Chamber and committees

I think that I am now into my last few seconds, so I am not sure—

I will take an intervention from Daniel Johnson.

My good friend Bishop John Keenan will lead a mass for Pope Francis this evening, in Paisley abbey, on behalf of the diocese. I wonder whether Mr Adam hopes to be able to be present.

I agree with that, and I would like to hear a little more from members of the Labour Party, who, I think, must be troubled by it. I understand the need and have just made the case for an investment in our defences, but I am concerned that that investment is being made at the expense of the influence and aid that are vital in preventing conflict elsewhere.

In a debate that we had five years ago, I said that the Americans faced an unenviable choice between someone who was unsuited and someone who was unfit to be in the White House. In that battle, we had President Biden, but I felt that it was not the choice that the American people should have been given.

The American people need to have a complete generational shift away from those who have billions of pounds that they can afford to spend on being elected. It is ironic that Nixon was the last poor president. We need that change to take place, because Trump’s election—in both cases—was almost a reaction to the candidate that he faced. Hillary Clinton was a very polarising figure. Joe Biden was not a polarising figure but he could certainly not have hoped to be a subsequent President. Had he recognised that sooner, the Democratic Party might have had the opportunity to think more widely about who its candidate should have been, although I do not know what the outcome of the election would have been.

I am not a fan of Mr Trump, but I do not conclude, as Patrick Harvie does, that we should just abandon our investment in, our relationship with and our hope in the United States. In some respects, President Trump is not wrong: 80 years after VE day, as Neil Bibby pointed out, the other countries of Europe also have a responsibility to step up to the defence of our continent. There cannot just be an on-going expectation that the United States will do that.

Patrick Harvie rose—

Daniel Johnson rose—

Absolutely. This quote from The Economist is pretty apt:

“In a mere ten days the president has ended the old certainties that underpinned the world economy, replacing them with extraordinary levels of volatility and confusion. Some of the chaos may have abated for now. But it will take a very long time to rebuild what has been lost.”

We must accept and acknowledge that we now face a very challenging situation.

I want us to respond to the international situation. We can talk about it here; I am not so averse to our having a discussion about it from time to time. However, I do not think that we have the major levers to influence it. Part of our responsibility, therefore, is to support our elected MPs at Westminster in the discharge of their responsibility to keep us safe and secure and to ensure that we are engaged positively with the rest of the world. That has to be built on two rocks: we must keep ourselves safe and invest in the security of our country, but we must also invest in outreach, engagement and proactivity in addressing the trouble spots that emerge elsewhere in the world, through which we could subsequently feel threatened.

I do not think that there has been a discernible theme this afternoon; there have been a lot of very individual contributions.

I note the contributions by my very good friends and colleagues, Mr Stephen Kerr and Mr Ross. They were so well made that I will not repeat them; perhaps I will look to contribute in my own way.

I will start on the commentary from the First Minister about the Drumlanrig accord. I think that we in Scotland should be incredibly proud of it. Sheikh Razawi, my very good friend Edward Green, the First Minister and I and others were at Edinburgh city chambers last year for the candle-lighting ceremony. Against the odds, in many ways, it was decided to bring the faiths together to face the challenge that the international situation presented to the lives of all of us here at home. With the support of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, who was able to enlist the support of His Majesty the King, we have a very positive initiative being taken here, in Scotland, which is allowing those of so many different faiths and communities to exist in harmony here, even with the extraordinary pressures that are being applied by the events outside this country. We should celebrate the work that has been done, and we should be very proud of that Scottish initiative, which is contributing so well in the face of the international situation. [Applause.]

Over the Easter recess I turned 66 the day before the First Minister turned 61—so there is just five years between us. I know that, in another context, that would be regarded as a lifetime but, in the context of today’s debate, it is not really that long at all. I was reflecting, in advance of this debate, on what I thought were—from a long menu—the key things that had shaped the international situation over my lifetime. I thought of the visit of Nixon to China in 1972, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the events in New York on 9/11. All of those events had profound consequences for the world in which we live today.

