Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have the two approaches. Mr Torrance, are you content? What is your view?

Instead of considering PE1973, I will jump ahead on the agenda, because we now have Rhoda Grant with us, and I am happy to try to facilitate Rhoda’s morning by bringing forward the petitions in which she has an interest.

Both petitions have been lodged by Derek Noble. PE1974 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems that are associated with the Stromeferry bypass. PE1980 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Achnasheen and Gorstan as a trunk road, connecting that route into the existing trunk road network. We considered the petitions on 18 January, when we agreed to write to a range of stakeholders to seek further information on the issues raised.

As I said a moment ago, we are joined by our colleague Rhoda Grant—good morning, and welcome, Rhoda. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from Lochcarron community council and the Plockton and district community council, which highlight the disruption that residents and others face when rock falls cause a closure of the A890, as well as their support for action to recognise the increased volume of traffic on the route and improve the quality of the road surface.

We also received a response in February from the then Minister for Transport, which suggests that, although there is linkage between the criteria set out in the strategic transport projects review and the A890, it is the Government’s assessment that the A890 does not sufficiently meet the criteria to be incorporated into the motorway and trunk road network. The minister also suggests that transferring the route to the trunk road network would not solve the investment challenges that are associated with addressing road safety and maintenance issues on this stretch of road.

On a related point, the VisitScotland response states that it considers road infrastructure to be an important part of the visitor experience but that it would be for the Scottish Government to consider whether adopting the A832 as a trunk road would improve outcomes for residents and visitors to the area.

The response from Highland Council notes that it has done no further work on the Stromeferry options appraisal since December 2019, given that the project has no capital programme support and no preferred option has been identified. The council’s response also states that, although parts of the A832 may not meet today’s design standards, the issues of the A890 Stromeferry section outweigh those issues significantly.

There is a range of responses, and they are not altogether encouraging from the point of view of the petition, unfortunately. Before I ask the committee to reflect on what we have heard, I invite Rhoda Grant to make any comments that she feels would be appropriate.

As there are no further suggestions, are committee members content with those recommended actions?

Members indicated agreement.

Therefore, the petition will remain open and we will again endeavour to understand the thinking of the various organisations to whom we will now write, in the first instance.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The petitioner would, of course, have the opportunity to lodge a fresh petition for consideration by the committee at that time, depending on the Government’s decision.

We come to the last of our new petitions this morning. PE2027, which was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch without further delay the £10 million changing places toilet fund that was pledged in the 2021 Scottish National Party manifesto, and to make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups that are trying to build these much-needed facilities.

The response from the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport states that, due to budget constraints, funding for the construction of changing places toilets has not yet been allocated and specific timelines for its distribution remain unannounced. The Government’s submission emphasises the need to prioritise spending efficiently to benefit those in the greatest need and says that further details on the investment in question will be provided over the parliamentary session.

The petitioner’s submission details the group’s work to obtain the necessary permissions for a changing places toilet in Tyndrum and notes that the only thing that is preventing it from building the facility is a lack of capital funding. The petitioner highlights the hardships that are faced by disabled individuals and their carers as a result of the absence of changing places toilets, which include indignity, isolation and health risks.

The positive impact that the use of similar funding in England has had in expanding access for disabled individuals is cited. The petitioner notes the benefits to the local economy of tapping into the purple pound of potential tourists and customers in the disabled community.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I am sorry; I had forgotten—even though I directed him to the appropriate seat—that we are joined by our colleague Paul O’Kane, who has an interest in the petition. Before we move to our consideration of potential options, I invite him to comment in support of the petition.

Do colleagues have any other suggestions?

Thank you all very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 20 September. We move into private for items 5 and 6.

Thank you very much, Monica. You described the evidence session that we had as tense, which is a fair description. Having read the Official Report of the meeting, I think that you characterise it correctly in many respects. Although it was a slightly tense atmosphere, the Lord Advocate clearly stuck to her view of where her responsibilities lay. The committee got slightly frustrated that it was not clear thereafter where she thought the committee should go to get the correct answers. That is what we have been reflecting on.

Given the evidence that we heard from the pathologists in Lancashire and the other evidence that we have heard, I believe that members of the committee are minded to seek to do everything that we can to advance the aims of the petition. In the light of those remarks, do colleagues have any contributions?