On anonymity?

Mr Simpson, that was a fair point regarding the petition being signed by 65 per cent of the electorate and the 10 per cent threshold. However, we still heard in evidence that, sometimes, there is no justification for keeping a petition open once the required number of signatures has been reached. I am a pragmatic person, as well as being tough on crime, and I am concerned about the issue of cost. That factor came out loud and clear in all the evidence that we heard. I question the value of continuing to administer a petition that has already succeeded. That is why I lodged amendments 97 and 52A.

More importantly, once the statutory conditions have been met, the petition’s purpose has been fulfilled. At that point, the petition system should move swiftly to the next stage. I am also keen for progress and for there to be no delay. The removal of the MSP and the process of filling the vacancy should happen with as much haste as possible.

Amendment 52A would adjust the definition of “signing period” in section 24 so that it ends on whichever of the following occurs first: the end of the day four weeks after the petition opens; the petition officer receiving a recall termination notice; or the petition officer determining that the required number of signatures has been reached. I accept the issue with counting the signatures as the process goes along. However, the amendment would allow the petition to close immediately upon its success, which would be efficient and logical—a commonsense Sue Webber approach to life.

Introducing such flexibility without a fixed end date would create a secondary issue that must be addressed, which is creating and calculating the eligibility for 16-year-olds. Under section 10, a person is eligible to sign the petition if they will turn 16

“before the end of the signing period”.

However, if the signing period could end early at an undefined and unknown future point, it would become impossible to calculate in advance whether some individuals—particularly those who are close to turning 16—would qualify.

For example, if the petition succeeds in week 1, someone who would have turned 16 in week 3 would then be ineligible, despite having appeared to be eligible at the start of the process. Such uncertainty is not workable for a petition or for petition officers, and it is not fair or transparent for young voters.

I lodged the follow-up amendment 97 to directly address that issue. It would remove section 10(1)(b), which would currently allow eligibility based on turning 16

“before the end of the signing period”.

In its place, the amendment would provide a clear and administratively workable rule, which is that a person must be 16 at the beginning of the signing period in order to be able to sign the petition. That would be much clearer. Regardless of whether the petition closes at the point of reaching the determined number of signatures, the provision would create fixed and predictable eligibility criteria and avoid the difficulties that would be created by having a variable end date. Amendment 97 would ensure consistency and fairness for young people while enabling my amendment 52A to operate as intended.

I am aiming to make the petition process more efficient, to ensure that petitions close as soon as they have succeeded, to avoid any administrative complications and to provide clear and fair eligibility rules for 16-year-olds.

The convener tends to help me to clarify my mind, so I will bring him in.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Apologies, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Logistics UK has highlighted the fact that we are facing a shortage of safe and high-quality truck stops, which are needed for driver dignity as well as for safety. In relation to the cabinet secretary’s discussions with the justice secretary, another big ask is to have a specific crime code for the recording of retail crime.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether reliance on local enforcement to tackle antisocial and dangerous e-scooter use is creating a postcode lottery in public safety, with some communities protected and others left exposed. (S6O-05375)

I struggled to hear the answer, so I will do my best.

In Edinburgh, in my region, the number of e-scooter confiscations has tripled in just two years, while some areas have recorded none. E-scooter use is clearly a growing menace to everyday Scots, who feel unsafe just walking about in their high streets. The statistics show that there is a lack of consistency, but the minister has denied that there is a postcode lottery in public safety. Will the Scottish Government finally press the United Kingdom Government for a clear national framework on registration, insurance and licensing instead of letting the problems get worse?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether reliance on local enforcement to tackle antisocial and dangerous e-scooter use is creating a postcode lottery in public safety, with some communities protected and others left exposed. (S6O-05375)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. The dualling of the A9 was meant to be completed last year, but thanks to Scottish National Party incompetence, the can has been kicked down the undualled road to 2035 and taxpayers will now have to fork out almost £4 billion as a result of this catastrophic project mismanagement.

As costs soar and progress stalls, more lives are still being lost on this lifeline road. Yesterday, Shona Robison boasted about the additional £200 million to complete the A9 but—to be frank—that is a drop in the ocean in comparison with what is actually needed.

Laura Hansler, from the A9 dual action group, said that yesterday’s announcement amounted to

“keeping a project technically alive while ensuring it never meaningfully progresses.”

Echoing the Scottish Conservatives’ proposals, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that

“dualling ... must be accelerated, with clear routes for private capital to support.”

Nothing in the statement today addresses either of those statements. How can anyone believe a word that the cabinet secretary says, when her party has, time and again, broken its promise on dualling this key road?