Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2032 seeks to improve the support that is available to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland and was lodged by James Brebner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is provided by public bodies to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland by ensuring that there are clear pathways for their injuries to be treated by appropriate consultants; establishing a veterans trauma network, similar to that which operates in England and Wales; ensuring all correspondence raising concerns or making complaints about their treatment from veterans to the Scottish Government is acknowledged and responded to; and reviewing and seeking to update the way in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

Mr Brebner tells us that he was injured in the Falklands while serving with the Parachute Regiment, which has left him with severe leg pain.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it is working with colleagues across the NHS and the veterans community to develop a Scottish veterans treatment pathway and that it has also been working with the Veterans Trauma Network in England to understand how a similar service might be applied in Scotland. The response also notes that all correspondence that is received by the Scottish Government is logged centrally, with the aim of providing a reply within 20 days of receipt, as well as highlighting the point that it would be a matter for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to comment on its own process and any potential review of how it handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government’s response, highlighting his continued concerns about the delay in establishing a trauma network and sharing his experience of trying to navigate the processes.

We have a very interesting petition before us. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Under agenda item 4, we will consider continued petitions. The first such petition is PE1902, on an appeal process for community participation requests. Our parliamentary colleague Edward Mountain has stayed with us to assist in the consideration of the petition, on which he will make a representation. We have also received a submission from Rhoda Grant, to which I will refer in a moment.

The petition, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

We previously considered the petition on 18 January, when the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, and we have since received a response from the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance. The minister stated that the Scottish Community Development Centre is

“giving careful consideration to when an appeal could be made”,

how the process could be

“fair, open and transparent, and who would be best placed to manage that process.”

As I said, we have received a written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to attend the meeting this morning. She has made the case for CHAT to be accepted by NHS Highland as a community organisation under the participation request process, and she has asked that the committee put the matter to NHS Highland. She has also requested that the committee keep the petition open until the Scottish Community Development Centre has published its proposals on an appeal process.

Before I ask committee members how they would like to proceed, I ask Edward Mountain whether he has any suggestions.

I am tempted to suggest that we keep the petition open and write to NHS Highland, as Rhoda Grant has suggested, seeking the inclusion of CHAT in its community participation representation. There is also a material basis for us to wait for the Scottish Community Development Centre to publish its proposal, so that we can be satisfied that progress will be made on those two fronts.

Are there any other suggestions, or are we content?

Are colleagues minded to accept that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. Doreen, good morning. [Interruption.] I am sorry, we cannot hear you.

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session as part of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. It relates to our consideration of petition PE1992 on dualling the A9 and improving road safety, as lodged by Laura Hansler. As colleagues and those following our proceedings in relation to that petition might know, we are joined by Edward Mountain in his capacity as a reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on this matter. Good morning to you, Edward.

Our consideration of the issue has seen us invite evidence from the petitioner, the transport and civil engineering industries, community councils and road safety organisations. Indeed, we had an evidence session in the region earlier in the summer to gather views from people, businesses and organisations along the route between Perth and Inverness. Key themes that have emerged from that consultation are set out in the SPICe briefing that is included in the committee’s papers.

We have primarily been focusing on the action that needs to be taken to get the project back on track. In early September, however, we agreed to explore the Scottish Government’s decision in 2011 to commit to a 2025 target for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness. That is the focus of today’s discussion.

I am absolutely delighted to welcome back a well-kent face to the Scottish Parliament’s proceedings: Alex Neil, the former Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, who is—I am sure—the man to enlighten us on those matters. It is certainly good to see you back with us. You are somebody who, like me or, one might argue, other members of the committee, never shies away from being forthright in your views, so I am sure that we will have an enlightening evidence session. Before we move to questions, it would be helpful if you made an opening statement.

In my introduction, I noted that the Scottish Youth Parliament had undertaken some work on that. Links to information on the outcome of that work are in the papers, so we have access to that.

On that note, we move into private session. That concludes our consideration of petitions today, and we will meet again to consider fresh petitions on Wednesday 25 October.

I will bring in colleagues in a second. On the face of it, it looks as though the public information budget will be reduced in the next year. Is that correct, or is it now being allocated in different ways that might mean that the headline public information budget does not reflect what you expect to spend?

Okay, thank you. Colleagues, would anyone like to come in?