Chamber and committees

PE1936, lodged by Lesley Roberts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces by creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and providing ring-fenced funding to councils to tackle potholes.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 March 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Audit Scotland and Police Scotland. The committee has now received responses from all those organisations, with Transport Scotland responding on behalf of the Government to state the level of funding that is being invested in Scotland’s motorways and trunk road network.

Transport Scotland also notes the obligation on operating companies to inspect the trunk road network twice per week, which is intended to identify serious defects and ensure that they are rectified promptly. The response does not directly address why the motorways and trunk roads budget was reduced in 2023-24 and whether the Barnett consequentials resulting from the UK Government’s announcement of an additional £200 million for pothole repair in England will be allocated for pothole repair in Scotland. I imagine it will notionally be £20 million.

In its response, Audit Scotland indicates that it has no plans to do further work in relation to Scotland’s roads.

Police Scotland tells us that, in the past three years, 95 road traffic collisions were recorded with “defective road” noted as a contributory factor, though it is noted that such a contributory factor might not necessarily be a pothole.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, reflecting on the responses that we have received and sharing her continued concern about the health and safety risks being faced by motorists and cyclists while so many roads remain in poor condition.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

There is probably merit in pursuing the issue with the minister a little further, too. Do you have any proposals in that regard?

PE1970 was lodged by Sharon Fairley on behalf of the Scottish Private Nurseries Association, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the funding model of the 1,140 hours of early years learning and childcare to allow parents direct control of childcare funding via an online account.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 21 December 2022, when we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Early Years Scotland, the Scottish Childminding Association and the National Parent Forum of Scotland.

The Scottish Childminding Association’s written submission states:

“the implementation of ‘1140 by 2020’ has had a devastating effect on the childminding workforce”.

The SCMA signalled some support for a direct parent-to-provider payment system but raised a number of concerns about the proposal for an online system. One concern was that uptake among vulnerable children could be adversely affected if parents had to arrange the payment themselves.

COSLA’s response to the committee highlighted that

“88% of those with a 3-5 year old and 92% with an eligible 2 year old were satisfied with the flexibility they had been offered”

with regard to the funding arrangements. COSLA stated that, given the evidence on satisfaction rates, it does

“not believe that this is the right time to consider”

that type of reform to ELC delivery.

In the light of the responses that we have received, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? It looks to me as if, potentially, a move to close the petition would be appropriate.

Are we minded to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always say to people who are watching our proceedings, including those who are tuning in because they have lodged a petition, when we first consider a petition, we have already asked the Parliament’s independent research body SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer us some evidence and views. We have also sought the initial consideration of the Scottish Government. We do that because, otherwise, when we first consider the petition, those would be the first two actions that we would suggest, and not having taken them already would only delay a meaningful consideration of the petition.

The first of our new petitions is PE2042, which is lodged by Undine Achilles-Day on behalf of the Taynuilt community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish car parking charges at all Forestry and Land Scotland sites, to help to promote access to forests and green spaces across Scotland.

The petitioner is concerned that the introduction of car parking charges by Forestry and Land Scotland will have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of people who wish to visit those sites but who will, as a consequence of the charges, no longer be able to afford to do so.

Responding to the petition on behalf of the Scottish Government, Forestry and Land Scotland states that it has been charging for car parking at its most popular sites for 20 years. Although it is expanding the number of sites where parking charges apply, two thirds of its car parks will remain free to use.

The response goes on to note that the decision to increase the number of sites where charges are incurred followed a challenge to public bodies by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy to actively increase income from visitors, to offset the increasing costs of managing visitor pressures. Abolishing charges would impact the sustainability of Forestry and Land Scotland’s finances and could lead to similar calls on other parts of central and local Government that charge for parking.

The petitioner has responded to the Forestry and Land Scotland submission, raising concerns that parking charges are being introduced at sites, such as Fearnoch forest and Sutherland grove, where there are no additional facilities to justify the charges.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I see that we have competition among the members on this occasion. I will go to Mr Ewing first, who will perhaps be less challenging to the aims of the petition than Mr Torrance will.

I am happy to write further to FLS along the lines that you have suggested to dig beneath the general point that it has made about the fact that charges have existed for a while.

The petitioner shares that she was refused a smear test at the age of 18 after her first child was born prematurely and that, following a cervical cancer smear test at 26, it was found that she had abnormal cells.

The SPICe briefing explains that cervical screening is offered on a five-yearly basis between the ages of 25 and 64. The World Health Organization recommends that screening begins by the age of 35. Key organisations for cervical cancer advise that the risks of testing at younger ages might outweigh the benefits, as it is common for women under 25 to experience changes in the cells of the cervix that resolve by themselves. If those changes were detected by a cervical screening test, the patient may be offered unnecessary treatment that could lead to complications, including an increased risk of premature birth in future pregnancies. The Scottish Government’s response also notes that evidence and states that, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, it relies on advice about screening programmes from the United Kingdom National Screening Committee.

Does it give them a platform that they did not have before? That is what struck me as alarming. Material can be posted with impunity, because the young people who are perpetrating the violence are not of the age of criminal responsibility and it seems that there is nothing that anybody can do about it. In the knowledge that that is the case, they are repeating their actions. We heard of a series of videos of the same people identifying fresh victims whom they were then able to perpetrate that violence against. In a sense, it advertises the fact.

To give a completely parallel example, there is a quarry in my constituency that is popular with cliff jumpers. Every year, when the summer holidays come, young people come from around the United Kingdom and risk their lives jumping into the water in the quarry. Why? It is because, on social media, they have seen videos of other people doing it. That has advertised the fact and they have thought that it would be a great thing to do. There is no doubt that social media influences behaviours. The question in my mind is whether the impunity that exists and the lack of ability to do anything about the fact that violence is being promoted in that way should concern us.

Thank you.

How do you gather your evidence from young people?

Of course, we are concerned primarily with the petitioner’s concerns, which are very much related to young people and, in particular, to the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. In recent months, the petitioner has received dozens of videos, images and first-hand accounts of the violence perpetrated on young people.