Seòmar agus comataidhean

There any no other comments or suggestions from the committee.

We have the Scottish Government’s response. Could we slip in an extra question when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is next with the committee? As the topic is fresh in our minds, if the cabinet secretary is with us next week, we could do that, just to get an understanding of what the Government could do to accelerate access. It is a matter of considerable public concern. The cabinet secretary might prefer to wait until a later date, but let us see whether that is a possibility.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I highlight to those petitioners whose petition we have considered for the first time today that, as a matter of practice, in the first instance, we invite the Scottish Government to comment. Therefore, before we make recommendations, we have its response and any further submissions that have been received.

Thank you all for your new petitions. That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting.

Thank you. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

We have the cabinet secretary at our next meeting, where we will be able to pursue a number of the issues. Thank you, Karen, for your courage and resilience. It has been a privilege to have you with us this morning to discuss the issues. I know that I speak on behalf of all the committee when I wish you and your family every happiness in the future.

Thank you, Mr Stewart. Are colleagues content with those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

I realise that the petitioner’s experience is not consistent with the representations that we have received from NatureScot, but I do not know that there is much more that we can do. We have received assurances from NatureScot, so I think that Mr Stewart’s proposal seems to be the only one that is open to us. If no other member wishes to comment, are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

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 regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which seeks to provide a permanent solution for the route.

When we last considered the petition—which was quite some time ago, on 20 April—we agreed to write to Transport Scotland. We have received a response from the Minister for Transport that indicates that five possible route options are currently being assessed, with Transport Scotland expected to make an announcement on a preferred option for a permanent solution by spring 2023. We have also received a response from the petitioners, who have restated their call for a public inquiry and highlighted their concerns around the costs of finding a permanent solution for the Rest and Be Thankful.

Obviously, there are huge issues attendant upon a public inquiry, not all of which are necessarily going to see us make the progress that we might wish. Do colleagues have any suggestions to make on the petition?

That is very helpful.

Is there a general way in which the circumstances of those prosecutions arose?

Just out of interest, and following on from Marie McNair’s question, what was the experience in relation to that risk assessment?