Chamber and committees

I concur with the suggestions that have been made thus far. The petitioner has pointed out that, as well as the inconvenience and the risk of damage to vehicles, there is the risk of potholes leading to a personal injury. For obvious reasons, cyclists, for example, are more prone to accidents, such as falling off their bike, where there are potholes, and if a car has been incapacitated by being driven into a pothole and, therefore, the motorist has to stop by the kerb, perhaps in a remote rural area, there is a risk of anything happening, frankly, when they are waiting for an emergency vehicle to come along. In extremis, there is the risk of someone losing their life as a result of an accident occasioned by a pothole.

I am not sure whether the police or anyone else records whether poor road maintenance is listed as a contributory factor when they do their analysis of fatal accidents, but I would be interested to at least ask the police whether that is the case.

I am very much attracted to the idea that, if additional funding were to come to Scotland, it should be used for this issue. I am not suggesting that it necessarily be used for the motorways, which, in my experience, are pretty well maintained—they have to be, given the speed of the vehicles that use them—but it could be used for the roads in cities, not least in Edinburgh. The roads here are in an appalling state, as are the roads in Glasgow, sadly. The situation is becoming considerably worse.

The problem has bedevilled Scotland since devolution, as seen in the various audit reports over the years and the backlogs that you have alluded to, convener. It is something that affects people; obviously all of us, as MSPs, frequently receive complaints from constituents about the effects of accidents that have been occasioned by poorly maintained roads.

We could certainly ask the Government.

I, too, read the petitioner’s description of the experience that a member of her family underwent and was struck by how serious it was, and must still be, for that family.

I note the reference in our papers to the independent Scottish Mental Health Law Review, which was chaired by John Scott KC and which published its final report on 30 September. The Scottish Government states in its response to the petition that it is taking time carefully to consider the recommendations. That is fair enough, because the issues are by no means straightforward.

It would make sense for the committee to inquire as to when the Scottish Government expects to respond to the mental health law review. As I understand it, the review recommended that a human rights approach be taken to these matters but it acknowledged that there may still be instances where treatment may require to be administered without consent—for example, for health reasons, as has been alluded to. It would be useful to ascertain—I am sure that the petitioner would like to know this—when the Government is going to respond. I think that its response will very much dictate how the petitioner will wish us to proceed in relation to any possible recommendations that may arise from the Government’s response to the review.

Yes, that should be done. I wonder whether, in addition, we could seek information—I do not know whether it would come from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service or the Crown Office. Annex C of paper 12 is the Scottish Government’s response to the petition and goes into the background of the reason behind the law reforms, which, essentially, as I understand it, was to prevent the raising of evidence about the complainer’s past sexual behaviour as being relevant to the charges. The point that I wanted to make, however, is that there is a provision under section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 whereby an accused person can at their trial apply to the court to lead evidence that is prohibited by the law that, generally speaking, prevents the raising of prior sexual behaviour and history. In other words, there is a provision whereby an accused can seek to bring in that evidence, if it can be established that it is pertinent to the specifics of the case.

My query, convener, is this: how frequently have such applications been made, how frequently have they been granted and how is it working out in practice? I am curious to see whether such applications are routine and whether they tend to be dismissed because the law tends to suggest that they should be dismissed. If that specific area of questioning could be included in our letters, please, it might help to shed some light on what is happening. The petitioner indicated that she approached Mr Torrance as her MSP, but the petition does not go into much detail, at least not in the papers that I have read, about her concerns. Be that as it may, could that query be added to the enquiries that we are making?

From reading the papers, I can see that, in June last year, the petitioner argued that young males living south of the border are afforded protection that is not available for young males in Scotland. I looked at the JCVI response to see what it said about that. Maybe it is my failure to comprehend some of the medical information in that, but I could not see a direct response on why it is fine in England but not in Scotland.

I was looking for the answer to the question that the petitioner has posed. I do not know whether the clerks can help me—maybe it is hidden in here somewhere—but I did not see any reference to what is, according to the petitioner at least, a situation in Scotland that is different from that in England. We are probably reaching the end of the petition, but I wonder whether that is something that the clerks might clarify with the JCVI. Perhaps I have missed something.

That point is ancillary to the petition, but it is part of the overall issue.

I agree with what both you and Mr Stewart have advocated. I add that I am slightly puzzled about how properties without a connection to either the main sewerage system or to a private septic tank can be sold. In house conveyancing in Scotland, it is standard for there to be a series of conditions about this without which it is difficult to see how anyone can purchase a house or, indeed, get a mortgage over a house. That might be of concern to lenders because there may not be a valid security.

I wonder whether, in addition to writing to SEPA, we could write to the Law Society to ask for its guidance about how, in practice, properties in this category are dealt with. I would be interested to see what is happening out there. If houses have no access to a sewage facility, I am not sure how they can be transacted on the market. I think that the petitioner refers to some properties having been sold.

I would quite like to see the evidence, because it does not seem to me that there is clarity. There really should be clarity from each local authority, which should provide a simple explanation of what it does in each case.

My final question is this. If every child were to be provided with such a reusable bottle, that would enable a form of national procurement for every local authority. The way that procurement goes is that you get a better price with a national procurement scheme, because you are buying many more of exactly the same thing rather than having possibly 32 separate procurement exercises for bottles. Have you considered that? Has the minister had or sought advice about whether a national scheme would offer not only those cost benefits, because you get cheaper unit costs for larger procurements, but certainty that children actually get personal access to a reusable source of water, which they can have all the time? That would provide an answer to Callum’s petition and provide near certainty that every child is properly hydrated, which, with respect, you are not able to say is the case at the moment.

We are pleased that the extent to which schools provide water for pupils is monitored, but what is the upshot of that provision? What evidence do you have from each local authority on it?