Seòmar agus comataidhean

We should keep the petition open. I would like the opportunity to hear from the petitioners. Plainly, we have had responses to the petition, including a submission from Michelle Thomson and an oral contribution from Ruth Maguire, my predecessor on the committee. Ruth Maguire pointed to the importance of data being accurate and, perhaps more important, to the very sensitive nature of the issue. There must be a risk of retraumatising a victim of rape by failing to record the perpetrator as male and possibly recording the gender of the perpetrator as female. We should not underestimate the harm and trauma that that could cause.

Given that the replies have been somewhat dry and technical, I would be interested in hearing what the petitioners have to say, because, after all, this is the petitions committee, which is a gateway for people to seek clarity. It is a well-focused petition, and there would be an opportunity for us, after taking evidence, to pursue matters further. I therefore hope that we can hear from the petitioners in order to get their response to the information that we have gleaned from the various authorities.

I concur with the suggestions that have been made thus far. The petitioner has pointed out that, as well as the inconvenience and the risk of damage to vehicles, there is the risk of potholes leading to a personal injury. For obvious reasons, cyclists, for example, are more prone to accidents, such as falling off their bike, where there are potholes, and if a car has been incapacitated by being driven into a pothole and, therefore, the motorist has to stop by the kerb, perhaps in a remote rural area, there is a risk of anything happening, frankly, when they are waiting for an emergency vehicle to come along. In extremis, there is the risk of someone losing their life as a result of an accident occasioned by a pothole.

I am not sure whether the police or anyone else records whether poor road maintenance is listed as a contributory factor when they do their analysis of fatal accidents, but I would be interested to at least ask the police whether that is the case.

I am very much attracted to the idea that, if additional funding were to come to Scotland, it should be used for this issue. I am not suggesting that it necessarily be used for the motorways, which, in my experience, are pretty well maintained—they have to be, given the speed of the vehicles that use them—but it could be used for the roads in cities, not least in Edinburgh. The roads here are in an appalling state, as are the roads in Glasgow, sadly. The situation is becoming considerably worse.

The problem has bedevilled Scotland since devolution, as seen in the various audit reports over the years and the backlogs that you have alluded to, convener. It is something that affects people; obviously all of us, as MSPs, frequently receive complaints from constituents about the effects of accidents that have been occasioned by poorly maintained roads.

We could certainly ask the Government.

Mr Torrance suggested that we wait until NPF4 was finalised. Given that it has now been finalised and that there are funding vehicles, we have perhaps taken the petition as far as we can. If it subsequently emerges that the petitioner feels that those funds are insufficient, she could raise the matter again. I am not sure, however, that we can go any further with the petition, given the inquiries that we have made and the evidence that we have received.

Yes, that should be done. I wonder whether, in addition, we could seek information—I do not know whether it would come from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service or the Crown Office. Annex C of paper 12 is the Scottish Government’s response to the petition and goes into the background of the reason behind the law reforms, which, essentially, as I understand it, was to prevent the raising of evidence about the complainer’s past sexual behaviour as being relevant to the charges. The point that I wanted to make, however, is that there is a provision under section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 whereby an accused person can at their trial apply to the court to lead evidence that is prohibited by the law that, generally speaking, prevents the raising of prior sexual behaviour and history. In other words, there is a provision whereby an accused can seek to bring in that evidence, if it can be established that it is pertinent to the specifics of the case.

My query, convener, is this: how frequently have such applications been made, how frequently have they been granted and how is it working out in practice? I am curious to see whether such applications are routine and whether they tend to be dismissed because the law tends to suggest that they should be dismissed. If that specific area of questioning could be included in our letters, please, it might help to shed some light on what is happening. The petitioner indicated that she approached Mr Torrance as her MSP, but the petition does not go into much detail, at least not in the papers that I have read, about her concerns. Be that as it may, could that query be added to the enquiries that we are making?

That point is ancillary to the petition, but it is part of the overall issue.

From reading the papers, I can see that, in June last year, the petitioner argued that young males living south of the border are afforded protection that is not available for young males in Scotland. I looked at the JCVI response to see what it said about that. Maybe it is my failure to comprehend some of the medical information in that, but I could not see a direct response on why it is fine in England but not in Scotland.

I was looking for the answer to the question that the petitioner has posed. I do not know whether the clerks can help me—maybe it is hidden in here somewhere—but I did not see any reference to what is, according to the petitioner at least, a situation in Scotland that is different from that in England. We are probably reaching the end of the petition, but I wonder whether that is something that the clerks might clarify with the JCVI. Perhaps I have missed something.

I agree with what both you and Mr Stewart have advocated. I add that I am slightly puzzled about how properties without a connection to either the main sewerage system or to a private septic tank can be sold. In house conveyancing in Scotland, it is standard for there to be a series of conditions about this without which it is difficult to see how anyone can purchase a house or, indeed, get a mortgage over a house. That might be of concern to lenders because there may not be a valid security.

I wonder whether, in addition to writing to SEPA, we could write to the Law Society to ask for its guidance about how, in practice, properties in this category are dealt with. I would be interested to see what is happening out there. If houses have no access to a sewage facility, I am not sure how they can be transacted on the market. I think that the petitioner refers to some properties having been sold.

If there is an appetite—I obviously have the appetite, as do others—for this committee to do the inquiry, we would be well placed to do it. I know that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is very busy, but because it is the lead committee on the matter it would be politic to have discussions.

I think that Alexander Stewart is right: we could do a good job and we would be assisted by visiting members, I am perfectly sure. I would be more than happy if the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee did the inquiry. Practically, it might be easier for us to play our part that way.

We should write to the chambers of commerce in Inverness and Perth, which have been very active on the matter, and to community councils. I can supply the clerks with information about who to write to in Badenoch and Strathspey, for example; I think that Sandy McCook chairs a group of the community councils there. We should also write to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which can provide expert evidence. It would be good to contact it.

I should apologise to my constituents that I am not able to attend the debate on the A9 this afternoon, because I will be in the dental chair having my teeth drilled. I hope that nobody connected with Transport Scotland is doing the drilling. It will be a bit like perhaps not Hamlet without the prince, but, given my age, Hamlet without Polonius, but Laertes will be there to fill the breach. I just thought that I should state that out of courtesy, because normally I participate in such debates, and it is a matter of disappointment that I am not able to do so today, because I could not get any other appointment. I state that for the record and as a courtesy to other members who might wonder why I am not making my views known.

So lack of communication was the common theme.