Over my lifetime, we have gone from being concerned, as a country, about the might of the Soviet Union and its empire, influence and threat, which meant that many of my generation thought that a war was at least possible in our lifetime, to the fall of the Soviet Union and the extent of state-sponsored terrorism or terrorism sponsored by nobody in particular—which nobody quite knew how to deal with, as it did not have a nation face. That receded slightly, but not so much that we can be in any way complacent. Then, the threat of the nation state emerged again, with the impact of Russia, as it now seeks to initiate military conflict on the continent of Europe, the emerging suggestion of a threat to Taiwan from China, the on-going expansion and ambition of North Korea, and states conflicting with one other in the middle east and Africa. Perhaps, for my grandchildren’s generation, the prospect of a war, if not probable, once again cannot be ruled out.

There is a need, as I think Governments have recognised in this international situation, to respond to that by trying to understand how best we can be prepared. That response comes in two ways, I think. One is to ensure that we invest in the defence of the country. That is the reactive way to ensure that we are prepared, should such a situation emerge. The other is the proactive way, which involves our commitment, tradition and history as a country that is involved in international trade, that wants to engage and that has been prepared to invest in international aid. We have not talked about that today, but I was very critical of my own Government at Westminster when it temporarily reduced the aid budget, and I said that I hoped that it could be restored, so I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party to the proposed cut in international aid, because it is that aid that helps to ensure that we are investing in countries that might otherwise become part of the very international situation and problem that we are trying to stand against and prevent occurring.

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—

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—

Agenda item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. To facilitate colleagues who are joining us this morning, I will take PE2085 first, which is out of sequence. We are joined by Michael Marra, and Bob Doris has just advised the committee that he has an interest in the petition and is on his way. Tess White is in the public gallery alongside the petitioners.

PE2085, lodged by David Cornock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory definition for fatal accident inquiries into deaths abroad. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 15 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland and relevant legal stakeholders.

The Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government consider that the definition of “ordinarily resident” in common law is widely recognised and accepted. The First Minister’s submission explains that officials who have been working on the issue with the Crown Office have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary to change the law at the present time. Similarly, the Law Society of Scotland’s response states that it does not consider that it would be necessary or desirable to develop a bespoke legislative definition for the purposes of fatal accident inquiries.

The petitioner’s written submission reiterates his position that the ordinarily resident definition is not understood and is vague, untenable and arbitrarily applied. The committee is aware that the system of coroners’ inquests, which is used in England and Wales, is significantly different to the Scottish system of death investigations. In England and Wales, a coroner’s investigation takes place in circumstances in which the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death was unknown or the deceased died in state detention. The inquest mainly determines how, where and when someone died. Coroners will rarely make wider recommendations but can do so through a prevention of future deaths report.

In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. They take place in limited circumstances at the Lord Advocate’s discretion in circumstances in which a death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained, if it gives rise to a serious public concern or if she considers that it is in the public interest to hold one. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has a role in investigating a wide range of suspicious deaths, but only a small proportion of those are deemed to require the level of public investigation that is delivered by a fatal accident inquiry.

In relation to residency, the UK Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls explains that, in England and Wales, a coroner’s jurisdiction is based solely on the deceased person’s body lying within their coroner area. Therefore, when a person dies outside England and Wales, regardless of whether they were previously resident, the coroner’s jurisdiction is engaged if the body enters the coroner area and the death is reported to the coroner. The UK minister’s response also provides information about the number of inquests that there have been into deaths abroad and the number of such cases for which a prevention of future deaths report was issued.

The petitioner has outlined a number of improvements that are being progressed as a result of his campaigning work. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is working with the death certification review service and Police Scotland to produce new guidance on reporting and investigating deaths abroad. A memorandum of understanding on investigations abroad is being created for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The website has been updated to include contact details for the Scottish fatalities investigation unit.

Before I ask colleagues where we might consider going, I ask, in the first instance, Michael Marra if he would like to speak to the committee.

Would you be willing to support that, Mr Torrance?