Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am genuinely shocked by the argument around Redress Scotland being independent of Government. I worked for a Scottish Government-funded organisation, and, even though it was a private company, we could do literally nothing without approval from the Scottish Government. It seems that the relationship with Redress Scotland is peculiarly different. Is the Deputy First Minister seriously saying that there is nothing that she can do with regard to Redress Scotland standing up for the victims of Fornethy?

I think that we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills seeking an update on the Bute house agreement exploration group’s recommendations and information about what she expects the next steps will be.

I appreciate Paul Sweeney’s comments. It is beneficial that the committee has heard that progress is being made on the petition. Because of that, I feel that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that Glasgow City Council has committed to progress the issues raised in the petition, including commissioning research on and exploring options to reduce the impact of the M8 on the city centre and reviewing opportunities to re-engineer other roads infrastructure to become more people-friendly, including options for long-term replacement. Indeed, Transport Scotland is engaging with Glasgow City Council on its work and will hold an annual progress meeting in addition to interim discussions on specific actions.

I support Mr Ewing’s suggestion of closing the petition. It might be helpful for the petitioner, if they so wish, to look at coming back in due course with a more focused petition on the better management and protection of conservation areas. Even if the Scottish Government was to increase funding for local authorities, there is no requirement on said local authority to focus that on the better management and protection of conservation areas. It is unfortunate for the committee and the petitioner, but I feel that closing the petition is the only thing that we can do under these circumstances.

Thank you, convener. I think that we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to set out the evidence that the committee has gathered to date, including what we have heard from Katy Clark and Clare Adamson today. We should also recommend that he meet the petitioners to discuss continuing concerns about patient pathways for those harmed by mesh implants, as well as highlight concerns about the work that is being undertaken to bridge the skills gap between natural tissue repair and mesh repair in Scotland.

I also think that we could write to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body to seek details of the process and timeline for recruiting the patient safety commissioner for Scotland.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has previously stated that there is no universal legal definition of “public transport” and each transport mode is subject to specific legislation. There is no obvious legislation that could be amended to enshrine a definition in law and set out the relationship between the different transport sectors and local and national government.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the types of behaviour that are referenced in the petition can already be prosecuted under common law and existing statutory offences. That said, the Parliament has established a legal precedent in amending or going beyond common law in certain case. However, the Scottish Government has confirmed that it has no plans to extend the 2021 act to include private hire car drivers, taxi drivers or transport workers in general. I would say to the petitioner that, given that there is that legal precedent, I do not believe that the committee can go any further, but an individual member could look to introduce a member’s bill to develop the legal precedent as per the 2021 act.

I am quite shocked by what I have heard. In my view, it is completely irrelevant for the victims whether there was unanimity in the Scottish Parliament, whether the scheme in Scotland is far broader than schemes elsewhere, and whether thousands of cases need to be addressed. In my view, one victim is one too many. If we park all the parliamentary protocol, do you think that the way that those victims have been treated is acceptable?

What are you going to do about it?

At the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday, we heard that the Scottish Government had used Wikipedia as a source to explain policy in relation to the environmental court. We might say that that was Mickey Mouse policy making. Do you have confidence in the research by the Scottish Government and NatureScot and their understanding of the importance of evidence-based policy setting?