Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

PE1943, which was lodged by Victoria Mungall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use while also discouraging developments on greenfield land. When we last considered the petition, on 26 October, we agreed to wait until the national planning framework 4 was finalised. We also agreed to write to a number of organisations seeking their views.

Members will be aware that NPF4 has now been finalised and was approved by Parliament on 11 January. We have also received responses from Clyde Gateway, the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. I also note that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities declined to provide a formal response to the petition on this occasion.

The responses that we have received detail some of the challenges of developing long-term vacant and derelict sites, such as fragmented land ownership and ground conditions, while highlighting the funding streams that are available to support the redevelopment and regeneration of those sites. In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute highlighted the work of the Scottish Land Commission on the matter and the recommendations to review and evaluate funding streams to ensure that they incorporate criteria that will help direct investment to parts of the country that need it most.

On that basis, do members have any suggestions?

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.

I would certainly be interested in writing to the minister to ask him what form he expects his open line of communication to take and whether he is able to confirm a structured and ongoing basis for that. As Carol Mochan suggested, we also want to write more formally to the Scottish Social Services Council to seek its views on the issues raised in the petition. We want a view on providing bursaries to all third- and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements; an explanation of the criteria for assessing bursary applications for postgraduate students; and clarification on where members of the public can access information on the assessment criteria, because SPICe seemed to find that more problematic than it ought to be. If SPICe found it problematic, I do not quite know how other people are meant to find it more readily.

Are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, he wanted to capture it. [Laughter.]