Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the proposal to close the petition, and I think that we should advise the petitioner of the methods through which they can engage with the legislative process.

It is quite promising if there are signs that the crisis element can be practically addressed in a holistic way. From experience of dealing with veterans, for example, I know that people were just getting passed around and no one seemed to be taking ownership of the situation, which led people into despair and suicide.

The approach sounds promising, although I accept that something like the increase in interest rates and the consequent financial pressures, for example, could increase suicide figures, but that is not necessarily within the gift of a Government policy.

I support the proposal that we carry out a further inquiry into the matter. It is a broader national consideration as well, because I know—certainly from previous representations that I have had from Railfuture Scotland—that there is a deep concern that Transport Scotland is attitudinally predisposed to heavily overengineering solutions for trunk-road building, and that it has an attitudinal dislike of rail development. It will, for example, overly analyse and put onerous requirements on rail programmes but will take forward elaborate schemes for trunk-road construction.

There is a general consideration with regard to how transparent Transport Scotland is in developing such projects, and a broader national consideration about policy and how accountable the agency is. In this particular instance, there is deep concern about the coastal route along Loch Lomond side being damaged.

I am mindful that Sir Robert Grieve, who, along with Tom Weir, was one of the masterminds of the national park project back in the 1970s, said that he did not want the area to end up like the Italian lakes, built up from end to end. It would be a real travesty if the project were to go ahead and destroy the spirit in which the national park was created.

I note the comments that have been made so far about trying to understand the reasoning and the causal factors behind the figures. Nonetheless, “Scotland’s Suicide Prevention Action Plan: Every Life Matters” from 2018 set a target of a 20 per cent reduction by this year. Although we do not have the figures for this year, the trend broadly suggests that the target is unlikely to be met. Why will it not be met?

It might also be relevant to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which tends to manage taxi licences and the introduction of measures such as the low emission zones that are having a detrimental impact on the taxi trade, to ask for its view on how those can be more appropriately managed. We could also ask what remedies might come from Government, such as financial support for the transition to compliant vehicles. There seems to be a disconnect between the regulations applied by local government and the national funds that have been established to support the transition.

I accept that not everything to preserve life in all circumstances is within the gift of the Government. That is obvious, but the Government can, nonetheless, have a positive influence in terms of trying to ameliorate the effects in some areas and moving towards that target. To that end, what assessment against performance has there been of workstreams or activities in the plan? Which areas are showing promise and which are showing difficulty? I am interested to get more insight into where you see the plan achieving the greatest impact and which areas are harder to deliver in.

We should go forward with the proposal and invite Transport Scotland to make representations on the process that it has followed. We might also want to pursue a site visit.

I am Paul Sweeney and I am an MSP from Glasgow.

Oh, is it? I must have missed that one.

I am sympathetic to that point, because the issue of contempt for Parliament is not well enforced, which I have found to be quite frustrating, particularly in the chamber. Enhanced powers for the Presiding Officer to compel relevant, timely and succinct answers would be good. Sometimes, responses can be almost antisocial, as they consume time—they can, in effect, become filibustering, with someone havering on for a minute and a half without getting to the point, which is designed to push other questions off the shelf, so the minister has to answer fewer questions. In other legislatures, such as the Irish Dáil, the equivalent of the Presiding Officer has the power to stop a minister if that is happening.

People should treat the chamber with the respect that they would treat a courtroom, in the sense that they should give relevant and punchy answers, and the questions should be succinct and to the point, too, and should not go off on a minute-long preamble. It might be possible to tighten up the standing orders to make the Parliament more rigorous with regard to how questions are addressed.