Chamber and committees

In its letter, the bureau also discusses the practical operation of the digital voting system which, as we know, we have had difficulties with in the past. It was said to be “robust”, but that was not always the case. There might be an opportunity for the digital system to be developed in such a way that it could enable proxy voting to be incorporated. The fact that that is being looked at is to be welcomed, because that would provide a bit more trust in the system.

The digital voting system has a part to play in how the process will progress.

The dialogue must be there. We have already said that trust is vital. Communication between the member, the proxy and the Presiding Officer is also vital to ensure that everyone is aware of what their roles and responsibilities are and that everyone is being looked after. That is important, too.

Yes, convener—I think that that would satisfy some of the elements in relation to having some clarity around a definition.

We do not anticipate that a large number of individuals will fall into that category. Only a minority of MSPs will require that facility. Whether that is for a short time or a longer time will depend on the circumstances that they find themselves in. I believe that it is important to get clarity, and the Presiding Officer will have a role to play in ensuring that such a scheme is managed effectively.

I concur with the convener. We require clarity from the cabinet secretary with reference to access to Stranraer and Cairnryan. Notwithstanding that the petitions have been here a long time, there is merit in trying to find more information and clarity before we get to the stage of closing them. I support the convener’s suggestion that we should get the information and not close the petitions at this stage.

I concur, if the product does not meet British standards. It would be difficult for us to support any apparatus that does not meet the expected level of efficiency. It is a difficult situation when you are dealing with a smoke alarm. It must meet the right standard or it could jeopardise individuals.

There is no question that the issue has been raised by a number of individuals and that such destruction now seems to be practice in some local authority areas. I appreciate that individuals might no longer be able to maintain, or be part of the process of looking after, a headstone because their family is no longer there or those individuals are deceased. However, we need to seek clarity on the issue.

COSLA is one of the first places that we should go to ask whether local authorities routinely liaise with lair owners on maintenance and how they do so, because it is important to find that out. I appreciate that councils are concerned with health and safety, but it can have a massive impact on a family if they turn up to see a headstone and find that it has been destroyed. People have written to me on that topic and I have then liaised with the local council.

There is also an opportunity for us to write to the Scottish Government’s burial regulations working group, which has a role to play. We should ask what consideration it will give to the need for and value of a national approach to the monitoring and regulation of local authority actions. Will it also consider having a funded maintenance and repair policy, with a timescale, and how that timescale would be planned for? Those are the recommendations that I suggest.

You have outlined many of the areas that have already been covered. At this stage, it would be possible for the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, because stakeholders’ concerns have already been raised and the Scottish Government’s work on those initiatives is on-going.

If we close the petition, perhaps we could write to the Education, Children and Young People Committee to highlight the evidence that we have received in response to the petition, and in advance of the proposed inquiry on additional support needs, which would give that committee the opportunity to take on board areas of concern that have been raised. At this stage, the petition has gone as far as we can take it. Our giving it to that committee would give it the opportunity to advance it and to bring together the strands that we have not been able to assimilate here.

Thank you, convener. I am, because potholes are a major issue. As you have rightly identified, some councils seem to manage to deal with the issue reasonably well, but others do not. Some roads are a danger to individuals and vehicles, and I believe that there is scope for us to consider more information on the issue.

I suggest that we continue to seek clarity and that we write to the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association to seek their views, because their views are important. That has been raised by the petitioner, and the additional information that they will be able to share will give us an idea of what has been happening with maintenance standards across Scotland.

It is also important to talk to the RAC Foundation and the Road Haulage Association to seek information on the level of reported damage to vehicles and the number of other traffic incidents that are caused by potholes. By doing that, we will get a much better picture, As has been indicated, we might know how things are in our own regions or constituencies, but it appears to be the case that, across Scotland, there are some areas where potholes are a real concern and a real danger to road users and their vehicles.

There are many more questions to be asked about the topic. I think that there was recently some debate about it in the chamber.

The Scottish Government must provide more clarity and information on the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people. We should seek clarity and ask it about the consultation and when the report on that will be published.

We talk about the influence of foodstuffs. The response has to include caffeine gum, plans to review risk-management decisions based on the European Food Safety Authority’s advice as part of the Scottish Government’s work, and what further consideration has been given to the plan to introduce a ban on the sale of fast-release caffeine products to those who are under 18. All those things require more clarity before any further decisions or discussions can take place.

Mr Marra, you identify a gap in the process—there is no denying that. The families that engage with the process at the moment are those who have youngsters who have a challenge, a need or a disability. They are much more likely to be highly engaged in ensuring that their children’s needs are being addressed. The engagement is important, but there are elements within families, guardians and parents that do not engage because they are hard to reach, and schools have identified that as a problem in making sure that they cover the basics for all children.

I see where you are trying to take this, and it is laudable to take the matter in that direction, but there is a concern that not everyone would necessarily be captured. How will you ensure that the engagement is meaningful and that parents, guardians and families feel that their voices are heard and make a difference?