Chamber and committees

Are you saying that you have not been held back by the lack of funding from the Scottish Government? I have been critical of my own Government because the delays cannot be justified or defended in any way. It is disgraceful. I am sad to say that, but that is what I have said.

We want to know to what extent the Scottish Government has had the money ready but you have not got the process ready. We also want to know to what extent you have asked for money but you have not got yes as an answer. We need to know that for our inquiry. Moreover, to be frank, the public have a right to know.

Good morning, Lord Advocate. I absolutely understand your central point that the concerns that other colleagues have expressed this morning are not matters for which you, as Lord Advocate, have legal responsibility. I understand that.

We are here because not only did the petitioners lose a child, that horrific experience for any parent was compounded, as Monica Lennon has eloquently said on previous occasions, by what happened afterwards. Therefore, my question to you is really about the role of Lord Advocate in Scotland. After all, you are leading the system of criminal prosecutions and the investigations of death. Is there not a statable argument that, although there are certain specific legal responsibilities, which you have clearly set out and are clearly delineated, there is perhaps a higher obligation? If not the Lord Advocate, who can deal with this? It seems to me that the professional bodies will patently not really be able to do this.

Lord Advocate, is it not the case that some people might see your role not so much as one of an umpire or a referee but as one of a team manager? If something really goes wrong, some kind of action would be expected of the Lord Advocate in order to initiate action, if not by yourself, because you lack the legal power and competence to do so, by urging others to do so, whether that be the Scottish Government, the royal colleges or otherwise.

Our job is to speak for the petitioner—that is why we are here; it is, as the convener has said, nothing to do with politics—so, in that respect, is there not a statable argument that some people see your role in a much wider sense than you appear to have set out to us today? If there is merit in that argument, is it worth reflecting on whether there is any way in which your esteemed and distinguished office, which is so important to the dispatch of justice in Scotland, can take action to deal with the horrendous grievance that the petitioner in this case has suffered?

I have a final question for Laura Hansler. I know that the petitioner has not only come here today but been extensively involved in taking the matter forward in other ways, in the media and by directly lobbying. I believe that she might have reached out across the political spectrum in order to garner support, and cross-party support, which I hope that we have on this issue, is always a good thing. Has the petitioner done that and, if so, what response has she received from the various parties that she has approached?

Thank you.

I have two further questions. Was it the case that Transport Scotland did, in fact, do some work that has not been made public in which some use of private finance was considered, but, by the time that the work came to fruition, the financial crisis had emerged and interest rates had risen, so that option no longer became applicable? If that was the case, can you share with us the document that shows what consideration has been given to all those matters?

I appreciate that that decision may not be for you and that it may be for the Scottish Government, because under FOI—FOI requests have been made to you on such things frequently—there is an exemption to cover ministers’ desire to have candour of internal discussions. That has been invoked in response to a FOI request about the A96 that I have seen recently, for example. Have you given advice to ministers on that? Will you share that with us? Have you considered the options that Mr Barn set out? Did you leave things too late because, by the time that you came up with the proposal, interest rates had risen, which made the finance package unaffordable? Can you share with us what work you have been doing over the past two and a half years on all of that?

It was too late.

I appreciate that it is all complex. I do not detract from what Mr Shackman says in any way, but I would like Transport Scotland to produce the documentation showing the exchange of views between it and the Scottish Government—submissions, emails and other documents—so that we can get to the bottom of it for the sake of the petitioner and all those who have lost their lives on the road over far too long.

I will incur the wrath of Mr Torrance, but I wonder whether we have done justice to the petitioners, who have said that they want specific restrictions on overnight parking. There is no doubt that it is a nuisance in the Highlands and also elsewhere. Camper vans are huge vehicles, so parking can cause some nuisance issues.

In order to ascertain whether the working group will consider any specific recommendations, perhaps we could write to the Government to ask whether the working group has looked at the issue and what its recommendations are. Could any measures be taken? For example, local byelaw provisions might enable Highland Council to tackle such things.

To be fair, the petitioners’ business is one of many that operates a caravan park, and it is a particular issue of nuisance for many residents along the North Coast 500, and perhaps in many other places, too. If you have a bloody great camper van parked somewhere that you need to go or that needs to be made available for safety vehicles, particularly on restricted narrow and single-track roads in places such as Skye, it is a serious issue, although perhaps not necessarily the one that was foremost in everybody’s minds as the frivolity and jollity proceeded unabated.

I am sure that they will wait with due patience.

Which party was that?