���˿���

You can have a final question, Mr Mountain.

You have identified some suggestions for how you feel funding for the project might be realised. In response to Mr Golden, who was looking at the climate change impact requirements that had to be assessed at the time, you talked about the fact that it is not roads but the products that drive on roads that are, potentially, the leading instigators of climate damage. If there are funding ways to do it, I am interested to know whether, in your mind, the inclusion of Greens in the Government who may well just be opposed to the principle of the road, irrespective of how fuel-efficient the vehicles on it are, is one of the key obstacles that prevents the Government that made the manifesto commitment from proceeding, or is there something else? In other words, is that one of the unspoken obstacles that, irrespective of whether a funding mechanism is identified, is potentially halting progress on that road?

PE2032 seeks to improve the support that is available to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland and was lodged by James Brebner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is provided by public bodies to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland by ensuring that there are clear pathways for their injuries to be treated by appropriate consultants; establishing a veterans trauma network, similar to that which operates in England and Wales; ensuring all correspondence raising concerns or making complaints about their treatment from veterans to the Scottish Government is acknowledged and responded to; and reviewing and seeking to update the way in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

Mr Brebner tells us that he was injured in the Falklands while serving with the Parachute Regiment, which has left him with severe leg pain.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it is working with colleagues across the NHS and the veterans community to develop a Scottish veterans treatment pathway and that it has also been working with the Veterans Trauma Network in England to understand how a similar service might be applied in Scotland. The response also notes that all correspondence that is received by the Scottish Government is logged centrally, with the aim of providing a reply within 20 days of receipt, as well as highlighting the point that it would be a matter for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to comment on its own process and any potential review of how it handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government’s response, highlighting his continued concerns about the delay in establishing a trauma network and sharing his experience of trying to navigate the processes.

We have a very interesting petition before us. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Under agenda item 4, we will consider continued petitions. The first such petition is PE1902, on an appeal process for community participation requests. Our parliamentary colleague Edward Mountain has stayed with us to assist in the consideration of the petition, on which he will make a representation. We have also received a submission from Rhoda Grant, to which I will refer in a moment.

The petition, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

We previously considered the petition on 18 January, when the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, and we have since received a response from the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance. The minister stated that the Scottish Community Development Centre is

“giving careful consideration to when an appeal could be made”,

how the process could be

“fair, open and transparent, and who would be best placed to manage that process.”

As I said, we have received a written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to attend the meeting this morning. She has made the case for CHAT to be accepted by NHS Highland as a community organisation under the participation request process, and she has asked that the committee put the matter to NHS Highland. She has also requested that the committee keep the petition open until the Scottish Community Development Centre has published its proposals on an appeal process.

Before I ask committee members how they would like to proceed, I ask Edward Mountain whether he has any suggestions.

I am tempted to suggest that we keep the petition open and write to NHS Highland, as Rhoda Grant has suggested, seeking the inclusion of CHAT in its community participation representation. There is also a material basis for us to wait for the Scottish Community Development Centre to publish its proposal, so that we can be satisfied that progress will be made on those two fronts.

Are there any other suggestions, or are we content?

Are colleagues minded to accept that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE1977, which was lodged by Helen Duncan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the “National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2021” to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children.

We previously considered PE1977 at our meeting on 18 January—although it seems to be fresher in my mind than that; the year has gone in—when we agreed to seek views from a number of stakeholders.

We have received responses from Shared Parenting Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, The Promise Scotland, and CELCIS—Scotland’s Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection. Many of the responses highlight the need for discretion and flexibility in relation to informing parents about welfare concerns, and note that there are some circumstances in which an obligation to inform a father risks undermining efforts to protect the safety and wellbeing of the child or children.

Shared Parenting Scotland suggests that there is already an obligation on social work and other agencies to inform both parents of concerns about their children, and questions why that is not happening in practice.

According to CELCIS, existing legislation and guidance are sufficient to support best practice, and a more effective way to address the issues that are raised by the petition would be through improvements to workforce learning, knowledge and skills in this area.

In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions?

That is a fair point. Are we content with following up, keeping the petition open and taking it forward with those further lines of inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.

I am happy to include that, as well.

We could write to the Government asking what the outcome of any of that was. That would be perfectly reasonable, particularly in relation to this point. Is there anything else that we could do?