Chamber and committees

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.

We got information from some councils, which was useful. In that correspondence, the committee might also want to highlight the responses that we received from West Lothian Council and Fife Council, because they had an impact. I am content with David Torrance’s suggestion.

I think, Laura, that is what you have already said and are trying to say again here today.

We could take the opportunity to write to Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland to seek their views on the issue raised in the petition, specifically on the question whether they support a review of the complaints procedure for higher education institutions and the SPSO’s remit in relation to these processes. That would be my recommendation, convener.