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.

That is helpful—thank you. For the benefit of those who might be following our proceedings elsewhere, can you explain the resources and infrastructure of The Promise Scotland?

To which we might come.

We now return to Callum Isted’s petition, PE1896, on providing every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle.

We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we heard evidence from the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, Lorna Slater, and the head of the Scottish Government’s support and wellbeing unit, Laura Meikle. Members will recall that, at that evidence session, the minister reiterated the Scottish Government’s view that it is up to local authorities to decide their budgets and how drinking water is provided, although they are required to ensure that drinking water is made available free of charge and provided in a sustainable way.

We also heard that on-going monitoring of the duties under the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 takes place through nutrition inspections and engagement with catering services and education authorities. However, members raised questions about the availability of detailed evidence from each local authority.

As members might recall, there was an outstanding commitment from the former First Minister to invite young Callum to Bute house, but I am afraid that that commitment cannot be fulfilled, because the building is now covered in building tape and closed for renovations that might take some considerable time to complete. Notwithstanding that unfulfilled promise, do colleagues have any suggestions?

Did you want to come in, Carol?

I am not sure who you are asking.