Chamber and committees

I would like to keep the petition open. We should write to the charities Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK to seek their views on what the petitioner is calling for but also to seek their views on how improvements by the Scottish Government will affect payments for people.

Like you, convener, I was disappointed that we did not get anything back from the Scottish Government. Could we invite the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands to give us evidence on the questions that have been raised? The evidence that has been put before us is concerning.

The submissions are very detailed, but there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. Could we invite the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport to provide evidence to the committee?

I am like my colleagues in that I am very interested in the petition as somebody who has been there from the very start in relation to the mesh cases. It is important that we get to the bottom of the matter. Rather than write to the chief medical officer, could we ask him to give evidence? We could invite somebody from the hospital in Canada to give evidence to the committee, too, so that we could ask questions. Let us just push the petition on and make progress on it.

I suggest that we write to ask NatureScot whether it routinely provides information about the conservation objectives it is seeking to achieve when rejecting a licence application and whether it plans to do so in the future.

Could we write to the Minister for Community Safety to ask for an update on how she got on with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service?

She stole my thunder there.

As with the previous petition, I wonder if we could get the correct minister in and take some evidence. It is quite important. Community ownership of wind farms is vital to small communities. I have several examples in my constituency where it has been beneficial. To me, it is important that we take the petition forward and get the relevant minister or cabinet secretary to come in and give evidence.

Considering the Scottish Government’s submission and that it will review the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but in closing the petition, we could write to the Scottish Government highlighting the evidence from Polmont veterinary clinic.

The petition has been on-going for quite a while—since last session—and we have not been updated by the petitioner for a long time. I am sure that, like me, committee members have a number of questions that they would like to ask the petitioner and HIAL management. I would like to bring in the petitioner and HIAL management to give evidence so that we can ask those questions.