Once planning consent is given in this area, it will be extremely difficult for any Government, no matter what statement is made, to withdraw that consent without undermining Scotland’s entire planning system. As a result, the lack of an energy strategy, which has already been highlighted, the lack of guidance in this particular area, and—as we have seen across many petitions—the lack of meaningful community engagement or local empowerment are ultimately detrimental to many communities throughout Scotland, and they are aghast at what is happening.

Not quite. I will try to think of an explosive one for hydrogen, I suppose. I think that it burns with a squeaky pop—is that correct?

In closing the petition, to help the petitioner, could the committee write to the United Nations centre for water law, policy and science, which is based at the University of Dundee, to inquire whether any research is going on in the area? The committee might also flag the earlier petition. If there is research under way—if not at PhD level, it might be at master’s level—it might be helpful for the petitioner to know that work is going on in the area.