Seòmar agus comataidhean

My suite of amendments—amendments 1 to 8—seeks to ensure that the aggravation can be extended by regulations to apply to the theft of dogs that would not ordinarily be considered to be assistance dogs. The amendments would replace the label “assistance dog” with the broader expression “helper dog”. The broader term would enable Scottish ministers to extend the definition of “helper dog” through regulations. In practice, it would allow the Scottish ministers to extend the definition to include, for example, service dogs and other working dogs, should they choose to do so.

The amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

PE1989 and PE2101 both call for increased availability of defibrillators. I will park funding for the moment—that will be my final question—but on the issue of availability, can you provide some information on how defibs are mapped and how access can be improved?

The question of speed versus effectiveness is, I suppose, a bit of a conundrum. An obvious quick way of rolling out defibs would be to, say, put them outside every school, but I think—and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this—that that might mean doubling up in a community. Moreover, a school might not be located in the right area. In Dundee, for example, Grove academy is right in the centre, with lots of houses nearby and having a defib there would be useful. The new Greenfield academy, on the other hand, is right on the outskirts of a community; it might take someone a 10-minute round trip to get there and one would hope that the ambulance would be there by that stage.

When it comes to thinking about a more effective and perhaps longer-term way of rolling out defibs, how would you map that? Where would you look at? What would be the priorities with regard to ensuring the most access, and how might that affect rural communities?

I will follow up on what has been said and bring in Steven Short.

After almost a decade in the Scottish Parliament, I have seen the Scottish Government on many occasions want to create a headline rather than tackle a problem. You can see how appealing it would be for the Government to provide public funding for defibs in every school in Scotland—that sounds great—but I want to press you a little on whether you think that a more sophisticated approach is required. Schools might be part of that, but it might be appropriate for defibs to also be in other public buildings or community areas. If the Scottish Government made public funding available, how should an effective approach be rolled out to prioritise the areas that are most in need of that piece of kit?

My final question is to cover off the matter of funding, although witnesses have touched on that. There are a number of options for Scottish Government funding. It might be a case of taking a bird’s-eye view and targeting the funding directly or it could be done via councils or a community fund. The risk with a community fund is that it is generally the most established community groups that will apply. If it were done through a community fund, the Isle of Eigg would definitely have a defibrillator, if it does not already, because it does a fantastic job of applying for funding. Do you have any thoughts on public sector funding but also any examples that could be spread out, by linking to public funding of excellent third sector work in this area or even to private sector work?

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that it is expected that draft regulations will be laid this year and that an alkaline hydrolysis regulations working group has been established and has begun exploring issues to inform the development of the draft regulations.

I agree with Mr Torrance. However, in the next parliamentary session, it might be helpful for the petitioner to look at the effectiveness of the ban. I note that the petition called for a full or partial ban. I would agree that, in practical terms, the current ban is a partial ban and there are, unfortunately, numerous shops in Scotland where people can still buy disposable vapes.

I agree with the member’s comments. We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, given the time constraints and the likely requirement for an exemption under the UK 2020 act, the Scottish Government’s track record with regard to exemptions under that act, and the lack of the delegation of powers and governance in relation to the application of that act in the UK, the timescales mean that the committee could not progress the petition before the end of the parliamentary session. However, in closing the petition, I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government regarding how, from a circular economy point of view, it might look to tackle the issue of disposable barbecues and to ask whether it has engaged, or plans to engage, on that specific issue with the UK Government, including on guidance, as the member highlighted.

The petitioner might want to consider whether it is worth while lodging a new petition in the next session, and, if so, to consider the fact that, were we to ban disposable barbecues, it would be relatively simple to redesign said barbecues to make them reusable. As the member will know, we already have examples, such as hexamine stoves. With regard to tackling wildfires, a ban on disposable barbecues would take us no further forward. There would still be a risk; it is just that the risk would be from a reusable, rather than a disposable, product.

The aim of the petition, which is to ban ultra-processed food in school meals, is quite a big ask. Nonetheless, the response from the Scottish Government is extremely disappointing. As you have highlighted, convener, the Scottish Government says that an outright ban on ultra-processed food would mean that products such as bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals would no longer be provided in schools. I cannot fathom how that would be the case, and I am happy to provide the Scottish Government with examples of bread, yoghurts and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed and that can be provided.

It would be helpful for the committee to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a percentage of school meals to be provided that are fresh, which is one of the Scottish Government’s priorities. I know what I would consider to be sustainable, but it would be useful for the Scottish Government to define “sustainable produce”. We should, as I have highlighted, ask the Scottish Government whether it believes that there are no alternatives to bread, yoghurt and breakfast cereals that are not ultra-processed. Finally, if the Scottish Government could highlight and put in the public domain the data on how it monitors the local authority provision of school menus, that would at least help to inform consideration of the petition.

In addition, we might want to consider writing to the providers of school meals, given the position that we are in and our need to progress quickly. For example, in my region, Tayside Contracts would be one such provider that we could ask for similar information. It is important that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have an overview of school meal provision across Scotland.

I agree with Mr Russell. However, we should highlight to the petitioner that the Scottish Government intending to introduce a bill in the next Parliament should not be grounds for any solace. There are instances in which the Scottish Government has said that it would introduce a bill in the same session, while it is in government, and has not done so. A commitment for a future Government, when we do not know the make-up of it, should not be grounds for such consideration. Nevertheless, the wider issue of legal aid is incredibly challenging and it needs to be looked at by the next Scottish Government.

As per your remarks, convener, the Scottish Government is ultimately committed to meeting the ask of the petitioner, which is a positive result. Therefore, I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.