Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of quick questions about depopulation. Kevin Stewart was told that the impact of what is happening with ferries just now is worse for the economy of the islands than the impact of Covid, which is pretty horrendous. What can you do in your role? The Scottish Government has policies for stopping depopulation, so what can be done in that regard?

I am also interested in the impact of depopulation on Gaelic. At the moment, young native Gaelic speakers and Gaelic-speaking families are leaving the islands. Although we can try to bring new people in, they will not speak Gaelic, which means that, within a generation, we could lose the whole language. I am not saying that we should not increase the number of people coming in or that we should not encourage people to do so, but we need to keep our own.

You talked about funding and how we are going to get it. Is the islands programme providing any funding for this? Can the national islands plan play a role?

I am concerned because we need to reach net zero as a country and these are small islands. You seemed to indicate that we can get to grips with how much carbon there is, but I was not so confident when you talked about the plans that are coming from the islands—you talked about dreams, funding and cost. If we cannot do this on a tiny scale in the islands, what hope do we have of reaching the greater goal of Scotland becoming carbon neutral?

I have a short supplementary question on that. In crofting counties, there are a lot of common grazings, where different crofters use the same area to graze their cattle. Would what is proposed have an impact on that? Obviously, someone will go out and give advice to the crofter or farmer on how to isolate infected cattle. It is unlikely that neighbours would not be aware that something was happening, but, in the strange event that they did not know and their cattle were still moving about with the infected cattle, would they be badly penalised, given that they had not done anything wrong? It was simply that they did not have the information, and somebody else had put them at risk.

How will the Scottish Government ensure that the benefits of aquaculture extend to local communities? Specifically, how can community views be taken into account when considering planning permission for fish farms? When I say “community views”, I am including the views of other users of the marine environment.

One of the other benefits of fish farming is well-paid jobs in remote rural areas. I would therefore highlight how we might be able to turn around some of the depopulation in those areas. Cabinet secretary, you will be as aware as anyone that housing is a huge issue. We see tiny houses or houses that would be almost worthless elsewhere going for phenomenal amounts in some areas, simply because they are beautiful places to live in. Young people employed by fish farms are really struggling to get a home and to stay in the communities in which they were born and brought up. Is the Scottish Government doing anything to aid and assist young people in getting a home, and is it working with the fish farming industry on that?

Okay. Thank you.

I am trying to get to the bottom of the difference between licensed and unlicensed racing, and I know that it is difficult to have a good look at what goes on as there is only one racetrack in Scotland. The impression that we are forming is that there is a professional licensed greyhound racing industry that attracts finance, betting and audiences, and there is also an unlicensed industry, which seems to be more for personal entertainment. What are the differences between those? If you have a dog that is trained to go at speed and win races in order to encourage betting as opposed to one that is a family pet that is taken out on a Saturday for a run, the speed of the animals at that track must be different and the way that the animals are reared is different. Have you looked at that in any way?

To continue that theme, what is the difference between that and horse racing?

I do not think that I have any relevant interests to declare, but I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I, too, thank the committee for allowing me to speak to this petition. I agree with what colleagues have already said.

The A9 is a road that impacts not only on constituents in Inverness, but on the whole of the Highlands and Islands. I pay tribute to Laura Hansler for lodging the petition and all those who are campaigning to improve the road.

A lot of people say that there is no such thing as a dangerous road, and there are only dangerous drivers, but the road plays a huge part in mitigating driver error. I think that everybody can admit to driver error at one point or another, but the design of the road can keep people safe. I drive the A9 weekly and I see very strange driver behaviour, most of which would not happen if it was a dual carriageway.

Last year, there were eight deaths on the 25-mile stretch near the Slochd in just three months, and that was tragic. The total amount of deaths last year was 13. The deaths of those people are losses to not only their families but their communities. We all lose out, as we lose their contribution to society, so the issue impacts on everybody.

The Scottish National Party made dualling the A9 a manifesto commitment back in 2007. In December 2011, ministers confirmed the commitment and they put the timeframe of 2025 on it at that point. Sadly, progress has been slow, and I do not believe that the war in Ukraine, Brexit, Covid or inflation is the underlying reason for that. Had that target of 2025 been a goal, the contracts would have already been issued, the land would have been purchased, and we would probably be on the last stretch rather than looking towards the third stretch.

Eleven sections of the road still have to be dualled and we have no timeframe for them. The closest timeframe that we have had is the one that Fergus Ewing alluded to—an industry representative said 2050. I would say that it might even be longer than that, because the stretches that have been dualled have not been done back to back. There have been gaps between that work, so we need an investigation into the matter.

If we look at the cost to the public purse, we see that every fatality costs about £2 million to investigate, so last year the total for that was £26 million, and the loss of life is a loss to the public purse as well.

I am keen to see an inquiry. Like Fergus Ewing, I think that it would be worth while for the committee to see whether the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee had space to do that. I also wonder whether this committee would want to get its teeth into the matter and carry out an inquiry. You might have the scope for it. I know that, from time to time, the committee likes to look into an issue that a petitioner has raised. Will you consider that? Certainly, a committee of this Parliament should carry out an inquiry that would tell us what has gone wrong and what progress has been made, and give us realistic timescales.

Thank you, convener. I appreciate your allowing me to speak again on the petition. It is really disappointing that, since Mary Ramsay started her campaign, there is still no nationally recognised treatment centre for focused ultrasound in Scotland. In England, there are already two centres offering treatment on the NHS. Since Mary started her petition, we now have the facilities here, in Dundee, but we appear to have made little progress on making the treatment universally available on the NHS.

Scottish patients are being sent south and treated in England, which is difficult for them given the travel involved. It adds to their distress and their time away from home. It also adds a cost to the Scottish NHS. Some health boards are sending their patients to Dundee, because they know that the facility is there, but it would be much better if all health boards had a clear pathway to send people to Dundee.

I understand that an application has been submitted to the national services division—it has obviously crossed with its information to the committee—from NHS Tayside, which is looking to have the treatment adopted nationally. I am not clear when that will be considered and what the timeframe for it is, so could the committee raise that matter with the national services division and the Scottish Government? It would be good if we could pin them down as to when that will be considered, what the stages will be and a likely timeframe for them to reach a decision. It would also be useful to try to find out why the treatment has been assessed as useful and is available in the rest of the UK but not here in Scotland.

Mary Ramsay asked me to say that she stands ready to give evidence to the committee. She believes that the committee should hear directly from people who are affected by essential tremor and the impact that it has on their lives.

We hope to have a drop-in event on 16 March at 1 pm in committee room 3. That is a plug, but I would like to extend an invitation to committee members, because Mary Ramsay will be there, along with other campaigners and people who have been treated for essential tremor by both treatments available and clinicians. That should be very informative, and you will be very welcome.