Seòmar agus comataidhean

How can we strengthen the examples that are in place, and what good examples are there that we could share across the rest of Scotland?

We could keep the petition open and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to seek clarity on whether the Barnett consequentials resulting from the UK Government’s announcement of additional funding for pothole repairs will be made available for pothole repair in Scotland as part of the 2024-25 budget allocation for motorways and trunk roads and the local government settlement.

We could also write to the Minister for Transport to seek information on what action is being taken to ensure that the budget for motorways and trunk roads is not further reduced as part of the 2024-25 budget.

I have a whole list that I would like to go through, if we have time.

I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ask what consideration it has given to the introduction of mandatory Braille labelling on food products across the UK, and to seek clarification on whether the UK Government will carry out a full review of general food labelling requirements.

I also wonder whether the committee would consider seeking an update from Food Standards Scotland on its work to build an evidence base in the area and on the recommendation that it launches a public consultation to gather views on Braille labelling on food.

Mr Ewing mentioned car parks that have no facilities, but we just need to look at Loch Morlich—he will know the area well. There are lots of car parks there, but they are seriously overused by the public. It is a really good tourist destination, and the wear and tear in those areas is incredible. Forestry and Land Scotland has to repair that, so it needs to get revenue from somewhere.

The evidence that the committee has received and what Meghan Gallacher has said has highlighted the issues that have been raised in the petition and brought them to the forefront. However, the committee has no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that women under the age of 25 are not invited for routine cervical screening as evidence shows that screening would do more harm than good, in line with the guidance from the UK National Screening Committee and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I was going to suggest closing the petition, convener but, in light of what Fergus Ewing has said, I wonder whether we can pass it on to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, given that it is working on the topic anyway.

I agree with the latter suggestion, convener.

I wonder whether the committee might consider writing to the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum, seeking its views on the action called for in the petition, and seeking further details about the work that it is carrying out as part of its 100 days of listening.

We could write to BT Openreach to ask whether, in light of information that work is sequenced from the primary exchange location out to communities, it considers areas with low speeds in the surrounding communities when determining which primary exchange locations to prioritise. Our papers contain a list of other questions, so we could just add them, convener.