Chamber and committees

I should also say that, at our previous meeting, we agreed to consider not just the evidence that we had heard on PE1979, which is on establishing an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies, but the evidence that we took on the A9 dualling project, which we have been considering. Therefore, agenda items 5 and 6 will be taken in private, too. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will be looking in some detail at the influence of social media over the past 10 or 15 years, but I note that Emily Beever wants to come in.

We will come back to that. Some colleagues will attest that I represent a relatively affluent area in that I am the MSP for the Eastwood constituency on the south side of Glasgow, which has some very high-income areas but it also has its own less fortunate areas. This is another theme that we might come back to but I have had examples of youth violence brought to my attention and I am struck by what seems at times the lack of parental responsibility in acknowledging that their children can in any way be responsible for acts of youth violence. Those parents, therefore, support neither the teachers nor the school and have themselves become part of the harassing posse, if I can put it that way, of the individuals who have been the subject of the violence.

Of course, that is an emerging trend. Teachers, particularly those who have left the profession, have been saying to me for a very long time now that if they only had to deal with the children that would be fine, but they now find dealing with the parents almost impossible because they get very little support from them. That is a theme that I want to come back to, but I do not want to hog all the time, so I will hand over to David Torrance.

Are we content, colleagues, to support Mr Torrance and Mr Ewing’s suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should ask for as candid a response as possible from the cabinet secretary, because we are aware that statements are being made in the chamber almost daily about the inability to deliver on major projects. We want to understand where the Rest and Be Thankful project sits within that framework.

PE2002, lodged by Grant White, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide increased funding for legal aid in civil cases for people with disabilities.

We last considered the petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. We have now received responses from SLAB and the Law Society.

SLAB highlights its recent research into the experience of users of civil legal assistance, noting that results were, apparently, positive overall. Responses to questions on finding and contacting solicitors did not reveal any significant differences in experience between those with and without a condition that limits their day-to-day activities. However, eight respondents reported feeling that their disability had made it difficult for them to access a solicitor. In its equality outcomes plan for 2023 to 2026, SLAB aims to improve the accessibility of information about legal aid and its services, with a focus on people with disabilities and other groups—which is an ask of the petition.

The Law Society of Scotland’s response states that the number of firms that are providing civil legal aid has significantly declined—by 20 per cent—over the past decade, with a lack of a sustainable funding mechanism and fees not keeping pace with inflation being noted as contributing factors. Its submission states that a mechanism for periodic review, taking inflation into account, is required to address the impact of inflation on the legal aid system.

We have responses from SLAB, which appears to be amending practice to some extent, and from the Law Society. Do members have any suggestions for action?

I am grateful for all that. I wonder whether we might also write to the UK Government, since it is responsible for aviation. In this instance, I am quite interested to know its thoughts on a summarised version of the petition and the issues arising from it, and on whether there is a similar prevalence of drone use elsewhere within the UK and whether that may lead it to think afresh about any regulation of drone use. Are we content with all that?

Members indicated agreement.

Do colleagues agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

In view of Mr Ewing’s comments, it might be worth our asking one or two relevant associations what they believe the consequence of the proposal would be and what existing fire safety measures they have in place, or about the regulations relating to all of that. There could be alternatives to sprinkler systems, and it might be worth while investigating those.

We will close the petition, but we can draw the petitioner’s attention to the provisions that currently exist and to which there is recourse in the event of any pedestrian crossing being disabled.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on 6 March. We will now move into private session.