Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will add that it has been brought to my attention by fishing representatives that, whereas HPMAs policy, as such, was dropped—after various representations of various types were made to urge the Government so to do—I understand that it is a widely held belief in fishing circles that NatureScot is busily working on that topic to pursue what some feel might be HPMAs by another name. I have not seen the factual basis for that, but I wonder whether we might, to take a belt-and-braces approach, write to NatureScot to ask whether it is doing work in that area, and, if so, what that work is, who has asked it to do it and what role in and input to its deliberations, if any, fishing representatives, such as those representing fishermen in the Clyde and the vicinity, might be having.

I note the tragic loss of the petitioner’s three-year-old son and that the petitioner lives opposite where his son is buried. He talks about the family witnessing up to 100 people exercising their dogs daily, with dogs being let off leads or on long leads, resulting in their urinating and defecating on graves and damaging teddies and so on that have been left in memory. I just thought that I would mention that because, plainly, the petition is somewhat unusual, but there is a human tragedy behind it.

Sure. We did, as a party, promise it in manifestos in 2007, and ever since. From 2011, the dualling promise had the target date of 2025. We have seen an extract from a Cabinet paper from November 2018 advising that the use of private finance would mean that the 2025 completion date could not be met. How can that be squared with the assertion that it became clear only in 2023, last year, that the 2025 deadline would not be met?

I think it is fair to say that we have heard evidence from industry that the civil engineering contracting world knew from 2018 at the latest that the 2025 target was not going to be met in practice, because the scale of the work that was required could not have been done in seven years. As you pointed out, I was in government as well, and I have said on several occasions that if there is any responsibility that we must accept for the failure to dual the A9, I am part of that, although I never had portfolio responsibility for it and I did not receive papers on the matter from 2018.

Do you feel now that, because the target was such a major promise for so long from both the SNP and the Scottish Government, an apology should be given to the people of the Highlands? It is fair to say, in my perception at any rate, that the issue has been met with considerable dismay and concern in my constituency and in the Highlands in general, especially in view of the tragic loss of life that we have seen.

I will ask the same question, but in a more specific form. It is clear from the documentation that four of the 11 sections went to made orders. They went to the completion of the land identified to be compulsorily purchased and all the ancillary roads orders. Two sections went to made orders in July 2021, and another two went in October 2021. I have raised this matter during this session of the Parliament, because I genuinely do not understand why those sections are not in procurement now and why they were not moved swiftly into procurement. Can you answer that question now? It is quite a specific question, of which you have not had notice, so, if not, I wonder whether you could go away and let us have an answer later.

I am not making this assertion, but many people say that the influence of the Green Party, as part of the Government since 2021, has had a negative effect, as it alone, of all the parties represented in Holyrood, is opposed—very strongly opposed—to the dualling of the A9. Therefore, there is a very strong feeling that the Greens played a part in what has happened, although, to be candid about it, I have no evidence for that.

Could you address that point and the previous specific and detailed question now or, if not, later? We can provide you with the names of each of the four sections, although I will not do that now. Given that those sections went to that milestone stage of made orders, why were they not moved into procurement at that time, if we were serious about progressing the project as quickly as possible?

I have a final question on that. Why do you argue that there is such pressure on funding when the capital budget has been circa £4,000 million to £5,000 million per year, and the estimated cost of dualling the A9 is substantially less than that? Given the scale of the capital budget, surely many people are right to say that the A9 was not the top priority for the Scottish Government, because the money was there—there was between £4,000 million and £5,000 million a year. Plainly, at least some of the sections that have not yet been dualled could have been dualled if more priority had been attached to that. That is a strongly held view in the Highlands, so I am putting that to you to see whether you think that that is a fair point, or whether you think that it is completely unfair to you and your colleagues who were making the decisions at the time.

I was going to make exactly the same point that Mr Golden just made.

References have been made to the revised completion date of 2035, and many people—including the petitioner, who is with us today, and MSPs from all parties but one—are due to meet John Swinney to urge him to accelerate the date and complete the project before 2035. As you said, every single section has now gone to made orders, with the possible exception of Dunkeld. Therefore, nothing is stopping the scheduling of the completion of the various sections as quickly as the work can be done.

The contractors’ representative has always said that the companies can rise to the occasion and do the work more quickly if they are given the contracts and if the funding is available. Do you agree that that is a reasonable objective and that, if it is at all practical, it would be very desirable indeed—in the light of the failure to meet the original 2025 deadline—to bring the completion date forward from 2035, so that people can see it in our expected lifespan?

Reading the background information on the petition, I note that the LFS TP53 mutation is

“a genetic syndrome that predisposes a person to cancer, usually of an aggressive type”

and that the relevant authoritative body—the UK Cancer Genetics Group—has

“made recommendations for screening which have been implemented in parts of England, however they have not been implemented in Scotland.”

I see that there is a reasonably sympathetic reply from the chief operating officer of NHS Scotland, although it does not really give much information, other than saying that there are good intentions all round but that there is pressure on MRI scans, which is understandable.

In light of that, I certainly do not think that we should close the petition. We need to get more information. I would like us to go back to the Scottish Government and ask whether it can provide more information on what services are available in each health board. Given that this group of people are predisposed to cancer of an aggressive type, it seems to me to be a very serious disease, albeit a rare one. I see that the petition has attracted nearly 1,000 signatures, so there is obviously considerable concern. We should ask the Scottish Government to provide that further information in light of the gravity of the matter. Secondly, I suggest that we write to Cancer Research UK to seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition.

I wonder whether there are other things that we might do, convener. Maybe colleagues have other thoughts. It does not seem to me that the current response is adequate.

I would love to go to Venice, but I do not think that I would ask the taxpayer to fork out for that, for the avoidance of any doubt.