Seòmar agus comataidhean

Perhaps the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders for the following reasons: Audit Scotland has investigated concerns about the application of the STAG guidance and concluded that the STAG process had been applied in the initial stages of the work on the A82; the Scottish Government has previously stated that it is unwilling to carry out a reappraisal of the preferred route option for the upgrade to the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan as it would repeat work that has already been carried out, resulting in

“considerable delay and additional cost”,

and has confirmed that members of the public and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide formal comment or objection to the proposed scheme during the statutory consultation period; and Transport Scotland officials are continuing to engage with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority on the detail and the make-up of the scheme, including having discussions on how to incorporate active travel facilities throughout the whole scheme in a sympathetic way.

Thank you, convener.

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, I believe from your opening statement that the access to the Argyll and Bute project would be funded from the capital budget. As you know, the committee has a long-standing history with the Rest and Be Thankful going as far back as session 4 of the Parliament. We have visited the site and seen improvements to catchment nets, to the stabilising of the hill and to the old military road. What assurances can you give that the capital budget that is in place will deliver long-term solutions?

The petitioners have questioned the usefulness of the proposed long-term solution for Rest and Be Thankful and have argued for a tunnel or a viaduct. Why have those suggestions not been taken on board?

I will bow to your wisdom, convener.

I withdraw my recommendations.

In the light of the lack of evidence that the committee has received, should the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the responses to the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people did not raise any issues associated with fast-release caffeine gum? The UK Athletics supplements position statement provides athletes with clear advice on how to reduce risk in the use of supplements, which would include fast-release caffeine gum, and the Scottish Government previously indicated that it will not be pursuing research on fast-release caffeine products at this time.

The petitioner has achieved their aims, although slightly later than they would have wanted. Given that fact, and the evidence that we have been given, the committee should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has published its international culture strategy, which noted that the review was under way, and states that the Scotland + Venice project has been an important platform through which to showcase Scottish creative practitioners. Further, the review into Scotland’s participation in the Venice biennale has now concluded and Creative Scotland and partners are expected to publish it in the coming weeks and to set out plans for participation in the Scotland + Venice project in 2026.

The committee should consider writing to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to ask what action the Scottish Government intends to take on mental health support for young people in schools in light of the findings of its report on the transformed school nurse role and, in particular, what action it will take to address the gap that has been identified between the remit of school nurses and the CAMHS referral threshold. Also, the committee should ask for an update on the counsellors co-ordinators network’s consideration of the recommendations made by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland on counselling in schools.

The petitioners have argued that the development of a route on the opposite side of Glen Croe would be preferable to the current interim measures, which are focused on the old military road. Will you explain why that option has not been taken forward?

I find this quite difficult but, in the light of the evidence and the responses that we have had, I do not know whether the committee can take the petition any further. I would like us to consider closing the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government consider that the definition of “ordinarily resident” in common law is widely recognised and accepted, and that disputes about whether someone is ordinarily resident in Scotland can be taken to court. Further, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has progressed improvements on issues, including new guidance on reporting and investigating deaths that happen abroad, as well as a new memorandum of understanding with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.