Seòmar agus comataidhean

Dr Adeley, you touched on the samples and biopsies that are taken. We have already heard from the Royal College of Pathologists, which talked about the potential challenges that are associated with tissue samples and any returns of those samples. Do you recognise the challenges that the Royal College of Pathologists described when it comes to returning samples? Have you had issues in that area? What are your views on the process?

Mr Torrance has indicated that there is a difficulty here, and there certainly is. The idea of the petition is sound in some ways, but it is not practical in others. The problem that we face is that it would be virtually impossible. We are all aware of the difficulties that local authorities have at the moment; they even have issues with the space that they have for allotments and the land coverage that they keep.

The Scottish Government provides support and funding to enable groups to do some of those things in the community, and that is part of the equation. I concur with David Torrance: I do not see this progressing in the way that the petitioner wants, because it is not practical. It is not feasible in reality to achieve what the petitioner calls for.

That is very good to hear. The communication process was identified as an area of challenge, and you have explained what you do to inform the relatives, the next of kin or individuals who require information and how that is managed. The college found that there were sometimes barriers in communication and in making sure that individuals understood what was expected and what would happen to the samples. It identified that area in its evidence to us.

I agree, convener.

I concur with that, convener. I do not think that we can look at the matter as the petitioner is suggesting. In that circumstance, I suggest that we close it, because the petition is too wide and varied and does not give us the full opportunity to look at things.

The petition makes some valid points in reference to where we are with regard to this whole situation, and it would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarity on its response to the points that the petitioner makes in her submission. We should also ask whether the Government has considered the Scotland against public private partnerships task force position paper “Financing Public Scotland: A Proposal for an Alternative to Public Private Partnerships”. If it has, what is its response to the recommendations?

As you say, convener, the matter is complicated, but, if we get some clarity from the Scottish Government, that might give us an opportunity to investigate and to get further information on it.

I agree with that, convener. The term is open to interpretation, which creates difficulties for us in determining what the petitioner is trying to suggest. I concur with what you are saying, but I am not sure how we take forward the petition in these circumstances. Does it change any of the views that we might have when there is not that definition or that broad span that gives us the opportunity to look at this?

Under the circumstances, I think that it would be better if we referred the petition to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, because it will have more opportunity than this committee will to look into and investigate the matter, which might result in more information. Therefore, under rule 15.6 of standing orders, I suggest that we hand the petition to that committee and ask it to take further action on it.

It is important that we write to the Scottish Government seeking a summary of responses that it has had to date to its consultation and an update on when the delivery plan and timescale for phasing out horticultural peat will be developed and produced, in light of the consultation responses. We should also seek information on whether the Government supports a legal ban on the import, sale and use of horticultural peat and the commercial extraction of peat for burning, with the exception of crofters’ traditional and cultural use.

You make a valid point, convener. As you identified, there are areas that we are already aware of, but there are other organisations that participate or that may be involved that we do not have information from. It would be useful to see what is there when it comes to the factor side and whether there are other areas that we could incorporate.

Our constituents continue to suffer in relation to this problem. It is about trying to find out who is in control and who has the rights, and, as you indicated, the process can become very costly for everybody. We should try to find out whether there is any other process that we can tap into.