Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister and witnesses.

In evidence to the committee, witnesses expressed that the patient safety commissioner should have additional and regulatory powers. The minister just said that she does not think that it should. Will people take heed of the commissioner’s recommendations if it does not have those powers?

Might the committee be minded to keep the petition open and to write to the Scottish Government to seek details of the engagement and consultation that it plans to undertake when developing the new BSL national plan?

Christine Grahame will be extremely disappointed with me because I do not think that we can take the petition any further on the evidence that we have received.

I ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the petitioner is satisfied that the Scottish Government’s current approach will adequately address the issue of mandatory microchipping of Scotland’s cats; the Scottish Government does not consider that the scanning of microchips should be made compulsory for cats at this time due to concerns about the potential impact on the welfare of cats and veterinary surgeons; and microchipping domestic cats features in the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s work plan as a medium-term issue.

To be fully engaged with citizen participation, it would be good for the committee to see how we could engage with the youth of today and how we could do it more. As I see it, doing it every two years is a paper exercise, and I would like it if the Scottish Youth Parliament could meet with us far more regularly.

Could we keep the petition open to gather more information? There are several stakeholders that I would like the committee to write to, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland, seeking their views on what is raised in the petition.

We can take the petition no further on the evidence that we have, so I would like to close it under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that an operational system of independent advisers on the ministerial code exists; the Scottish Government has no plans to amend the decision-making process in any way proposed by the petitioner; and no current examples of independent committees in UK legislatures exist in any way proposed by the petitioner.

I wonder whether the committee can write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to ask what steps it is taking to ensure that the procedural rules and practices of the courts and their complaints procedures are transparent and accessible to members of the public.

It is an important issue. I used an accessible defibrillator for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and it makes a huge difference. It is important for defibrillators to be in the public domain. I would like us to keep the petition open and, in doing so, write to the Scottish Government to ask when the next report on the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy will be published and what percentage of OHCAs in 2023 had a defibrillator applied before the ambulance service arrived. I would also like to write to the British Heart Foundation to seek information about its grant funding of public access defibrillators and, specifically, about demand and the potential barriers and challenges that it faces.

Minister and Laura Meikle, thank you very much for your time. Members, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final new petition is PE1992, lodged by Laura Hansler, which is on dualling the A9 and improving road safety. I welcome to the committee Murdo Fraser and—a regular visitor to the committee—Rhoda Grant.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section; completing the dualling work by 2025; and creating a memorial to the people who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A9.

As I said, we are joined in our consideration of the petition by our colleagues Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant.

The petition has been somewhat superseded by the Minister for Transport’s statement to the Parliament on 8 February, in which it was confirmed that the 2025 completion date is now “no longer achievable”. Nevertheless, I will set out some of the background to the petition, before opening it up to wider discussion.

In the background information to the petition, the petitioner, Laura Hansler, tells us that the A9 dual action group was formed to raise awareness of the number of people who have lost their lives on the A9 and of the need for a mandatory safety feature to be deployed to reduce further loss of life, as well as to explore whether there should be an investigation into the procurement procedures that are associated with the project.

In its initial response to the petition, which was received prior to the minister’s statement, the Scottish Government highlighted the short-term road safety measures that have been developed by Transport Scotland to take account of the recent trend of fatal accidents on the A9.

The response states the Scottish Government’s firm commitment to completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness, albeit without providing a revised timetable on when the work is likely to be completed.

Following the minister’s statement, the committee received a submission from the petitioner in which she calls on us to consider a public inquiry into the matter.

I open up the discussion to members.