Chamber and committees

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?

I am grateful for all that. I wonder whether we might also write to the UK Government, since it is responsible for aviation. In this instance, I am quite interested to know its thoughts on a summarised version of the petition and the issues arising from it, and on whether there is a similar prevalence of drone use elsewhere within the UK and whether that may lead it to think afresh about any regulation of drone use. Are we content with all that?

Members indicated agreement.

Do colleagues agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

In view of Mr Ewing’s comments, it might be worth our asking one or two relevant associations what they believe the consequence of the proposal would be and what existing fire safety measures they have in place, or about the regulations relating to all of that. There could be alternatives to sprinkler systems, and it might be worth while investigating those.

We will close the petition, but we can draw the petitioner’s attention to the provisions that currently exist and to which there is recourse in the event of any pedestrian crossing being disabled.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on 6 March. We will now move into private session.

Agenda item 2 is our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. This evidence-taking session follows on from the evidence that we took at our previous meeting from the Civil Engineering and Contractors Association and current and former senior leaders at Transport Scotland, one of whom, I see, has a season ticket to our business and has hastened back to tell us something different this time, I hope, not the same thing again.

That said, I am delighted to welcome this morning the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition, Màiri McAllan MSP, and from Transport Scotland: Lawrence Shackman, director of major projects; Jo Blewett, head of sustainable transport projects and former A9 programme manager for the development of the statutory processes; and Rob Galbraith, head of project delivery.

I should also say that we have received apologies from Edward Mountain MSP. He has been joining us as a reporter from his own committee but, this morning, he has other committee business and is unable to be with us.

Before I invite the cabinet secretary to say a few words, I should say that I have been looking at the way in which the inquiry has been going, and I think that it would be helpful if there were two phases to our questions, the first on how we got here, and the second on where we are going. I think that Mr Galbraith will remember that, at our previous meeting, we seemed to dot between the two a bit. Given that our focus is very much on where we are going, I want the earlier phase of questioning to be quite brief and to the point; I just want to clarify things that we have heard and see whether we can tie down in our minds where we had got to before.

Members will be invited to come in randomly as they see fit. I am not one of these people who allocate everything in advance—I await being inspired by colleagues and the questions that they ask.

Cabinet secretary, you have given us a very comprehensive submission in advance of this morning, and I am very confident that you will not repeat it in full just in your opening remarks, which I invite you to make.

On that point—and this is what I do not quite understand—was it officials who thought, “This is financially not going to happen. We need to float the idea of a different funding model, which might lead to delays” and then that was communicated upward, or did ministers ask officials whether there was the funding for the project and, if not, whether a different funding model needed to be looked at? It is not clear to me from the papers which way round the discussion began.

I take it, Mr Ewing, that you might not be happy with the answer, but we have an answer.

I will come to Mr Golden, but something arose there that left me slightly confused. Prior to the change of rules in 2014, was the Government relying on a private finance contribution to the project? I understood that it was a fully capital-funded project at that point.