Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recommend that the committee closes the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, although the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, it considers that they can be achieved only in the long term. Furthermore, sentencing is a matter for the courts. Finally, the sentencing and penal policy commission is currently examining the effectiveness of sentencing and community interventions.

Given the stage of the parliamentary session, we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, as the convener highlighted, the Scottish Government has reiterated its commitment to the Verity house agreement and thereby will not intervene in decisions regarding the hire of public land owned by local authorities.

I highlight to the committee and to anyone else who is watching that in my voluntary declaration of interests there is an entry that highlights a trip by Conservative Friends of Israel to Israel in 2016.

The ways in which the legislation is applied by local authorities vary considerably. Anecdotally, I have experienced that, in many cases, it is not enforced at all. Nonetheless, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, although the Scottish Government had considered designating specific roads for pavement parking bans, as the petition highlights, it decided that that would cause confusion and put pavement users at risk. Furthermore, the decision to allow exemptions for narrower roads is one for local authorities. Finally, the parking standards group can address further concerns and clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.

Cabinet secretary, can you update us on the short and long-term investment plans for the NHS estate?

GPs have complained to me about working out of repurposed cupboards and about patients having to use a car park as a waiting room. Will you update us on the capital funding for primary care infrastructure? What are your thoughts on the creation of not just new GP practices but community hubs that have a GP practice, links to the third sector, pharmacy services and post office and banking facilities, and can operate as a one-stop shop?

Previously, as part of our work in this area, we have heard from experts on the use of technology to make the NHS more productive in various ways, from assisting diagnosis to, as we heard earlier, booking appointments—I think that the only time that I use the phone these days is for calling the GP; everything else is online or is accessed through apps.

Technology can also assist GPs by capturing and triaging patient data, as well as alleviating issues relating to delayed discharge. I have had patients contact me who were all good to go home but, because the medication was not ready, they had to stay in hospital a further night, which stopped someone else from using that bed.

We have active solutions in the artificial intelligence sector. How comfortable are you with the current use of technology? Do you have any plans for the future in that regard?

I agree with Mr Ewing’s point. In addition, it would be useful to get an update from the Scottish Government on how it is monitoring local authorities regarding their interaction with affected residents. For example, in Aberdeen, there are regular updates and newsletters available to the public. However, such interaction varies from local authority to local authority. In my view, the Scottish Government should be monitoring the situation and perhaps sharing best practice. I hope that that is being done. I do not know whether that is a role for the Government or for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but it should certainly be done. I would appreciate an update from the Scottish Government on that.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, as Mr Ewing and Mr Russell have highlighted, such a move would require funding. Moreover, the Scottish Government has reiterated that there is no plan to modify the current franchising process.

In closing the petition, we should do two things. First, we should write to the net zero committee—it is helpful that its convener is present today.

I am concerned that the Scottish Government has indicated that, due to “on-going developments”, it has been unable to produce its energy strategy. In my entire time working in the energy sector, I do not think that there has ever been a time when there have not been “on-going developments” in some part of the sector. I do not see that as any reason for what has been a two-and-a-half-year stall on the strategy.

I stand to be corrected. If, over the past 15 years, there has been a point when there has been no on-going development in the sector, the Scottish Government will surely write to the committee about that.

Given that two and a half years have passed, with agencies and dozens of civil service staff poring over the strategy, the Scottish Government could, at the very least, provide information on where it is with the strategy, producing an “energy strategy 1.0”, rather than risking further delay, even though the strategy will need to be updated. I would certainly offer my help to the Government in delivering that.

The issue should be added as part of the thematic session with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, which is looking a lot more interesting after today’s discussion.