���˿���

We could ask that, but I think that the evidence suggests that such information is very fractured; it depends on individual practice. I do not think that there is a national database on such matters.

Are colleagues content with the suggestions that have been made?

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue but, clearly, the committee can keep a petition open only if we think there is an opportunity to advance its aims. I think that the direction from the Scottish Government is quite clear.

The aims of the petition will therefore be achieved. In light of that, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2057, which was lodged by John McMaster, aims to promote shared parenting and prevent the separation of children from their parents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the frequency and duration of parental contact are equal; to promote the use of parenting arrangements; to require that the evidence of accusations from one parent to another is provided within 14 days of any civil action; and to raise public awareness of the importance of both parents in a child’s life. The petition states that its purpose is not to take any of the necessary protections away, but to prevent abuse of the current systems, which are knowingly abused to alienate children.

The SPICe briefing provides information about the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, most of which is not yet in force. The act says that the court must look at the impact of any court orders on the child’s relationships with their parents and other important people in their life.

The briefing notes that, in its stage 1 report on the Children (Scotland) Bill, the Justice Committee stated that it was not persuaded by a presumption in favour of shared parenting, as that could cut across the key principle of the welfare of children being the paramount consideration. The Scottish Government’s response reiterates that view and adds that, where parents cannot agree, it should be for the courts to decide what parental contact arrangement is in the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis.

The submission also refers to “Your Parenting Plan”, which is a guide for parents with a joint agreement to structure and record discussions about the future care and welfare of their children. In addition, it is noted that the Government provides funding to Relationships Scotland, whose network provides family mediation services, and to Shared Parenting Scotland.

Work is also under way to improve judicial case management, which will lead to court cases being resolved more quickly. Under section 30 of the Children (Scotland) 2020, the court will be required

“to have regard to any risk of prejudice to the child’s welfare that delay in proceedings would pose.”

An important issue has been raised, and we have received some quite informed responses. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2061 is the final new petition that we are considering this morning. This is the petition that you focused your attention on, Mr Choudhury. The petition, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.

I have been aware that a couple has been with us in the gallery all morning. They have stuck it to the end, so I will conclude that they are here for this petition. Thank you for joining us.

The petitioner has explained that, while terminally ill in hospital, her father was asked to sign legal documents affecting the value of his estate. The family raised their concerns with the Law Society of Scotland, and a solicitor was thereafter found guilty of misconduct and fined.

The SPICe briefing notes that, although there is no general requirement under common law to have someone assessed before they enter into a legal agreement, the Law Society’s guidance on meeting the needs of vulnerable clients makes it clear that solicitors cannot simply rely on the presumption of capacity.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated that it is already best practice for a solicitor to obtain a medical opinion if there are doubts about a client’s capacity. The response went on to note that the question of a “golden rule”, similar to that which operates in England and Wales, has been considered by the Scottish courts, which ruled that such a strict requirement is not necessary.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner that responds to the Scottish Government’s view. The petitioner remains concerned that the Law Society’s rules are insufficient in deterring solicitors from taking actions that they should not take, and notes that the complaints procedure can be a long and distressing one and that it is challenging for members of the public to navigate, with solicitors facing minimal consequences even when complaints are upheld.

We have had notes of interest in the petition from Alex Rowley and Liam McArthur, and representations have also been made to me by Claire Baker and Finlay Carson. Therefore, there is quite a wide range of interest among colleagues on the issues that the petition has raised.

Colleagues exchanged views during our period of consideration ahead of looking at these matters today. Some important issues have been raised, and I believe that we want to keep the petition open at this point.

Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed? Maybe Mr Choudhury would like to offer a suggestion to us now.

I see that our colleagues who are in the room are also content. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 6 relates to the evidence that we are about to hear in relation to the inquiry and item 7 relates to our pre-budget scrutiny work.

I am sure that it would have a full agenda.

Grahame Barn from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland is joining us this morning. Good morning, Grahame, and welcome to our proceedings. Later this morning, we will hear evidence from current and former Transport Scotland officials.

As members will be aware, since we last considered the issue, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition updated the chamber on the Scottish Government’s plans for dualling the A9. The committee has also received material from Transport Scotland with information about the advice on the A9 dualling programme that was provided to ministers between 2012 and 2023.

As the Scottish Parliament information centre summary of evidence notes, the documents range from brief extracts of draft budget proposals for ministerial consideration to lengthy briefing documents for major parliamentary announcements—and, my goodness, there were plenty of them. There was certainly a lot of material to digest.

It is worth remembering that the committee is not only interested in the circumstances of everything that has gone before; it is also concerned to ensure that we deliver on the aims of the petition, which are that the A9 project is completed and that consideration is given to having a memorial for the people who have perished during this period due to road traffic incidents on the A9.

Mr Barn, are you content for us to move straight to questions this morning?

Interestingly, that was the issue with the Queensferry crossing, in that the committee anticipated the need for public inquiries at various points in relation to the route, because the route and not the bridge itself was, by far, the most complicated aspect of that project.

Before I move to colleagues, I turn to what seems to be at the hub of much of what I have read. Does the industry think that the current approval processes for major road and other infrastructure projects in Scotland have proved to be fit for purpose? If not, what needs to happen to make them so?