Seòmar agus comataidhean

So we would be seeking some factual responses.

I see that a member of the public would like to speak. I welcome them but, unfortunately, we are not able to take contributions from the public gallery.

Mr Rowley, would you like to add anything to what we have said about actions that we will take?

Our last continued petition, PE2053, which was lodged by Peter Cawston on behalf of Scottish general practitioners at the deep end, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that the number and hours of current community link workers serving the poorest communities are not cut in the next financial year and to take binding steps to secure long-term funding for community link workers in GP practices across Scotland.

The committee last considered the petition on 24 January. We have received responses from the Scottish Government, Glasgow city health and social care partnership, Health and Social Care Scotland, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, GMB Scotland, GPs working with community link workers and our MSP colleague Paul Sweeney. The responses, which are detailed in today’s committee papers, highlight the valuable role that community link workers play. Many MSPs receive submissions in that regard.

However, I draw members’ attention to the submission from the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, which comments that the dispute that prompted the petition centres not on the value of community link workers but on who should fund them—the Scottish Government or local health and social care partnerships. A number of submissions indicated a preference for CLW funding to be included in baseline budgets from the Scottish Government, to ensure greater certainty of funding for these roles.

The Scottish Government has told us that a new national community link worker advisory group has been set up and will formulate detailed proposals for changes in relation to specific features of GP CLW services that are to be reviewed.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

You say that, Mr Mayhew, but is a consultation the same thing as a review? I do not live in an area that is likely to be affected by a national park proposal—although I do live in the most beautiful constituency in Scotland.

Nonetheless, it is not part of a national park. My local council is forever holding consultations, and I am for ever being besieged with consultations for this, that and the next thing. Speaking just as a layperson, I have become a bit suspicious of public consultations, because they are 10 a penny—it is almost exhausting. Very often, when you contribute to a public consultation, you will be told that your answer can contain 85 characters—and no more. The pro forma approach in these things becomes quite restrictive. If people have an underlying suspicion that a consultation is just the supporting organisation trying to find a mandate to progress with what it wishes to do in the first place, they will think, “Well, what’s the point?” Surely it is the case that, in the public mind, an independent review provides a more objective analysis of evidence and, indeed, can be more widespread. The previous panel told us about one consultation that could have reached several hundred thousand people but which attracted something like 430 responses. Is that really a consultation?

Not on this committee! [Laughter.]

That sounds very much like our colleague Fergus Ewing.

Welcome back. Our consideration of continued petitions continues with PE1610, on upgrading the A75, and PE1657, on the A77 upgrade. The petitions call 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 and to dual the A77 from the Whitletts roundabout in Ayr south to the two ferry ports located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75. We are joined this morning by our colleague Brian Whittle MSP—welcome, Brian—and I think that Mr Carson is sitting in for these petitions, too.

We last considered the petitions last December, when we heard that prioritisation of the strategic transport projects review 2 recommendations would feed into a delivery plan. That delivery plan was due to be published in late 2023, and colleagues will recall that we requested an update on when it would be published. The then minister and now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, responded to the committee in late January 2024, noting that it was a complex piece of work, with consultation on-going across the Scottish Government. However, she did not give an indication as to when the delivery plan would be published. The Scottish Government at that time had a commitment from the previous United Kingdom Government to provide multiyear funding of £8 million for improvements on the A75.

The petitioner for PE1657, Donald McHarrie, has provided a submission highlighting developments since we last considered the petition. He states that a summit was held on the issue, with the key message focusing on the need for investment in the A77 and A75 in order to provide economic benefits and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions on the roads. He calls for the improvement of the A77 to be raised to national status and not to be considered just as an issue for the south-west of Scotland.

We have also received a written submission this morning from our colleague Elena Whitham. She is unable to attend the meeting, but her submission reiterates support for PE1657 and emphasises that the A77 and A75 are vital strategic routes for Ayrshire and Scotland, supporting both communities and businesses.

Before we move to comments from members, I ask Mr Whittle whether he has anything further to contribute to our consideration.

Our next petition, PE1876, which was lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape.

We have been joined by our colleague Tess White, a former member of the committee, who has been following the progress of the petition. Good morning, Tess.

Thank you, Mr Carson. We were expecting an update nearly a year ago, but that has not been forthcoming. I think that Mr Torrance has some suggestions to make.

Mr Kempe, would you like to contribute on that topic?