Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are colleagues content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I am very happy to add those points to our list of considerations. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

You have anticipated what I was going to ask. From what Kelly McBride has said, I understand how the workshops were constructed. I am interested in how the recommendations emerged. How did they surface? How did you come to agree on the recommendations?

PE1877, which was lodged by Alex Wallace, is on the provision of body cameras for all front-line national health service staff. We previously considered the petition on 19 January 2022. We agreed then to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish Government to find out more about the body camera trial that we understood was under way.

We understand from the responses that the trial is still in the scoping and planning phase, due to the extreme pressures being experienced as a result of the pandemic. The Scottish Ambulance Service listed the ways in which it intends to evaluate the technology and stated that the timescale for initial evaluation will now be towards the end of 2022. Given that we have already undertaken to await the outcome of the evaluation, it would seem sensible to wait for that.

Our final new petition today is PE1928, which calls on the Scottish Government to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. The petition has been lodged by David Gallant, who notes that many disabled people who qualify for free bus travel are unable to benefit from it due to the withdrawal of some rural bus routes and the lack of access to suitable toilet facilities on board many buses that operate in rural areas. He also points out that train fares are unaffordable, so train travel is not currently a viable alternative in those areas.

We have received a submission from Sight Scotland highlighting the need for a consistent national policy for rail travel across Scotland that entitles blind and partially sighted people and their companions to free rail travel. Sight Scotland points out that there are different concessionary and companion schemes in different areas, which can cause confusion to passengers and rail staff.

Transport Scotland has also sent us a submission, which I should state was drafted prior to ScotRail’s move into public ownership. It indicates that ScotRail has no plans to introduce free travel for disabled people but points out that it offers discounted fares through the disabled persons railcard and that there is free travel for blind passengers via a scheme that is operated by local authorities.

Transport Scotland also highlights a planned fair fares review that is designed

“to ensure a sustainable and integrated approach to public transport fares in the future”,

and suggests that existing discounts and concessionary schemes across a range of transport will be considered as part of that review.

This is an interesting new petition. Do colleagues have any comments on it?

The next petition is PE1916, which was lodged by Councillors Douglas Philand and Donald Kelly. The petition 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, which aims to provide a permanent solution for the route.

We previously considered the petition in January, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it intends to carry out a public inquiry into the management of the project. We have received an update from Transport Scotland, which makes the point that a public inquiry not only would be protracted but would review only all that has been discussed to date and not necessarily identify any solutions.

David Torrance will know, and I can recall, that the committee has been involved in discussions on the issue for a long time. Although a public inquiry might look only at everything that has happened to date, Transport Scotland, in not seeking to pursue that route, implies that carrying out such an inquiry would delay it in taking forward a viable project. However, taking forward a viable project—or even the identification of one—is the big overhanging issue.

I am unwilling to close the petition at this point. It is not necessarily the case that I reject some of Transport Scotland’s arguments, but I would not want to rule out a public inquiry if Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government are unable to move the project forward in some way.

I suggest that we go back to Transport Scotland and make it clear that it is implicit in its submission that it intends to do something. We can consider afresh whether a public inquiry is necessary, which will be contingent on whether any progress has been made on the issue. Are members content with that approach?

We will come on to the recommendations. Paul Sweeney will deal with them in a second.

We have—

Thank you very much. I hope that that was useful. The issue was in relation to referendums; the lady at my baker’s that I mentioned did not want to have to be consulted in referendums, because she felt that she was being required to become much more knowledgeable about a subject than she felt comfortable about. That was the context of her saying that she elected people to take decisions for her.

Although I do not necessarily accept the need to go down the public inquiry route, I want Transport Scotland to move forward with a proposal. I would rather not close the petition, only to find that another petition on the issue comes along at a later date.