Hansard

Thank you. I think that the committee agrees that we want to continue our consideration of the petitions. People will always make an argument for an individual road to be upgraded, and of course others will say that they do not want spending on roads as opposed to other forms of transport, given the environmental question, but there are also serious environmental issues for people who live along the routes that we are talking about. When we asked the question of the First Minister, we were really looking for an understanding of how the Government connects what the transport minister is doing with activity to do with economic development, environmental issues and so on. A lot of the evidence that we have received is about the impact on tourism and the opportunities that are lost because it takes a long time for lorries to get to the port and as a result of companies deciding to shift elsewhere. We also received evidence—from, I think, the North Channel partnership—about the fact that, although opportunities would be afforded by blockages at other ports as a result of Brexit, Cairnryan would not be able to benefit from those because of transport issues there. 10:15 It is not the case that all those issues can be dealt with by the Public Petitions Committee, but the Scottish Government needs to understand that it is not just an argument about whether to invest in this road or that road; there are interesting broader issues around the local economy in the south-west and how that economy is sustained. We agree to continue the petitions, and we will include them in our legacy paper to the successor committee, with a view to receiving an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity and a commitment to being reassured that there is an understanding that the issue must be considered in a joined-up context across Government. I thank Finlay Carson and John Scott for their attendance and wish them all the best—it has been a pleasure to work with you.