Chamber and committees

Okay. I will open this up to members and bring in Russell Findlay to kick off.

Thank you. A few more members would like to come in and then we will have to call the session to a close. Rona Mackay and then Pauline McNeill.

I apologise for my late arrival in the chamber.

To ask the Scottish Government when it anticipates that the sectoral marine plan for offshore wind for innovation and targeted oil and gas decarbonisation will be formally adopted. (S6O-02653)

I recently met stakeholders in the Salamander offshore wind project. In further correspondence, I was informed that they have concerns about resource funding for statutory bodies that are involved in the consenting process. As an example, I was informed that NatureScot has concerns with its levels of core grant funding. That was highlighted by its director, Nick Halfhide, at a recent Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee meeting.

What engagement is the Scottish Government having with statutory bodies such as NatureScot to ensure that they have the support that is required to continue their work in that important process?

The First Minister was clear last week—as the Deputy First Minister has been clear today—that Scottish Government decisions were not routinely made over WhatsApp, which is very welcome. We know that that has not necessarily been the case elsewhere in the UK. Will the Deputy First Minister provide an update on steps that are being taken to reinforce that practice across Government?

Alongside the work to increase teaching numbers, retention is a key matter, which I think the cabinet secretary has alluded to. What further work is the Scottish Government undertaking to promote and support retention across Scotland’s teaching profession?

Is there anything further that you want to add to what you were outlining?

I want to ask a question about the proposed register of solicitors. The Law Society of Scotland’s submission raises concerns about how that register would work in practice. Those include a concern about how much detail will potentially be left to secondary legislation. Does Stuart Munro want to pick up on that and add any other comments? I will then seek the views of Jonathan Campbell and Jamie Foulis on the concerns that have been raised.

Okay. Thank you very much.

As no one else has any comments to make, are members content that we write to the Scottish Government on whether the intention is for the pilot to be retrospective and for it to be open to the survivors who first raised the issue, and that, in doing so, we flag the other points that members have made, in particular around the application form and the need for the process to be trauma informed? I imagine that that will be at the centre of that piece of work. We will also note the comments that Pauline McNeill made on simplifying the process of transcript production. Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next agenda item is discussion of the annual report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. Specifically, Laura Paton, inspector of prosecution at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, has raised several concerns over the current model for the provision of forensic pathology services in Scotland. Those concerns are outlined in the annual report, extracts from which can be found in paper 4. Laura Paton has described the efforts to reform the forensic pathology system as

“ad hoc, rather than transformational”,

and she notes the COPFS’s preference to move towards a national forensic pathology service.

We are invited to consider whether to ask COPFS, the national health service and the Scottish Government for their views on the points raised by the inspector of prosecution, and to ask whether there are any further plans to review the current model for providing forensic pathology services in Scotland. I ask for members’ views on our proposed course of action.