Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will now consider further continued petitions with PE1610, on upgrading the A75, and PE1657, on upgrading the A77.

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 A77 Action Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr Whitletts roundabout south to the two ferry ports located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75.

We previously considered the petitions at our meeting on 28 September, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport. The committee has received a response from Jenny Gilruth, who was the minister at the time, that acknowledges the need for improvements to both roads and highlights that the strategic transport projects review 2

“recommends that safety, resilience and reliability improvements”

be made. The minister notes that the south-west Scotland transport study

“does not recommend ... full dualling”

of either road, but recommends “targeted ... improvements” instead. The submission also states that a delivery plan to prioritise STPR2 will be released later this year.

We have received written submissions from both petitioners, drawing our attention to a newly published A75 and A77 economic impacts report, which was commissioned by Dumfries and Galloway Council, South Ayrshire Council and Mid and East Antrim Council and was undertaken by independent transport consultancy Sweco UK. The study found that dualling would bring £5 billion of “positive benefits” to the UK economy, such as reduced journey times and vehicle operating costs.

Finlay Carson is unable to join us this morning, but he, too, has provided us with a written submission. He has also highlighted the report, noting its finding that dualling would bring

“environmental gains, including CO₂ emissions reduction.”

I have also received—and I hope that colleagues, too, have received it—a submission from Emma Harper MSP in which she reiterates her support for the petition and draws attention to objectives, recommendations that have been made and her work with the representative action groups.

Colleagues, on the basis of the submissions that we have received, what recommendations would you like to make?

The clerks have absorbed the suggestions that have been made in the discussion. We look forward to hearing from the minister and, indeed, from the First Minister, who would benefit from the commitment to, enthusiasm for and sustainability in his cause that young Callum Isted has managed to offer.

Is the committee agreed that we do so, while noting and understanding the continuing situation for a significant number of people, which is not now so obviously in the public eye, as they continue to deal with the ramifications of Covid-19?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As I always do for the benefit of those who might be following our proceedings, I want first of all to indicate that we take soundings in relation to petitions and seek, in particular, an initial view from the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s impartial research service to ensure that, even at the start of our consideration, we have some informed opinion.

I would very much like the letter to be framed in the context of the evidence that we heard during the session, in particular, because I would like Police Scotland to be aware that we heard quite harrowing testimony that we found compelling and that is what underpins our questions. We are not just asking them because we feel that we should ask something; we are asking them because we really feel motivated to do so, given the experience that we heard about from Stephanie Bonner. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In what way is the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner able to directly intervene in the way that the issue is progressed or understood?

I call Fergus Ewing.

Megan, will you take the lead on that question?

The petition raises important issues. We will write to the minister and to the Scottish Social Services Council, as suggested, and consider the petition again when we consider the responses that we have received from them.

I am very concerned that I have now planted the word “capture” in your vocabulary, Mr Stewart. You are now capturing everything in every petition. I encourage you not to be led down such a dangerous path, but I fully support the sentiments.

That round-table discussion, however, was 14 months ago, and I will tell you what struck me. First of all, this Parliament has a duty to try to ensure that, although the composition of its membership is not youthful, we understand and respond to issues that are of direct concern to many young people, and this clearly is one such issue. In my ignorance, I had assumed that a urine test was probably a fairly routine process, but I was struck by the issue of there being possible reputational damage done to the individual in question, who was thereafter unable to evidence that their drink had been spiked, that was the issue, and that, as a consequence, it was open to others to suggest that they had just been irresponsible or reckless in their behaviour. That was very damaging, and it would be avoidable if processes were in place to try to properly identify the experience that people had been subject to. I think that we are all minded to pursue the petition further and to make inquiries. Mr Ewing suggested contacting Police Scotland, which is perfectly sensible.