Chamber and committees

Thank you. I note the reference in the briefing that we received to the October 2021 case that was heard in the High Court in respect of the UK Secretary of State for Health, in which an effort to strike down section 1(1)(d) of the 1967 act was dismissed. At that time, the court dismissed the argument that that section of the act perpetuated negative stereotypes of people with disabilities as it focuses more on the rights of the pregnant person and their medical treatment. I found the briefing interesting in presenting different sides of the argument that the petitioner was seeking to represent, which, in itself, was well expressed.

We have heard Carol Mochan’s position. Do other colleagues have any suggestions? It appears not. Carol Mochan proposes that, in this instance, particularly given the Scottish Government’s position that it does not intend to amend the Abortion Act 1967, there is nothing that the committee can meaningfully do to pursue the petition and we should therefore close it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I agree. Do we have any other suggestions? As there are none, are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has advocated?

Members indicated agreement.

It might be worth asking Police Scotland to reflect on its previous response, in which it said:

“there are no known cases where a biological male has been charged with the physical crime of rape and has self-identified as a woman.”

That might have been its view at the time, but, as the Parliament knows from subsequent events, it is not a robust basis on which to form a policy judgment. Police Scotland wrote to us in January 2022, so we might want to hear from it further on that, as well as from the board, as Carol Mochan suggested.

Are we content to invite the petitioners to meet the committee when we have received responses to the various further inquiries that we will make? At this stage, are we content to approach the relevant bodies that have been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1884, which was lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the national health service or provide funds for private access to it for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help.

At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to inquire, on behalf of the petitioner, how he could participate in the upcoming clinical trials of cannabis-based products for medicinal use—CBPMs. We have received a response from the interim chief pharmaceutical officer, who has indicated that individuals who are interested in taking part in the trials should mention that interest to the specialist clinician in charge of their care, who will be able to keep them updated once the trial set-up has been confirmed.

The last time the committee considered the petition, a degree of sympathy was expressed on the general issues connected to it. However, the fact that the trials are in prospect may lead to a way forward. There could be an opportunity for the petition to come back at a later date if nothing much materialises.

I would like to do more, but I do not think that there is any more that we can do at this point. We can draw the information to the petitioner’s attention and point out that, in the event of its being felt that that route was not open or that the trials had not materialised, there is the opportunity to bring the petition back to us. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1936, which was lodged by Leslie 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 local councils to tackle the problem.

We last considered the petition on 28 September, when we agreed to seek the views of a number of organisations involved in the maintenance of the road network. The committee has received responses from the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, the RAC Foundation, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association.

The Scottish Road Works Commissioner notes that road authorities such as Transport Scotland and local councils are responsible for decisions relating to the repair and maintenance of roads. The commissioner does, however, have the power to impose financial penalties on road authorities that systematically fail in their duty to co-ordinate or co-operate when undertaking roadworks.

In its response, the RAC Foundation highlights call-out data that indicates that a United Kingdom motorist is now 1.6 times more likely to suffer a fault or damage caused by a poor road surface than they were in 2006. The RAC Foundation also notes cuts to transport budgets. That point was also highlighted in the submission from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which expressed disappointment that the Scottish Government has reduced the budget for motorways and trunk roads by more than £75 million in the 2023-24 budget. In the context of those financial pressures, the CECA states:

“we are rapidly approaching a tipping point for some local authorities whereby they will never catch up on the structural repairs on their network”.

I seem to recall that, in my local authority area, it was estimated that it would take 120 years to get the roads up to spec at the current level of spend.

The Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland submission highlights guidance for local authorities on taking a risk-based approach to their inspection and repair regime but notes that not all local authorities follow that approach. The response also notes previous investigations carried out by Audit Scotland on the condition of Scotland’s local and trunk roads.

We have also received two new submissions from the petitioner that raise further concerns about the deteriorating condition of the road surface and the impact that it is having on motorists. In particular, the petitioner highlights safety concerns about driving at night or in wet conditions, and the impact on female drivers. The petitioner also wishes to draw the committee’s attention to concerns that were raised about road conditions in Glasgow ahead of the Union Cycliste Internationale cycling championships, which are due to be hosted by the city later this year.

My only suggestion, in the first instance, is to note that, in last week’s UK Government budget, the chancellor announced an additional £200 million for pothole repairs, presumably with a consequential coming to the Scottish Government of about £20 million. The Scottish Government has to decide what it wishes to do with those funds, but I think that we might legitimately inquire, on behalf of the petitioner, whether the Scottish Government intends to commit that consequential towards the repair of potholes, in addition to raising with the Scottish Government the concern expressed by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association that spending on motorways and trunk roads was seriously reduced in 2023-24 by £75 million, and ask what action it is taking to help build resilience into the road network across Scotland.

Do colleagues agree with that or have suggestions that might complement it?

That concludes the public section of our meeting. We will next meet on Wednesday 19 April. I thank all those who have joined our proceedings this morning.

In that part of the meeting, we will consider the beginnings of our draft report. I hope that, if we cannot complete that work today, we will be content to arrange for it to be completed in private at later meetings. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us, but we have taken it as far as we can. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I absolutely agree.