Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, indicate my disappointment at not having a response from the Scottish Government. It is very much in our favour if we invite the cabinet secretary to comment on the evidence that we have received. It is useful to have the photographic evidence as well. Ms Baillie has taken an informed approach. It would be useful to get the cabinet secretary to answer some of the questions that she posed.

I agree that the information that we received from the organisations and individuals is very comprehensive. Once again, if the cabinet secretary comes to the committee it would give us the opportunity to put some of those questions to him and allow him to respond to the evidence.

I very much concur with that. We have looked at the petition in depth, but from the information that we have received, it seems that there are more questions than answers.

It would be useful to get the petitioner in. There are also questions to be asked of the CAA about what it is doing with HIAL. It would be useful to have some correspondence with the CAA about the co-operative radar system that has been discussed in the papers. If we are to understand the situation, we require more information. Liam McArthur and Rhoda Grant have given us a lot of detail. That has been very useful, but there are still questions that we can ask of the petitioner and the CAA.

Thank you. Angela, in your opening statement, you talked about how individuals and organisations were affected across the piece. How do you see the priorities changing and having to be adapted to ensure that people are not lost or that they do not fall through the net?

Thank you. Chris Birt, did you want to respond?

You talked about the pressures of transparency and the journey that we are on to ensure that equality and human rights budgeting processes are delivered. However, there are challenges and major pressures that will affect the delivery of equality and human rights budgeting in the coming years. We also have the added difficulty of managing the pandemic and its effects, which might unwind the priorities that were set. It would be useful to get a flavour from Emma Congreve and then Angela O’Hagan of what they think the challenges are in relation to allocating funds and supporting the way forward. Those priorities may be derailed, knocked back or knocked off course, so how can we manage those difficulties?

I see some merit in looking at the limited trial that the Ambulance Service is to carry out. As Mr Sweeney has indicated, there are risks to do with confidentiality and so on, which might be too great, but I believe that there is merit in considering what comes out of the trial and how things might progress.

Therefore, I am keen that we continue our consideration of the petition, and I am happy to support Paul Sweeney’s recommendations.

There is no doubt that work is progressing on a high-level framework, and I think that the Scottish Sentencing Council has put a huge amount of effort into all of this. I therefore suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders given that, as the convener indicated, the council is developing a set of sentencing guidelines

“on rape, sexual assault, and indecent images”.

In closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner suggesting that she engages with the development of the guidelines and specifically the research project on rape and sexual assault. The committee could share the petitioner’s details with the Scottish Sentencing Council to ensure that dialogue and discussion take place between the petitioner and the council. I think that that would be the best way forward at this stage.

I pay tribute to the MSPs who have worked tirelessly on the issue in the past and those who are working on it presently, because it is an enormous issue for the local area. As the convener indicated, the previous committee visited the site and saw it at first hand. Having been an MSP in the previous parliamentary session, I am aware of how many times the issue has been discussed in the chamber through oral questions and of how the situation has progressed.

I look at where we are objectively, but I am not sure where we can go as a committee on the issue. A public inquiry would in some ways exacerbate the situation, because it would take time. There is already a huge amount of frustration in the community, and people want a solution to the problem. We have heard that proposals are coming forward that might cover that. They may not please everybody, but at this stage I do not know what else can be done to facilitate and ensure a solution, because everybody, including Transport Scotland and local members, has worked tirelessly. The council has participated and 600 people gave feedback, so there has been a big involvement from the community.

Could a public inquiry find a solution? I suggest that that might not be the most effective way forward. I have concerns about how we take forward the issue, so it would be useful to hear other members’ opinions.

A lot of correspondence has gone back and forth on this topic, and I note what the Scottish Government has said about the process and proceedings. As you have indicated, Ms Don has now come forward with her suggestion for a member’s bill, and I think that, at this stage, it would be appropriate to keep the petition open until we can establish the topics on which that bill is likely to proceed. You indicated that it might not be as broad as the approach that Ms Mitchell wants to progress, but it would be useful for us to have the proposal in any case and to invite the petitioner to provide evidence to the committee, depending on whether the member’s bill is allowed to progress.

I recommend that we try to achieve that with the petition. It will not be easy, as you indicated. The Scottish Government has expressed some strong views on the matter but, at this stage, it is important that we continue to progress the petition.