Chamber and committees

I referred earlier to the Queensferry crossing project, for which I was the convener of a hybrid bill committee. The internationally renowned engineer David Climie was employed—understandably, on a significant salary—to manage that project all the way through. Given the complexity and the timeline associated with the A9 project, was thought ever given to whether an overall figure should be appointed to manage it? Would it have helped to have had a parliamentary committee that worked with Transport Scotland, as we did successfully on the Queensferry project, to try to navigate the different processes that might have been political obstacles along the way?

Is that question for Alison Irvine, in the first instance?

Using the technology has been quite complicated, and I am very grateful to you all. We have run on quite a bit after the time that we had anticipated, and there are lots of other things that we would have been very happy to discuss, but I thought that I would give you the opportunity, Alison—perhaps through your colleagues—to volunteer anything further for the record at this point.

Is that in relation to events around 2018?

Right. You will appreciate that there is a sense about what was happening at that point. Many people have been keen to identify why there was a very clear track or line towards delivery of a project by 2025 and to ascertain at what point that started to become less clear, or murky. To me, coming to the matter only as someone who uses the A9 from time to time, and looking at the papers, it struck me that a drift seemed to materialise around 2018 or 2019, and it was not communicated to the public or the wider world, who still thought that 2025 was the project delivery date and that all was in hand. It looks to me that, at that point, there was serious reservation and doubt about it all internally. I was not clear as to whether that was emerging from the ground up or from the top down.

Agenda item 4 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting just before Christmas, on 20 December, when we heard evidence from all three petitioners. During the evidence session, the petitioners spoke about ways to ensure that island residents can influence and truly feel part of the decision-making process. Specifically, they spoke about the importance of including local island knowledge as an essential criterion in the skills matrix for appointments to public boards.

Having had the opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we heard, and following our brief informal discussion after the evidence session last month, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1948 seeks to improve the way in which unexplained deaths are dealt with. One of our more sensitive and long-standing petitions, it was lodged by Alex O’Kane and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review its practices for dealing with unexplained deaths from initial recovery through to the support offered to family members. We last considered this petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to Police Scotland.

In advance of this meeting, the clerks have engaged with the Criminal Justice Committee’s clerking team to consider areas of overlap between that committee’s work programme and this petition. The Criminal Justice Committee’s action plan includes work on trauma-informed training across the criminal justice sector, with the committee receiving updates on progress towards the further roll-out of training every six months. It is also taking evidence on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and will then take evidence on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.

In a response that it has submitted to our committee, Police Scotland explains that identifying relevant complaints received about the way in which unexplained deaths are investigated is not possible, because the professional standards department database cannot be filtered to identify specific complaints relating to the investigation of unexplained deaths. However, the submission does note that professional standards department investigations west maintains an additional index of such complaints in the west command area, and that 13 complaints had been recorded, one of which had been referred to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner for a complaint-handling review.

I should add that a national complaint investigation model has been implemented, with the aim of improving future recording and analysis capabilities. Moreover, at the time of writing of Police Scotland’s submission, the investigation of death national guidance was with senior management for review prior to consultation taking place.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that that additional link is important. Colleagues, are we content to act on Mr Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner and all those who have been concerned in the petition’s progress. As Mr Torrance has said, our colleagues elsewhere are taking forward some of the issues that the petition covers. We will seek to facilitate engagement between the petitioner and the Criminal Justice Committee, as he proposes. I see that we are all content with that.

Thank you. That observation is there for the petitioner. That is subject to the progress of the proposed member’s bill, of course.

Are members content with the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.