Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that the committee can take the petition any further, and I wonder whether the committee would consider closing it under section 15.7 of standing orders, on the grounds that there is a GB-wide regulatory framework to prevent or minimise harm to people and wildlife from the use of biocides; that the CAR regime in Scotland covers both direct discharges into a water environment and situations where there is a risk of diffuse pollution from activities on land, with SEPA assessing the risk of proposed activities before granting any authorisation, if appropriate; that many factors beyond labelling are required to assess the risk that a product poses to wildlife; that algae remover concentrate, which the petitioner refers to, has been authorised as safe for use by the Health and Safety Executive; and that the Scottish Government considers the issues raised to be a regulatory matter and that there is a robust framework in place, and therefore does not believe that there is either a role for the Government or a reason for ministers to intervene.

We could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that resin composite fillings are available to patients under 15 years of age, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and those who have specific medical conditions that contraindicate the use of dental amalgam, and on the basis that it is the Scottish Government’s view that including white fillings in all cases for aesthetic reasons in the absence of an oral health rationale would not be supported within NHS general dental services.

I am happy to back those recommendations, convener. However, could we highlight to the petitioner that the UK Government’s consultation is open just now so that they can take part in it?

Considering the response from the Government, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government hopes to legislate for a ban on peat sales in this parliamentary session and has no current plans to ban the extraction of peat in Scotland.

My final question is about the management and the boards of national parks. We heard evidence that the boards should be a much broader church and should take in a lot of different areas. The boards are currently very limited in terms of the people on them. What would you say to that?

Good morning. The key drivers for more national parks are supporting economic growth, addressing the climate emergency and improving public services and community wellbeing. In the evidence that we took two weeks ago, people who are against the new national park in Galloway said that they did not think that the park would have any economic levers or that there would be benefits to public services. They thought that it would be detrimental to the area. Are there examples of the existing national parks supporting economic growth, addressing the climate emergency and improving public services and wellbeing?

Yes, or just to change the whole planning system or the system for agricultural and forestry grants. The position is the same in every national park. Can we do something different?

In light of the information that we have received, I wonder whether we can close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has accepted the independent review’s recommendations, with work under way to ensure their implementation. If that is not to the petitioner’s satisfaction, the petitioner could lodge a new petition in the next parliamentary session, and I would urge them to do so.

I am looking at the petition’s aims and think that they have mostly been achieved. I wonder, therefore, if we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has consulted on draft regulations for burials under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 and published its analysis, and it will consider its findings when developing the draft burial regulations.

With regard to the need for change and an independent review, should national parks have more powers to be able to enforce different things in the areas that they represent?