���˿���

We thank the petitioners. Obviously, it is open to anyone to raise a fresh petition in relation to arrangements in a separate academic year, but we look to the statement that was expected from the Scottish Government in relation to arrangements for 2024.

That is reasonable. I will try to find wording that would allow us to establish that. We will keep the petition open and pursue as recommended the issues that are raised.

PE2065, which was lodged by Shauna Rafferty, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to improve and prioritise safety for pedestrians by widening pavements and reducing street clutter; introducing a mechanism to report pavement parking; and improving visibility of pedestrian crossings. The SPICe briefing notes that responsibility for the maintenance, management and development of most of Scotland’s streets, including footways and crossings, rests with councils.

Transport Scotland’s response to the petition points to “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030”, which created targets for key priority groups, including pedestrians. Investments are highlighted in the submission, including funds for new and improved pavements, safer junctions, improved place design and projects for casualty and risk reduction. Transport Scotland is working closely with local authorities to assist them in preparing for the enforcement of the pavement parking ban. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you. That concludes the public aspect of our business. We look forward to those who follow our proceedings joining us again on 20 March.

I should also say that, at our previous meeting, we agreed to consider not just the evidence that we had heard on PE1979, which is on establishing an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies, but the evidence that we took on the A9 dualling project, which we have been considering. Therefore, agenda items 5 and 6 will be taken in private, too. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will be looking in some detail at the influence of social media over the past 10 or 15 years, but I note that Emily Beever wants to come in.

We will come back to that. Some colleagues will attest that I represent a relatively affluent area in that I am the MSP for the Eastwood constituency on the south side of Glasgow, which has some very high-income areas but it also has its own less fortunate areas. This is another theme that we might come back to but I have had examples of youth violence brought to my attention and I am struck by what seems at times the lack of parental responsibility in acknowledging that their children can in any way be responsible for acts of youth violence. Those parents, therefore, support neither the teachers nor the school and have themselves become part of the harassing posse, if I can put it that way, of the individuals who have been the subject of the violence.

Of course, that is an emerging trend. Teachers, particularly those who have left the profession, have been saying to me for a very long time now that if they only had to deal with the children that would be fine, but they now find dealing with the parents almost impossible because they get very little support from them. That is a theme that I want to come back to, but I do not want to hog all the time, so I will hand over to David Torrance.

Are we content, colleagues, to support Mr Torrance and Mr Ewing’s suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should ask for as candid a response as possible from the cabinet secretary, because we are aware that statements are being made in the chamber almost daily about the inability to deliver on major projects. We want to understand where the Rest and Be Thankful project sits within that framework.

PE2002, lodged by Grant White, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide increased funding for legal aid in civil cases for people with disabilities.

We last considered the petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. We have now received responses from SLAB and the Law Society.

SLAB highlights its recent research into the experience of users of civil legal assistance, noting that results were, apparently, positive overall. Responses to questions on finding and contacting solicitors did not reveal any significant differences in experience between those with and without a condition that limits their day-to-day activities. However, eight respondents reported feeling that their disability had made it difficult for them to access a solicitor. In its equality outcomes plan for 2023 to 2026, SLAB aims to improve the accessibility of information about legal aid and its services, with a focus on people with disabilities and other groups—which is an ask of the petition.

The Law Society of Scotland’s response states that the number of firms that are providing civil legal aid has significantly declined—by 20 per cent—over the past decade, with a lack of a sustainable funding mechanism and fees not keeping pace with inflation being noted as contributing factors. Its submission states that a mechanism for periodic review, taking inflation into account, is required to address the impact of inflation on the legal aid system.

We have responses from SLAB, which appears to be amending practice to some extent, and from the Law Society. Do members have any suggestions for action?