Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1940, which has been lodged by Campbell Wild, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permit Nest Protect as a valid system under the new fire and smoke alarm law, which came into force in February 2022.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states its view that allowing the system would be inappropriate because it does not meet the necessary British standard required under the interlinked fire alarms legislation.? The Scottish Government highlights its joint statement with COSLA, which confirms that there are no penalties for non-compliance.

We have also received a submission from an individual, Michael Clark, who has indicated his support for the petition. He shares his positive experience of using the Nest Protect system and notes its additional features, which provide further safety benefits.

Do members have any comments or suggestions? Is anyone familiar with Nest Protect?

Do members have any other thoughts?

PE1941, which has been lodged by Councillor Andrew Stuart Wood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within our cemeteries.

The SPICe briefing on the petition explains that local authorities have general duties to address hazards in burial grounds but that the maintenance of headstones and other memorials is the responsibility of the owners of the burial grounds.

The Scottish Government indicates that it is unable to intervene in operational matters affecting burial grounds because that is the responsibility of the relevant burial authority. The response highlights the work of the burial regulations working group and the plans to prepare a statutory code of practice and associated guidance for burial authorities.

I have heard expressions of interest and concern in relation to the petition. Do members have any views?

We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis. Specifically, we want, in order to direct consideration to the petitioner’s concerns, to know about foods with equivalent quantities of caffeine.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We are joined by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Brian Whittle and Katy Clark, who will be contributing on two of the petitions before us. Brian Whittle will be contributing in relation to the first, and we will come to him shortly.

PE1610 and PE1657 relate to the upgrades of the A75 and A77. PE1610 was lodged by Matt Halliday and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 Euro route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible. PE1657 was lodged by Donald McHarrie of the A77 action group and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr’s Whitletts roundabout south to the two ferry ports at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75.

The committee previously agreed to consider the petitions together and has heard evidence on both petitions over a number of years, including evidence from the then Minister for Transport. We received an update from the Scottish Government outlining relevant outcomes from strategic transport projects review 2. Recommendation 40 in the review is about access to Stranraer and Cairnryan and highlights proposals for improvements to the A75 and A77.

The petitioner for PE1657, Donald McHarrie, has sent us a written submission that raises concerns about delays in relation to landslides and draws attention to the potential solution of road tunnelling at the Rest and Be Thankful. The petitioner for PE1610, Matt Halliday, has also submitted his views, reiterating that the situation has not moved forward and that the same issues are again arising on the A75. He raises concerns about connectivity for the south-west of Scotland and highlights the benefits of shortened journey times.

We have also received written submissions from Elena Whitham MSP and Finlay Carson MSP, who are yet again reinforcing their support for the petition, highlighting the economic importance of the A77 and the A75, and stressing the need for further investment.

Before we consider the evidence that we have heard previously and where we might go next, I invite Brian Whittle to update us on his views on the petition.

I forgot to say to anybody who might be watching our proceedings from afar that, before we consider any new petition, we seek an opinion on its principles from the Scottish Government. When we consider the petition for the first time at the committee, it is on the basis of our having already undertaken a certain amount of advance preparation. I say that so that anybody who lodges a petition understands that the petition is not being dismissed summarily; we have considered the issues that have been raised. I thank Ms Mooney for bringing the matter to our attention.

The next petition, which has been lodged by Lesley Roberts, is PE1936. It 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 potholes. The petitioner highlights the point that potholes cause accidents, which puts lives and property at risk, and raises a particular concern about partial road repairs putting drivers and cyclists at further risk.

The Scottish Government’s response provides details of its investment in trunk roads, as well as highlighting the obligation on operating companies to inspect the trunk road network at seven-day intervals to identify defects. In responding to the call for ring-fenced funding for local authorities, the Government states:

“It is ... the responsibility of each local authority to manage their own budget and to allocate the total financial resources available to them on the basis of local needs and priorities”.

Nonetheless, we know from our MSP postbags that potholes can have quite dramatic consequences for individuals. From a freedom of information request that was advanced to me by a constituent, I know that the number of people who successfully claim back costs that have been incurred as a consequence of potholes is not high, and it is usually the result of a very challenging process on the part of the local authority.

Sometimes, people make light of the issue of potholes, but the matter is important, particularly with roads on which people are wholly dependent for access to services.

Mr Stewart—you look as though you are keen to speak.

Thank you. Colleagues, there is an opportunity for us to consider this. I note that our colleague Daniel Johnson will have a members’ business debate on transvaginal mesh tomorrow in the chamber. However, that does not touch directly on the issues arising from the broader extension of mesh, which has been the focus of the petition and our inquiry.

We raised with the minister, in passing, suggestions that there was a campaign to have the ban on transvaginal mesh lifted. However, if I recall correctly, we got assurances from the minister that there were no immediate plans to do anything in relation to that.

However, in relation to the issue in this petition, we have heard a mixed bag of evidence, together with the Shouldice hospital evidence, which suggested that there were alternatives that might yet be useful, albeit that the individuals concerned would require quite rigorous discipline before they would be physically capable of withstanding the rigours of the technique. There was some concern from the Scottish Government that there might be something of a cherry-picked waiting list of people who would only get treatment under certain circumstances, although I was not sure whether there was not a way to get around any of that.

What thoughts do colleagues have?

I am content to do all of that. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write as Mr Torrance has suggested, keep the petition open and consider it afresh when we hear from those bodies.

That concludes the public section of our meeting. We will next meet on 26 October.

We now move into private session for consideration of item 4.