Chamber and committees

That brings us to the end of our formal consideration of petitions. Our next meeting will take place on 7 May. I thank those who have been following our proceedings.

We now move into private session.

Do colleagues agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of existing petitions, beginning with an evidence session on a compendium of petitions with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop. I am delighted that she is with us along with Transport Scotland officials: Lawrence Shackman, the director of major projects, whom I think we have had the pleasure of meeting before at some point; Nicola Blaney, the head of strategic transport planning; and Alasdair Graham, the head of design, procurement and contracts. I warmly welcome you all. Thank you very much for attending the meeting.

The committee recognises that we are moving into the last year of the parliamentary session, so, in order to expedite a number of petitions, we hope to meet with cabinet secretaries in different disciplines to try to work our way through the petitions. Otherwise, we will not be able to do justice to them in the time that we have left.

PE1610, which was lodged by Matt Halliday, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 Euro route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible.

PE1657, which was lodged by Donald McHarrie on behalf of the A77 action group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr’s Whitletts roundabout south to the two ferry ports located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75.

PE1916, which was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry into the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project to provide a permanent solution for the route. The petition has stretched across various parliamentary sessions and, in a previous session, I and, I think, David Torrance paraded around the ground ourselves to see what was what.

PE1967, which was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

Finally, PE2132, which was lodged by the Inverness Courier, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to publish a clear timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and the construction of a bypass for Nairn, and to ensure that that timeline is made public by Easter 2025. We would be going some, I suppose, to achieve that.

My eyesight is never quite clear, but I think that we are joined by petitioners in the public gallery. We are also joined by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Jackie Baillie, who has had an on-going and particular interest in PE1916 and PE1967, which is on the A82—

Thank you, Mr Ewing. That peroration is probably a fresh petition in its own right, but I will allow the cabinet secretary an opportunity to respond.

We have covered a range of petitions, and it has been very helpful to the committee to take forward a number of them in the time that we have left. There might be some other petitions—there is still controversy ahead.

Would you like to add anything further, or do you feel that you have managed to convey everything that had to be said in the time that we have spent together?

Thank you, Mr Marra. The committee understands that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has provided information to Dave Doogan MP on requests relating to deaths abroad. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s figures reflect the number of requests that it has received for documents to assist with coroners’ inquests, rather than the number of inquests that have taken place, which accounts for the discrepancy in the numbers that the committee has received in response to our formal inquiry.

It is the case that, when considered in the abstract, such things may seem to be one thing, but individuals who then have to deal with the system find it to be wholly unsatisfactory in how they have to work and navigate their way through it.

Bob Doris has joined us. Good morning, and welcome, Mr Doris. I am sorry that we began discussing the petition just ahead of your arrival, but would you like to say something to the committee on the petition?

Thank you, Mr Doris—that is helpful. Having considered the issues that have been raised, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Could we not write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to seek her views on the merit of the systems that operate in England and Wales? We have established a practice of meeting with cabinet secretaries. We had the Cabinet Secretary for Transport at the meeting today and we will be meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care immediately after the summer recess. I just wonder whether, in the light of any response that we get, there might be an opportunity to have a round-table discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs later in the parliamentary session, at which we could potentially draw these things to her attention.

Mr Ewing and Mr Golden have suggested that we keep the petition open and make inquiries. Is the committee content to keep the petition open on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

All credit to Mr Gourley for raising the petition with the committee. In view of the responses that we have received, it is difficult for us to see how we can take the petition forward. If the position changes, a new submission in the next session of the Parliament might allow there to be a fresh take on the issue from, potentially, a different Government with a different attitude. However, at this stage, the committee feels that we have no option in the time that is left to us but to close the petition. We thank Mr Gourley for engaging with the committee, but regrettably, that is the position that we are in. We are not the Government and we are here only to see what we can do to advance petitions. Sometimes we can, and sometimes we cannot.