Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I add to that suggestion, with which I agree, the fact that any review must be an independent review. It cannot be done by the SPSO, nor should it be done by the Scottish Government. It should be done by somebody who is entirely independent.

Given that we are supposed to be in a time of fiscal difficulty and pressure, I respectfully ask whether the public get any gain from having an SPSO. That is no imputation on the professionalism of the SPSO, but it is restricted in its powers and remedies. I no longer recommend to any constituents that they go to the SPSO because, first, those who go to the SPSO do not get anywhere; secondly, they do not get a result; and, thirdly, they often end up even more fed up than they were in the first place because they feel that the whole process is, frankly, pointless.

Those sound like harsh words, but should we not be looking to see whether we can prune back some of the public money that is spent on such things and put it into the health service, for example?

It could be frittered away in consultants’ reports, which would be farcical and rather grotesque.

I am a bit puzzled—maybe I have misunderstood something—but, in his previous evidence to the committee, Mr Sweeney said:

“rough and ready cost estimates suggest that it would cost around £500,000 per annum”.—[Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 20 September 2023; c 18.]

Given that £2 million is enough to fund the whole caboodle for four years, what is happening to that money? What is the point of saying, “Here’s £2 million,” if it would cost only £500,000 a year? Why does the Government not just do it? I do not quite understand. If that money has been set aside, it cannot be used for anything else. It has been allocated from the budget, and it seems that it would be sufficient to run the thing for four years. What is going on?

I would like to raise two issues that the Scottish Government has not addressed satisfactorily throughout the petition’s history. I will not refer to any particular businesses in the Highlands, but I will raise two points of principle.

First, earlier in the passage of the petition through the committee, I suggested that funding might be made available for things called aires, which are serviced areas that can be used for the parking of camper vans. They are frequently found in France, for example, and are designed to provide a safe and secure place for camper vans to park—with water and toilet replacement facilities, which are obviously needed—and to stop the antisocial behaviour that results from camper vans being parked illegally overnight in lay-bys and so on, blocking single-track roads.

The reason why I mention that is that, in its reply, the Scottish Government said, “Yes, we’re looking into this.” That was positive, and I think that it was agreed that aires should, indeed, qualify for funding under the rural tourism infrastructure fund. However, at about the time when that was agreed, the fund ran out of money.

We learned from the clerks that VisitScotland’s capital budget, from which the fund is derived, was reduced from £7.9 million to £2.6 million last year. If those figures are correct, that is, according to the Scottish Tourism Alliance, a fairly swingeing cut, given that the overall capital budget was depleted by 8, 10 or 12 per cent. This particular tourism budget seems to have been axed in a savage manner.

The sad thing is that I have just learned in response to a letter that I had written to Malcolm Roughead of VisitScotland about funding for maintenance of the south Loch Ness trail—that is a constituency matter that has been raised with me, and I have sent a copy of the letter to the clerks in case it is required for the record—that no less than £20 million has been provided through the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which has allowed many good things to be done, but that, sadly, things are now difficult.

I am sorry that I am taking so long, but I want to set out the details. We should ask the Scottish Government, given the new regime, to reflect that a 67 per cent reduction is just absurd and to consider adjusting it.

Incidentally, I think that aires should be run commercially. The Government’s role is to provide the servicing of the plots, but aires should operate commercially so that the Government does not provide an unfair subsidy that would disadvantage existing camping and caravan sites.

The second point that I want to raise relates directly to overnight stops of camper vans. I understand that that will not be covered under the visitor levy but that camping sites and fixed caravans will. That seems to be anomalous. It will almost provide an incentive not to have a fixed site but to have a camper van and move around. I am not a wild fan of the visitor levy anyway, but it seems that that will create an obvious anomaly that will cause a great deal of upset, especially in the Highlands and particularly among people who run camping and caravan sites. When I was the tourism minister, I went round a great many such sites and developed great admiration for people’s professionalism, hard work and diligence, as well as for the high standards of cleanliness and safety that were maintained at almost all the sites. For them to be discriminated against in this way seems to be prima facie unfair.

If committee members agree that that is a fair point, given that the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill is at stage 2, we could ask the Scottish Government whether it has any intention of removing the anomaly. If it does not, the matter will come back to bite it, as so many things do when there is ill-considered legislation.