Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sure. I understood that from your previous response, but that is a helpful clarification.

I think that we would agree that long Covid is a considerable challenge not just in health terms but economically. The number of economically inactive people has increased substantially as a consequence of long Covid. The sum of £3 million was announced for NHS services to help with that this year, but that was when 77,000 people were affected. Now, 180,000 people are affected. Given that that intervention is not just for health purposes but is an economic intervention, what plans are there to increase the amount that is available for the treatment of long Covid?

Okay—no problem.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I am conscious of and understand the difficulty and uncertainty in predicting what will happen with the pandemic, particularly as new variants are being experienced. However, what I see is that population testing has largely ended and the Lighthouse labs are closing. It has been suggested to me that antiviral medication is not getting to people in time, and we are not yet using prophylactics in Scotland.

All those things will vary depending on the prevalence of Covid at any time, but I want to explore what the flexibility and surge capacity are, beyond what you have said, that would allow things to be flexed up really quickly. In response to Murdo Fraser’s questions, you talked about additional funding for the health budget, but are those measures covered by existing Covid consequentials or have you had to add to them?

It was much higher—

The illustration, however, was that the surge was about long Covid.

That was quite a low bar.

May I ask about long Covid?

I have a final question, convener. Can I clarify—

Absolutely; I make clear that I am nothing to do with NatureScot, if that pleases the committee.

I thank the convener and committee members for allowing me to speak. I am joined by the petitioners; they are in the public gallery, so I am sure that, if I get anything wrong, they will be passing me notes.

As you rightly point out, at the heart of the issue is the replacement of the A82 between Inverarnan and Tarbet, much of which runs through my constituency. As you rightly highlight, the problem is that the design was undertaken using the design manual for roads and bridges rather than the more formal and more comprehensive STAG process, which we are all used to.

The context is important, because it will be the key capital expenditure in the national park. It is probably the biggest project of its kind and the most significant. Over the years, the Helensburgh and District Access Trust has worked with the national park to develop paths and walkways throughout some of our most iconic countryside. For example, they have developed the three lochs way, which runs from Balloch to Inveruglas and is one of the great Scottish trails. The hope is that we might be able to join it up with Ardlui and create a round-the-loch trail. The potential is enormous, but I do not need to remind any of you—I am sure that you have all visited Loch Lomond—of the heritage of the area and of what an outstanding environment it is. I believe that it is the most beautiful part of Scotland, but I am biased.

Transport Scotland has simply ignored the idea of giving consideration to an alternative option rather than just pushing ahead with the existing road. It has not considered that to the extent that we think possible. If we adopted a high-road option, rather than the existing route, we would protect oak woods and preserve the shoreline, we would have a walking and cycling route on the old road, and people would be able to access that northern part by foot to see some of the forest and woodland on the shoreline. We would have a great walking trail, the road safety issues at Arrochar primary school would be resolved, and we would have a faster and more direct route. All those benefits seem to have been ignored by the appraisal process.

That is a real opportunity but, when you look closer at this, it looks as though the appraisal of the shoreline route—the existing route—and the high route was not done in an unbiased manner. For example, not that I would know much about this, convener—I am sure that you do—but three tunnels were proposed and were costed, whereas no tunnels are required or appear on the diagrams and plans. The three tunnels that do not exist were costed at £90 million per kilometre, whereas PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that cost to be £30 million per kilometre. I hesitate to say this, but it looks as though somebody was trying to stack the consideration against the alternative route so that they could stick to their engineering plans as they stood. That inflated the cost by £146.55 million. It is unrealistic to suggest that these costs match in some way.

There was insufficient consultation with the local community, and the groups behind the petition, including Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, were not consulted. They have had to dig away to find out that information. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get this right. I understand the frustration of engineers who just want to get on and build the road on its current configurations. I have to say that that would cause traffic chaos, and the opportunity for a new route absolutely needs to be grabbed.

I know that the committee likes to get out of Holyrood, so may I invite you all to visit the area? We will walk you round the route and the potential options. However, you might also want to consider taking evidence from Transport Scotland; from the national park authority, which has a significant say in the matter; and from the minister, because our judgment is that there has been no political oversight of the issue. We have an opportunity to do the right thing, and if the committee suggested a STAG appraisal, we are confident that the high road would emerge as the preferred option.